Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E05-008 - KONDELIS ALEANNA / CRAMER NORTHWEST - 7 LOT SHORT PLATThis record contains information which is exempt from public disclosure pursuant to the Washington State Public Records Act, Chapter 42.56 RCW as identified on the Digital Records Exemption Log shown below. E05 -008 Five Rivers — Short Plat South 53rd Street & 158th Street South RECORDS DIGITAL D- ) EXEMPTION LOG THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERMIT FILE INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING REDACTED INFORMATION F,age # Code Exemption � � �� Brief Explsnatoty Description, Statute /Rule The Privacy Act of 1974 evinces Congress' intent that social security numbers are a private concern. As such, individuals' social security Personal Information — numbers are redacted to protect those Social Security Numbers individuals' privacy pursuant to 5 U.S.C. sec. 5 U.S.C. sec. DR1 Generally — 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a), and are also exempt from disclosure 552(a); RCW 552(a); RCW under section 42.56.070(1) of the Washington 42.56.070(1) 42.56.070(1) State Public Records Act, which exempts under the PRA records or information exempt or prohibited from disclosure under any other statute. Redactions contain Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check numbers, credit Personal Information — expiration dates, or bank or other financial RCW DR2 Financial Information — account numbers, which are exempt from 42.56.230(5) RCW 42.56.230(4 5) disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56.230(5), except when disclosure is expressly required by or governed by other law. Personal Information — Redactions contain information used to prove RCW 265 DR3 Driver's License. — RCW identity, age, residential address, social security 42.56.230 (7a 42.56.230 number or other personal information required to & c) (7a & c) apply for a driver's license or identicard. FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT S 53"° Street & 158'" Street S E05 -008 Related to L05 -040 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard a Tukwila, Washington 98188 Steven M Mullet, Mayor NOTICE OF DECISION To: Ale Kondelis (Applicant) Jaswinder Sekhon, Owner Agencies with Jurisdiction State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Assessor PROJECT: Five Rivers Short Plat FILE NUMBERS: E05 -008, ASSOCIATED FILES: L05 -040 (Short Plat), L04 -004 (Special Permission Director for wetland impacts) APPLICANT: Cramer NW for Five Rivers Development Inc. REQUEST: 7 -Lot Short Plat LOCATION: Tax Parcel # 1157200090. The site is located on the east side of 53r1 Ave S at S 159th S and south of Klickitat Drive. This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal, who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3670 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). Initials Page 1 of 1 (16/21212()(17 1(L•11Z:M1 AM Q: \SEPA \E05 -008- Five Rivers - NOD.DOC Phone: (206) 433 -1800 o City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833 City of71glIlcwdlc,i Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT File No: E05 -008 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed project is a 7 -lot short plat. The property is 2.69 acres and is zoned Low Density Residential (LDR) with a minimum lot size requirement of 6500 square feet. A portion of the property is constrained by wetlands. Access to the seven lots is proposed by a private cul -de -sac road that connects with 53rd Ave South. An underground vault is proposed in a Tract for on -site stormwater control and treatment. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Five Rivers Short plat Applicant: Cramer NW for Five Rivers Development Inc. Location: The project is located in SW quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East. The project site is located on tax lot number 1157200090 which is on the east side of 53rd Ave S at S 159th Street and south of Klickitat Drive. Zoning: The current zoning is Low Density Residential (LDR). Comprehensive Plan Designation: The current Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is Low Density Residential (LDR). Notice: Notice of Application was issued on May 27, 2005. The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated March 7, 2007 and ESA screening checklist dated May 6, 2005. 2. Conceptual Drainage, Road and Utility Plan dated March 7, 2007, prepared by Jaeger Engineering, Survey and Plat Map dated February 14, 2007, prepared by Dryco Surveying Inc., Landscape and Wetland Mitigation and Planting plans dated November 27, 2006, prepared by Katherine Ownes- Nature by Design. 3. a) Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt, Inc. dated August 6, 2001. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 b) Geotechnical peer review report by Shannon and Wilson dated April 30, 2003. c) Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt Inc. dated September 4, 2003. d) Geotechnical peer review report by Shannon and Wilson dated September 22, 2003. e) Geotechnical report/evaluation by Sears Engineering & Technical Services, dated May 28, 2004. f) Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt Inc dated February 9, 2005. g) Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt Inc dated April 25, 2005. h) Geotechnical peer review report by Shannon and Wilson dated April 28, 2006. 4. Preliminary Drainage Analysis, prepared by Jaeger Engineering, dated March 22, 2005. 5. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc, dated April 30, 2004. 6. Wetland Delineation report by Habitat Technologies received by the City on March 8, 2007. NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: 206 - 431 -3685. III. REVIEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197 -11 -800. In addition to the SEPA review the project is subject to Type 2 Director's Decision for filing a portion of the wetland. IV. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL The proposal is to short plat one 2.85 acres lot into 7 -lots. The property is zoned LDR, which has a minimum lot size requirement of 6500 sq. ft. The access to these lots will be provided by a private cul -de -sac road. There are existing Type 3 wetlands on the property. The applicant has requested to fill a small portion of one of the wetlands to build the access road. Also, two unregulated wetlands that are less than 1000 sq. ft. are proposed to be filled. Per Tukwila Municipal Code mitigation is required for any impacts to regulated wetlands. The applicant has proposed to enhance the wetland area to be filled on a 3:1 ratio. The impacts to the wetlands and their associated buffers will be mitigated by the application of the City's Sensitive Areas Code. The details of the mitigation plan will be finalized as part of Type 2 Special Permission, Director's Decision. 2 Preliminary drainage indicates that on -site runoff will be cleaned and will flow into an underground detention vault located in a Tract. The vault will connect to a City of Tukwila's offsite storm drainage system. The traffic impact analysis addressed sight distance and safety issues were reviewed and approved by the City. The project shall include street frontage improvements along 53rd Avenue South. The project is also subject to the new Concurrency Ordinance and Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. Prior to issuance of the final short plat approval the applicant shall apply for traffic concurrency certificate. Also, the applicant shall pay traffic impact fees at the time of the issuance of building permits for the homes. The application of the City's Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Ordinance shall mitigate any traffic impacts. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1- 2— Concur with checklist. 3- The last updated checklist is dated March 7, 2007. 4- Concur with checklist. 5 -The checklist inaccurately states that the work will be performed in 2006. The project will start after it receives all required permit. 6- Concur with checklist. 7 -The various reports- geotechnical, wetland, traffic and storm drainage analysis that have been prepared for this site are listed above under II) General information heading. 8 -9 —Prior to the issuance of the construction permit for the infrastructure the applicant shall be required to obtain approval of Special Permission Director for impacts to the wetlands and Preliminary Approval of the short plat. Public Works permit will be required for construction of infrastructure and building permits will be required for retaining walls and drainage detention vault. 3 The applicant was previously advised that it is their responsibility to follow all federal and state requirements for wetland impacts and mitigation. While it is possible that the wetlands on the property are isolated for which the Corps of Engineers has no jurisdiction, only the Corps can make this determination. The applicant has stated that they will obtain a Nationwide Permit from the Corps of Engineers. Also, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) will review the mitigation plan. Applicant shall be required to submit documentation of approvals from the Corps and DOE prior to issuance of the construction permit. WSDOT permit is not required as storm drainage will connect to a City of Tukwila's off -site storm drainage system. 10 -11- Concur with checklist. 12 —The site lies within areas that are designated as steep slopes and Type 3 wetlands with 50 feet buffer requirements. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -c -- Concur with checklist. d -There had been history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity of the project area and the following Geotechnical Reports / Evaluations were completed for this project. 1. First Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated August 6, 2001 Summary – 20 page report which included in part; 11 test pits, groundwater conditions, foundation recommendations, seismic, temporary excavation, soil conditions, dewatering information, drainage options, and recommended additional services. 2. First Geotechnical peer review by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. dated April 30, 2003. Summary – 3 page report stating that this site should be considered a Class 4 landslide area and the need for a detailed slope stability analyses. Otherwise, first LSI Adapt, Inc. report met the minimum standards per TMC 18.45.080 E. 4 3. Second Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt, Inc. dated September 4, 2003. Summary — 9 page report which included in part; review of 22 reports /letters, and the following recommendations: no storm water discharge on -site; vault must be buried underground; 2 feet maximum grading on East side of site; and 30 foot geotechnical buffer on East side of site. 4. Second Geotechnical peer review by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. dated September 22, 2003. Summary — 1 page evaluation stating that LSI Adapt, Inc. second report, met minimum standards per TMC 18.45.080 E. 5. Geotechnical report / evaluation by Sears Engineering & Technical Services, dated May 28, 2004. Summary — 1 page evaluation stating that; all fill operations to be monitored by Geotechnical Engineer, fill to be compacted to 95 %, slopes on graded fill not to exceed 2 'Y2 : 1, and completed fill areas and slopes to be seeded. Also states, that it is okay to exceed 2 feet vertical fill within proposed Private Road area, but not on East side of site near the 30 foot geotechnical buffer. 6. Third Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated February 9, 2005. Summary — 25 page report which included in part; further review of "Valley View Estates Development" geotechnical reports and other information, okay to exceed 2 feet vertical fill within proposed Private Road area, reviewed additional reports as required by the Public Works Department, conducted a slope stability analysis, verified and discussed factor of safety regarding slopes, and verified current water levels within existing drainage well system and compared to well levels found in 1970's. 7. Fourth Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated April 25, 2005. Summary — 7 page report which included in part; stability review of the reconfigured Private Road, additional slope stability analysis, verified safety factor against slope failure and seismic. Arrived at same conclusion, that proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the hillside and surrounding areas. Below is a list of documents sent by the City, to LSI Adapt, Inc. and Shannon & Wilson, Inc., for their review of the historical background: a. Joel E. Haggard letter to City of Tukwila ref. WSDOT drainage system dated. /29/89. b. Attorney General of Washington letter to Joel E. Haggard ref. Valley View Estates landslide area and storm drainage system dated. 2/7/89. c. Dames & Moore report of Engineering Consultation – review of plans for proposed Valley View Estates for City of Tukwila dated. 3/6/89. d. WSDOT letter to GeoEngineers, Inc. ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dated. 3/23/89. e. GeoEngineers, Inc. letter to WSDOT ref. slope stability and factor of safety dated. 4/10/89. f. WSDOT letter to City of Tukwila ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dated. 4/19/89. g. WSDOT Materials Lab to WSDOT Dist. #1 ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dated. 4/19/89. h. Instrumentation plan – slope stability and ground water levels – City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 7 – Valley View Estates, Tukwila - dated. 1/27/89. i. Instrumentation monitoring action plan – slope stability and ground water levels – City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 8 – Valley View Estates, Tukwila – dated 1/27/89. As stated above in the summary section of each geotechnical report, the geo -tech of record has made several recommendations, which include foundation recommendations, no storm water discharge on -site; underground vault requirement; 30 foot geotechnical buffer on the east side of the site; requirement that fill operations be monitored by Geotechnical Engineer and additional requirements regarding compaction of fill. These recommendations were reviewed by City's consultant and they agreed that the proposal meets the standards of TMC 18.45.080E. Additionally during the construction of homes foundation inspection approval will be subject to acceptance of sub -grade conditions by Geotechnical Engineer of record. e— Concur with checklist. f -- The project shall meet all requirements of the King County Surface Water Design Manual related to temporary erosion control and all impacts associated with temporary erosion control shall be mitigated as part of the construction permit. g— Concur with checklist. h— Applicant shall follow all recommendations of the geo- technical report. All King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements shall be followed regarding temporary erosion control. 2. Air: a -c -- Concur with checklist. Applicant shall meet all Puget Sound Clean Air Agency requirements to address any emission to the air. 3. Water: a(1) - -The project site contains Type 3 wetlands with 50 feet buffer requirements. a(2) –Work will be performed within 200 feet of the wetlands. A portion of the Type 3 wetland is proposed to be filled for the construction of the access road. Also, two unregulated wetlands are proposed to be filled. Compliance with applicable Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Sensitive Areas Ordinance will mitigate any potential adverse impacts associated with the project related to wetlands. The applicant has proposed to enhance existing wetlands on a 3:1 ratio for the amount that is proposed to be filled. Also, the mitigation plan includes buffer enhancements for impacts to the wetland buffers. The details of the mitigation plan will be finalized as part of Type 2 Special Permission, Director's Decision and all impacts related to filing of the wetland will be addressed and mitigated during the Type 2 permit process. a(3)- a(6) -- Concur with checklist. b(1) —The project shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements and follow all recommendations of the licensed geo - technical engineer in case any groundwater is encountered during any site excavation or during the construction of the underground detention vault. b(2) -- Concur with checklist. c(1) –Storm drainage from the detention vault will connect to a City of Tukwila's off -site storm drainage system. c(2) -- The project will meet all erosion and sedimentation control requirements of King County Surface Water Design Manual. Best Management Practices will prevent oil spills from entering the surface or ground water. d -- Concur with checklist. 7 4. Plants: a -- Concur with checklist b -Any significant tree that is removed from the steep slope or wetland buffer is subject to replacement . There are a total of 23 trees that are proposed to be removed and will be subject to replacement under the City's Tree Ordinance, which requires a number of trees to be replaced depending on the size of the tree. The applicant has proposed to replace 23 removed trees with 140 new trees. c— Concur with checklist. d – The landscape screen around the vault was changed to Leyland Cypress. Final landscaping plan shall meet all Tukwila Municipal Code landscaping requirements. 5. Animals: a -c -- Concur with checklist. d -There are 140 new trees proposed to be replanted to mitigate the impact of vegetation removal on the property. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a -a(2) -- Concur with checklist. b(1) -b(3) -- Concur with checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -e -- Concur with checklist. f —The Comprehensive Plan designation of the site is Low Density Residential (LDR). g- Concur with checklist. h -- In addition to wetlands there are also steep slopes on some areas of the site. 8 i- The original 12 lot short plat was revised to be a 7 -lot short plat, therefore the total number of people who would reside will be 25. k -1- Concur with checklist. 9. Housing: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a -c— Concur with checklist. 11. Light and Glare: a -d -- Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 14. Transportation: a -e -- Concur with checklist. g- f -12 lot short plat was revised to be 7 -lot short plat and new vehicular trips will be 70 per day than 120. The traffic impact analysis addressed sight distance and safety issues were reviewed and approved by the City. The project shall include street frontage improvements along 53rd Avenue South. The project is also subject to the new Concurrency Ordinance and Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance. Prior to issuance of the final short plat approval the applicant shall apply for traffic concurrency certificate. Also, the applicant shall pay traffic impact fees at the time of the issuance of building permits for the homes. All traffic related impacts will be addressed and mitigated by the application of Tukwila Municipal Code- City's Concurrency Ordinance and the Impact Fee Ordinance. 9 15. Public Services: a -b -- Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: a -- Concur with checklist. b —The site is within City of Valvue Sewer district. V. CONCLUSION As noted many above environmental issues related to wetlands and steep slopes are addressed by the application of the City's Sensitive Areas Code. The traffic impacts are addressed by the application of City's Concurrency Ordinance and Impact Fee Ordinance. The drainage design shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -340, a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above "Final Staff Evaluation for Application No. E05- 008 ", and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by city of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: June 27, 2007 10 File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) E05 -008 06/17/2005 07/19/2007 ISSUED Applicant: ALEANNA KONDELIS Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: SEPA for 7 -lot Short Plat Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: 1157200090 Section/Township/Range: 53 Ave S & S 158th St 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 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. jack Pac sponsible Official City of Tu': a 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Da 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: DNS -4/07 E05 -008 Printed: 07 -17 -2007 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 044/1, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing etermination of Non - Significance • Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance - Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt -i;)' Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this year 20 01 day °filly in the P:\ ADMINISTRATIVEFORMSTORMSUFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: - L..t- S'(i7$i-f', rt- Project Number: Cq)C3J )q) Mailer's Signature: -i;)' 41,64. Person requesting mailing: (11U7tyl} .1fr Mio P:\ ADMINISTRATIVEFORMSTORMSUFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION 4 ,/f)(<1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ✓ ((bEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ✓A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.O. ,✓,());NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV : , AK DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA OMSION � J () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS • SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY () TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 4 DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ECONOMIC DEV. KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 111 • () FIRE DISTRICT 02 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC ,✓,(KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE jTUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE ()POLICE ()FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK OTHER LOCAL AG ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE , / ,, ,, MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE , -' - _ ' CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ' ( FISHERIES PROGRAM 1/ (.9 WILDUFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL PE-0141-LISP ��& :��� CMS KE' P :WDMTNISTRATEVEWORMS\CHKUST.DOC MEDIA ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE ) KC. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR (4 KC. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL j.')QC.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC UBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT 020 ( ) WATER DISTRICT 0125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT- ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT - () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS () CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. ENCIES •i V.,(/ DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE" ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION •SE NOTICE OF ALL APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER •J Gts S e k&a. . 7 , g I I 4 L AN-2 -s 46244- me A- 9 ico k 2 () HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW 3' C Ar- 4- 6r, Pits o 1 Ao� �� ? 21 (�oOO9c0 IA 1 . 6Q)k► 5 1 W 61P 3Z 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 PMTs) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was trailed 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 Attornev General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMTS) — 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:■ADM INISTRATIVENFORMSTHICUST.DOC AMON,MANAN & HUMAYRA 16424 53RD PL S TUKWILA, WA 98188 MCELHOLM,GERARD A 5165 S 160TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98188 MDS HOLDINGS L L C 13467 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 MILITARY ROAD PROJECT L L C NGUYEN,SALLY SEATTLE CITY OF 4720 200TH ST SW 200 6042 113TH PL SE PO BOX 34018 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 BELLEVUE, WA 98006 SEATTLE, WA 98124 SEKMON,JASWINDER SINGH 27010 115TH AVE SE KENT, WA 98030 SINGH,VIKRAM D 15816 53RD AVE S TUKWILA, WA 98188 SOLEM,GORDON M 5155 S 160TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98188 STOLYARCHUK,NIKOLAY TAMBURELLI,JOHN F TENANT 461041ST ST NE 646 SW 134TH ST 15817 53RD AVE S TACOMA, WA 98422 SEATTLE, WA 98146 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TENANT 15828 51ST AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98188 Ale Kondelis Cramer NW, Inc. 945 N Central, #104 Kent, WA 98032 Jaswinder Sekmon 28441 144th Ave. SE Kent, WA 98042 ' William & Teresa Grover PO Box 2701 Renton, WA 98056 Page 1 of 1 250ft CityGIS Copyright © 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not he approved except his licensed by Digital Map Products. http : / /maps.digitalmapcentral.com /production /CityGHS /v07 01 034 /indexA.himl 07 /18/2007 NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP AMON,MANAN & HUMAYRA 16424 53RD PL S TUKWILA WA 98188 MCELHOLM,GERARD A 5165 S 160TH ST SEATTLE WA 98188 MDS HOLDINGS L L C 13467 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA WA 98168 MILITARY ROAD PROJECT L L C 4720 200TH ST SW 200 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 NGUYEN,SALLY 6042 113TH PL SE BELLEVUE WA 98006 SEATTLE CITY OF PO BOX 34018 SEATTLE WA 98124 SEKMON,JASWINDER SINGH 27010 115TH AVE SE KENT WA 98030 SINGH,VIKRAM D 15816 53RD AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 SOLEM,GORDON M 5155 S 160TH ST SEATTLE WA 98188 STOLYARCHUK,NIKOLAY 4610 41ST ST NE TACOMA WA 98422 TAMBURELLI,JOHN F 646 SW 134TH ST SEATTLE WA 98146 TENANT 15817 53RD AVE S TUKWILA WA 98188 TENANT 15828 51ST AVE S SEATTLE WA 98188 Minnie Dhaliwal -Five Rivers • From: Minnie Dhaliwal To: Ale Kondelis Date: 06/28/2007 4:40 pm Subject: Five Rivers Hi Ale, Please address the following to further process your Special Permission Director application for wetland impacts: 1.Tables in the wetland report on page 2 and page 5 are inconsistent. Wetland C is listed as 3503 sq. ft. on page 2 & 3417 on page 5. Further the Civil plan shows it as 4240 sq. ft. and the survey is shown as 3417 sq. ft. Wetland A is shown as 4322 on the Civil and Survey map but in the report is listed as 3712 sq. ft. Please revise the plans and the report to accurately show the correct area. 2. The mitigation for the impacted wetland is proposed as enhancement of the existing wetlands on a 3:1 ratio. The report states that the impacted area is 336 +1320 =1656 sq. ft. Three times of 1656 is 4968 sq. ft. The report states that a total of 5893 sq. ft. of wetland area will be enhanced. This area should be clearly shown on the plan. Please note that the wetland enhancement area has to be in the actual wetland and not the buffer. So for wetland C, if it is 3417, the area that can be counted towards enhancement is 3417- 336 - 1320 =1761. It appears that you may have to mitigate more of Wetland A than is shown on the planting plan to meet the 3:1 ratio requirement. Therefore it is important to show where is 4968 sq. ft. 3. Also, the report must request buffer reduction for the creation of Lot 7. It appears that a small portion of buffer for Wetland C and A has to be reduced for lot 7 and the cul -de -sac road. The plan must show the existing wetland with standard buffer (50 feet) and the reduced width. Please note that there is a 10 feet setback from the buffer.The structures on Lot 7 will have to be setback 10 feet from the reduced buffer width. The buffer reduction request shall also be made for the construction of the retaining wall in the buffer of Wetland C (1320 sq. ft. buffer is Tess than 50 feet wide) 4. To our knowledge a jurisdictional determination was never done by the Corps of Engineers regarding the wetlands on the site, nor has the Department of Ecology reviewed the proposed mitigation plan. While it may be true that these are isolated wetlands for which the Corps has no jurisdiction, only the Corps can make this determination. You have been previously advised that it is your responsibility to follow all federal and state requirements for wetland impacts and mitigation. This means that even though the City will approve the wetland mitigation plan, there may be changes or additional requirements that could be imposed by these agencies. In a previous letter from the applicant it was stated that Nationwide Permit # 39 from the Corps of Engineers would be used as the federal permit for this project. If you intend to apply for this permit, thereby assuming that the Corps has jurisdiction over the wetlands, then the City must receive a copy of the Project Construction Notice. The applicant should be advised that under the recently issued Nationwide Permits, NWP #39 is no longer valid for multi - family housing. Instead NWP 29 is applicable. It is also suggested that the applicant begin coordination as soon as possible with the Department of Ecology, if that has not already been done. Let me know if you have any questions. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 mdhaliwak ci.tukwila.wa.us MEMORANDUM www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner Onnl FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: May 25, 2007 SUBJECT: Five Rivers — 7 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South & South 158th Street SEPA / Short Plat / Special Permission Director including Geotechnical and Storm Drainage Comments SEPA — E05 -008 Public Works requirements are met for SEPA. Geotechnical reports including peer reviews, have been completed and meet the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080. Public Works Director shall make final Geotechnical approval determination. Special Permission Director — L04 -004 Public Works requirements are met for Special Permission Director. 1. Public Works has reviewed the letter from Jaeger Engineering, dated August 22, 2006, regarding the justification for the Private Street location and proposed construction. I have also reviewed the site plans provided by Jim Jaeger, P.E., and previously made field visits to the site. 2. Mr. Jaeger's strongest justification for the "central private road" is the distance provided between the proposed road and Klickitat Drive. This coincides with Cyndy Knighton's comment no. 2 found below. 3. Mr. Jaeger's second justification for the "central private road" is the amount of grading required, compared to the road being constructed further to the North. Public Works agrees that more grading would be required and possibly have more of an impact on the adjacent property to the North. 4. Mr. Jaeger's third justification for the "central private road" is to allow for seven (7) buildable lots compared to only five (5). While this is desirable for the Developer, it is not relevant for this discusion. • The following commnets were provided by Cyndy Knighton, Senior Transportation Engineer on June 23, 2005. 1. As to the placement of the road into the development, the concern was raised about it being only 120 feet north of S. 159th Street. According to the TIA, a more typical minimum spacing seen in other jurisdictions is 125 feet. I see no reason for the proposed 120 foot offset not to be allowed from a traffic engineering point of view. Sight distance requirements are met with the proposed alignment and the accident analysis did not indicate any current or expected safety problems. 2. Pushing the roadway to the north to avoid impacting the Class 2 wetland could be considered, and if it is, I would want to revisit the site. The currently proposed roadway is approximately 300 feet south of Klickitat Drive, a much larger road than S 159th Street (which dead ends and provides access to a neighborhood park). Pushing the roadway access point too far to the north could be more of a concern from a traffic safety perspective than the 5 feet - under - *typical * - spacing for other jurisdictions. Conclusion While Mr. Jaeger's provided information appears to be reasonable, the Public Works Department has no comments, regarding whether this should be considered an "Essential Street ". Short Plat — L05 -040 Public Works requirements are met for Preliminary Short Plat. Geotechnical reports including peer reviews, have been completed and meet the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080. Public Works Director shall make final Geotechnical approval determination. The following Geotechnical Reports /Evaluations were completed for this project. 1. First Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated August 6, 2001 Summary — 20 page report which included in part; 11 test pits, groundwater conditions, foundation recommendations, seismic, temporary excavation, soil conditions, dewatering information, drainage options, and recommended additional services. 2. First Geotechnical peer review by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. dated April 30, 2003. Summary - 3 page report stating that this site should be considered a Class 4 landslide area and the need for a detailed slope stability analyses. Otherwise, first LSI Adapt, Inc. report meets minimum standards per TMC 18.45.080 E. 3. Second Geotechnical report by LSI Adapt, Inc. dated September 4, 2003. Summary — 9 page report which included in part; review of 22 reports /letters, and the following recommendations (no storm water discharge on -site, vault must be buried underground, 2 feet maximum grading on East side of site, and 30 foot geotechnical buffer on East side of site. 4. Second Geotechnical peer review by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. dated September 22, 2003. Summary —1 page evaluation stating that LSI Adapt, Inc. second report, meets minimum standards per TMC 18.45.080 E. 5. Geotechnical report / evaluation by Sears Engineering & Technical Services, dated May 28, 2004. Summary — 1 page evaluation stating that; all fill operations to be monitored by Geotechnical Engineer, fill to be compacted to 95 %, slopes on graded fill not to exceed 2 1/2 : 1, and completed fill areas and slopes to be seeded. Also states, that it is okay to exceed 2 feet vertical fill within proposed Private Road area, but not on East side of site near the 30 foot geotechnical buffer. 6. Third Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated February 9, 2005. Summary — 25 page report which included in part; further review of "Valley View Estates Development" geotechnical reports and other information, okay to exceed 2 feet vertical fill within proposed Private Road area, reviewed additional reports as required by the Public Works Department, conducted a slope stability analysis, verified and discussed factor of safety regarding slopes, and verified current water levels within existing drainage well system and compared to well levels found in 1970's. 7. Fourth Geotechnical report by, LSI Adapt, Inc. dated April 25, 2005. Summary — 7 page report which included in part; stability review of the reconfigured Private Road, additional slope stability analysis, verified safety factor against slope failure and seismic. Arrived at same conclusion, that proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the hillside and surrounding areas. Below is a list of documents sent by Public Works, to LSI Adapt, Inc. and Shannon & Wilson, Inc., for their information and use. a. Joel E. Haggard letter to City of Tukwila ref. WSDOT drainage system dtd. 1/29/89. b. Attorney General of Washington letter to Joel E. Haggard ref. Valley View Estates landslide area and storm drainage system dtd. 2/7/89. c. Dames & Moore report of Engineering Consultation — review of plans for proposed Valley View Estates for City of Tukwila dtd. 3/6/89. • d. WSDOT letter to GeoEngineers, Inc. ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 3/23/89. e. GeoEngineers, Inc. letter to WSDOT ref. slope stability and factor of safety dtd. 4/10/89. f. WSDOT letter to City of Tukwila ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. g. WSDOT Materials Lab to WSDOT Dist. #1 ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. h. Instrumentation plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 7 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila - dtd. 1/27/89. i. Instrumentation monitoring action plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 8 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila — dtd 1/27/89. Public Works requires the following to be completed, prior to Final Short Plat approval. 1. Owner shall sign with Notary, a Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement. City will sign with Notary and have the document recorded at the King County Office of Records. (See sample enclosed). 2. Provide draft copy of Tract `C' — Private Ingress, Egress and Utilities Easement for review by Public Works. This shall be a separate document from the Final Short Plat map and be recorded at King County. 3. Provide a draft copy of any Private Access & Utilities Easement and/or any Private Utilities Easement, across a portion of any Lot for the benefit another Lot, if applicable. 4. Ten (10) feet along 53rd Ave. S., shall be dedicated to the City of Tukwila for Public Street. 5. `Tract A Drainage' shall be private and maintained by the owner(s) of the short plat. The private detention shall be underground per the geotechnical recommendations and as required by the Public Works Department. The detention tank/vault, shall be per the 1998 King County Surface Design Manual. The detention tank/vault and private street, including street lighting, shall be built to City Public standards. 6. Owner shall sign a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless agreement, to be recorded at King County Office of Records, separate from the CCR — sample previously provided. 7. Turnover documents will be required for the infrastructure along 53rd Ave. South: for sidewalk, pavement, curb /gutter, and street lighting; within the City Right -of- Way. Street lighting within the Private Street shall also be turned over to the City. Short Plat Survey Site Plan 1. Revise sheet 1 of 2 — see red -lined plan sheet enclosed. 2. Label Private Street Name on Short Plat Map, as assigned by City of Tukwila, Fire Department. Storm Drainage Comments 06/14/05 Met with Ryan Larson (Senior Storm Water Engineer) & John Howat (Storm Water & Sanitary Sewer Superintendent) on site, to confirm location of existing storm drainage system. Development can tie into storm system, within City Right -of -Way. For site development and prior to Final Short Plat, a storm drainage report is required including a Downstream Analysis. Miscellaneous Comments 1. Transportation Impact Fee applies to the future Building Permit(s). 2. Transportation Concurrency Test Fee applies to the future Building Permit(s). MEMORANDUM April 12, 2007 TO: Minnie FROM: Sandra RE: Five Rivers Revised Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan and Planting Plan I reviewed the Revised "Final Mitigation Program for Unavoidable Wetland Impacts Associated with the Primary Access Roadway" received by the City on March 8, 2007'. I have the following comments. 1. To my knowledge a jurisdictional determination was never done by the Corps of Engineers regarding the wetlands on the site, nor has the Department of Ecology reviewed the proposed mitigation plan. While it may be true that these are isolated wetlands for which the Corps has no jurisdiction, only the Corps can make this determination. The applicant should be advised that it is their responsibility to follow all federal and state requirements for wetland impacts and mitigation. This means that even though the City will approve the wetland mitigation plan, there may be changes or additional requirements that could be imposed by these agencies. In a previous letter from the applicant it was stated that Nationwide Permit # 39 from the Corps of Engineers would be used as the federal permit for this project. If the applicant intends to apply for this permit, thereby assuming that the Corps has jurisdiction over the wetlands, then the applicant should be reminded that the City must receive a copy of the Project Construction Notice. The applicant should be advised that under the recently issued Nationwide Permits, NWP #39 is no longer valid for multi - family housing. Instead NWP 29 is applicable. It is also suggested that the applicant begin coordination as soon as possible with the Department of Ecology, if that has not already been done. 2. The site survey shows that the buffer of Wetland C partially extends on to Lot 7. The applicant should either request a buffer reduction or move the boundary of the lot. A buffer reduction should also be requested for the construction of the retaining wall in the buffer of Wetland C along the west side. 3. The revised wetland mitigation plan has generally addressed the City's previous comments. However the construction drawings lack some details that should be provided prior to bidding out the wetland work to make it clear to a contractor what his/her responsibilities are. a. Sheet WL1.2. The location of the fence should be indicated on the drawing b. Temporary erosion control measures and locations should be shown on the plans. c. The construction sequence for mitigation should be described on the plans. Note that the report date has not been changed from the original submittal on June 21, 2006, even though it has gone through various revisions. d. Sheet WL 1.2. The material to be used for snags and logs should be specified. Will these be materials from the site or is the contractor expected to bring them in? Typically the City requires cedar or Douglas fir for such habitat features. However, big leaf maple salvaged from the site would be satisfactory. The proposed anchoring of the "stump" is not adequate, particularly for slopes. At least one quarter to one third of the length of the stump should be below ground. e. Sheet WL1.3. The mitigation plan states that a small excavator may be used for removal of invasive plants. If that is the case, tree protection measures should be indicated on the drawing and equipment exclusion areas should be established in the field prior to construction (note the City sent this same comment to the applicant in May of 2006 and received no response). Invasive plants are to be removed by hand within the tree protection zones. In addition, work is to be done in the dry season and efforts should be made to avoid compaction of soils. If soils become compacted, the contractor must de- compact the soil prior to planting activities. The applicant's biologist must be on -site to supervise all invasive plant removal activities, particularly since the plans to not indicate where such vegetation is to be removed. f. Sheet WL1.3, Shrub Planting Detail. Based on site conditions, the biologist should specify on the plan if the planting area is to be amended with compost or the plants will be mulched with compost, rather than leaving this choice to the contractor. In addition, the type /characteristics of the compost need to be specified in the plans (see also the reference to "topsoil" on this sheet — this should be clarified). 4. Additional conditions recommended for this project: a. The project biologist must be on site for: preconstruction conference and installation of tree protection measures, general supervision of mitigation activities, supervision of invasive plant removal, inspection of planting materials prior to planting, supervision of planting, log and stump placement, and inspection of mitigation installation. b. The project biologist must submit a detailed monitoring plan to the City for approval (the currently proposed plan only discusses frequency and timing, but not how the monitoring will be done or sampling locations). c. The applicant should provide a copy of the contract with the wetland biologist for supervision of wetland enhancement activities (i.e., preconstruction conference, inspection of plant materials, supervision of invasive plant removal, supervision of planting and snag installation, inspection of installation, preparation of "record drawing" [as- built], installation report, etc.). d. The applicant should provide a copy of the contract for monitoring and reporting of the wetland mitigation in accordance with the monitoring plan. e. The applicant should provide a copy of the contract for maintenance of the wetland mitigation area in accordance with the maintenance plan. 2 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number US —o L1 EoS —aoK LcL1 _004 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building Ni Planning Public Works XFire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks /Rec SaMdlnr' In1 Project: �-- % u I� S v Address: s. i S - CYU I-r1 4- . )vim S Date transmitted: A _ ' Vim`-'^ V ( I -1 Response requested by: 1 I I�.A LEI U Staff coordinator: `'`, response received: COMMENTS 1t S I,S Nr- 30L,4,2_ v et-.-r ('e l: 6 4 Cit LI6T, ?Wok 2 D 4 #9 61OLJL t NNGL1.J Del) BW t LP(NJCt pa-P-4A l TS The TWAIN N4 LOAL1,5 WA-ttstAloF Vf 1f1ntsi 'JAL)L Z) .J6, � vAG(N� INS t-ti-M r OZ- ilo-07 F.6UI0-9ZAiNA66, A4 01149 Pell-N: Niteavo I'TIOt1 IN xfe,M -W2 ©F 11-te Jpve66ett,Lorrec -tom Not Cow sfrrNI <r `lL.bf 2 P?►>atTlAl. Nov 5 .71ON % lot.ns 04-12J &!z--- A-(3006 Nlat a me_- .L v t , .--(*r A Oescnok-TtoNO Cc r -0 A't0 17.%)(4C-)411(044 i t-4-50a :,''Ct t. Pi-°rt L4I L :.7..0 , re... To 4 T4t4CE. ❑ DRC review requested Cl Plan submittal requested Plan check date: 63-13-2007 Comments prepared by: ❑ Plan approved 03 /14/94 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number - 00 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: ) Building .I Planning Al Public Works Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks /Rec SouvIcil w Project: `� ice— %.\■/ Address: .G I. S' j S Date transmitted: A c� —I ' V `vmr(jA i 'WO I Response requested by: k Z Z1 240 Staff coordinator: l'(4-2-1"1-`:q.- �' ` ``� (j ` `� Date response received: COMMENTS ru s v--.04 ■ e , i)AJ 6 Nt s y. a 01-(-4-e icy c-re �n � naMIVIED GEAR 2fUl TUKW!LA - ubLI(. WOHKS (PLi»titjy SkoK-r pLA-r ,i 6ers thibteks ge— au IReinO r1s. O Pu st,t C 572 7 Okberl s /zc /n-) (SpLiAL ?E.Arn t ,fSl onl .D /Rec rott »t e PugLt l/Vo 14.$ g6 utR6 /116 hir.5 ❑ DRC review requested ordbn s/z5/o7 ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: 03/14/94 '4111401 v?( p.1 JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850 -0934 Fax (253) 850 -0155 February 16, 2007 Mini Dholiwal City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Short Plat- Resubmittal File No. L01 -064 and E01 -027 Dear Ms. Dhaliwal, RECEIVED CITY OF TUK! ^lei . MAR.08 Z 7 PERMIT The engineering plans have been revised to reflect the latest comments from the City. The engineering items have been addressed as follows: 1. The private road tract has been revised to match that tract as shown on the preliminary short plat plan prepared by Dryco Surveying. 2. The access & driveway issue for Lots 1, 2 & 3 are addressed with a typical section for Lot #2. Lot #2 is the most severe lot of the 3 lots in question regarding access slope. The section shows that the garage will be at the level of the main floor with a daylight basement below. The basement level will be at the rear of the lot and will require a minimal amount of fill to provide a back yard. Lots 1 & 3 will be similar, but with Tess of a slope. 3. We cannot show the house footprints on the lots since the applicant is not the builder. 4. The fill that will be required for the western portion of the private road and the driveways /yards on Lots 1 -3 is allowed in the LSI Adapt geotechinical report. Please reference page 4 of the Feb. 9, 2005 report. Under the "Site Slope Stability Evaluation ", it states "This most critical failure circle is not affected by the construction of the new roadway embankment a the Five Rivers Site ". It goes into further detail about this statement. The 2' maximum fill recommendation is for the eastem portion of the site that is encumbered by the old subsurface groundwater drains that are approx. 4' below the surface. • This addresses the engineering items that were outlined in the City letter_ This letter should be accompanied by the re- submittal information from Cramer NW that addresses the remainder of the items. Thank you. Ca- 9-Qle James Jaeger. P.E. p.2 Rug 28 06 09:26a 4 Ac`s 2(�� —� JAEGER ENGINEERING 9419 5. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850-0934 FAX (253) 850 -0155 August 22, 2006 Mini Dhaliwal City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 tRECEIVED CCfv OF TUKWILA MAR 0 8 2001 PERWT CEN I try RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Short Plat- Request for Relocation of Wetland File No. LO -064 and E01 -027 Dear Ms., Dhaliwal, An application for a residential short plat has been submitted to the City for the proposed Five Rivers Short . Plot. The initial application included 12 lots and a drainage tract. Due to wetland requirements, the site has been reduced to 7 Tots. To effectively develop this short plat, a portion of Wetland C will need to be filled to accommodate the proposed private road that connects to 53rd Ave. S. Approx. 336 SF of wetland area at the north tip of wetland C would be filled to allow the construction of the short plat road as shown on the latest plans. I have also prepared an alternative plan that shows the private road located along the north property line, whereas it would be outside of the wetland area. However, we feel that the private road should remain closer to the center of the short plat for the following reasons: 1. The central private road location provides intersection spacing of 340' to Klickitat Drive, to the north. I provides intersecfion spacing of 183' to S. 159th St. to the south. Klickitat Drive is assumed to act as a collector arterial. Based on King County road standards, a 300' intersection spacing is required. The private road in the center of the short plat provides 340' and meets this standard. The alternate location of the private road along The north property line would provide 280' of intersection, spacing. This does not meet the standard. The intersection spacing requirement for S. 159th St. is 150'. Both private road locations meet this requirement. Due to the high amount of traffic on Klickitat Drive, the greater intersection spacing provided by the central road location is preferred. Rug 28 06 09:27a d - 2. The central location for the private road will is situated in the only area along the 53rd Ave. S. ROW where the existing grades meet the rood grades. There would be minimal grading to provide the entrance at this location. If located at the north property line, the entrance of the private road would require a minimum of 10' of fill. There is an existing 10' bank (down from 53rd Ave.) at this location. 3. The central private road location would allow the short plat to develop 7 lots. The alternate location of the private road along the north property line would allow only 5 lots, due to the kick of area and grading along the north property line. The road cannot be moved to the south, as this would place it within the body of wetland C and would require a greater amount of the wetland to be filled. The location of the road was chosen partly to minimize the impact on the wetland and because this is the highest elevation of the interior property slope along 53rd Ave. S. Please review this request and allow the proposed private road to be located in the central portion of the property. Thank you for your time. ilnl cerely, ames Jaeger, P.E. p.2 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director May 16, 2006 Aleanna Kondelis Cramer NW, Inc. 945 N. Central #104 Kent WA 98032 CtTy4fiToN1 MAC 0 8 20071 q,�l CeivTe.R Re: Request for additional information for Short Plat iii SEPA iapplikatk ii. File ii _ �., _ numbers L05 -040 and E05 -008. Dear Ms. Kondelis: Based on review of your submittals dated March 14, 2006, and April 19, 2006, the following information is required to further process your application: I. Planning and Public Works Department comments: 1. The survey plan must be revised as follows: a) Show the access road as a private tract. b) The width of the access road must be consistent with the civil plan that shows 24 feet of pavement with 5 feet sidewalks on both sides. c) Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005; April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports. d) Provide legal description for private street Tract `C'- private road, on short plat map. e) Provide a note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiirr-TPd in o the g1GUrI through "dry wells" or p rfcrated infiltration pipes and trenches. 2. Please address the following comments regarding lot layout: a) Access to lots 1, 2 and 3 is shown with slopes greater than 15 percent. Show how proposed lots are to be accessed off the proposed private street, considering the steep slopes and possible retaining walls. See sample enclosed. b) The plan must show expected location of homes. The finished floor elevations for lot 1, 2 and 3 show a daylight basement type of a structure. If this is true, then it would be inconsistent with the recommendation of LSI Adapt that recommended a maximum 2 vertical feet of site grading. Please explain. 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 3. The landscaping plan shows trees that are in conflict with the driveway locations shows on the civil plan. The landscaping plan must show what is planned over the underground detention tank/vault. Further the email from Rolf Hyllseth, geotechnical engineer, addresses general concerns and recommendations for planting within the 30 foot setback. However it does not mention that there is no problem/conflict with planting 28 trees and the monitoring wells within that area. The geotechnical engineer must either specifically address that concern or alternatively the landscaping plan could be amended to not plant any trees within the 30 foot setback and plant those trees within eastern part of the wetland and the buffer area. Also, refer to the attached memo from Sandra Whiting, City's Urban Biologist regarding additional comments on the landscape plans. 4. Following are comments pertaining to corresponding item in the SEPA checklist: A.8 WSDOT permit is not required as storm drainage will connect to a City of Tukwila storm drainage system off - site. A.9 Sanitary sewer is Valvue and not City of Tukwila. A.10 This is not a 12 lot short plat. Please revise response. A.12 The area does contain wetlands. B.1.b. There is no lot 12. Please revise response. B.1.d. The response must refer to the landslides in the area. B.1.e. Cut/fill estimate should be based on Civil Plan. B.3.b.2. Valvue Sewer district provides sewer service and not City of Tukwila. B.4.d Revise the response to reflect the revised landscaping plans. B.8.h. There are environmentally sensitive areas. B.8.i. It is no longer a 12 -lot short plat so fewer people will reside. B.12.c. There is no fee in lieu of recreational site program in Tukwila. B.14.c. Revise the response for 7 -lots. B.14.d. The access road is private and not public. B.14.f. The trips should be revised for a 7 -lot short plat. C. The checklist must be signed. II. Building Department comments: LSI Adapt has very specific recommendations regarding site preparations, drainage, fill placement and alternatives for foundation construction. Consequently, the building permit approval for each site will be subject to the following conditions: a) All plan submittals for permit application shall be accompanied by a letter from a registered geotechnical engineer. The letter shall confirm that the proposed foundation design has integrated the recommendations of the Geotechnical engineering report prepared by LSI Adapt. b) A registered geotechnical engineer shall monitor the site preparation and shall approve each foundation sub -grade preparation to obtaining foundation inspection approval from Building Division. III. Comment by Sandra Whiting, the City's Urban Biologist: Previous comments The following comments were provided to the applicant in the letter dated November 3, 2005 but have not yet been adequately addressed in the revised Mitigation Plan report. 1. Page 1, second bullet. The 1000 -foot exemption also existed under the previous Sensitive Areas Ordinance, so this is not a change with respect to Wetlands B and D. 2. Page 3, bottom of page. While it is true that wetland boundaries were reviewed by City staff, what was apparently agreed in the field regarding the boundaries of Wetland C is not the boundary that is indicated on the drawings. After Wetland C boundaries were re- flagged in the field per the City's request, the site was revisited on September 22 to check the wetland boundaries and to locate the center -line of the proposed driveway /access road. The wetland flags are now clearly marked and the flag numbers are accurately depicted on the drawing sent to us. However, the determination of the location of center -line of the drive was not possible, as no stakes or other marking were visible in the field. While in the field, saturated soils and wetland vegetation were observed outside the currently flagged boundary of Wetland C between Flags CC -4 and CC -5. A soil pit was dug to characterize the soils. The soils were saturated and met hydric soil criteria, and the dominant plant in the vicinity was salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), which meets the wetland vegetation criterion. Therefore, it appears that Wetland C extends beyond the currently flagged area between CC -4 and CC -5. A change in the wetland boundary in the area in question would not affect the applicant's proposal, nor would it likely change the wetland classification. We should, however, make sure the wetland boundaries and acreage are accurate. There was no indication in the Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report of June 2002 that a sample plot was established in this area. However, if the area has already been evaluated by the consultant and ruled out as wetland, the City would be happy to review existing data before deciding on the need to go back into the field. If there are no data on this area, the wetland consultant should recheck this area. It would make sense for me to meet the consultant in the field to check this area together. 3. The report should describe the alternatives considered for the location of the access road and explain why the impacts to Wetland C cannot be avoided or reduced by relocating the road. 3 New comments 1. It appears that the buffers for Wetland A at one point on the north (Lot 6) and along the southwest (Lot 7) do not meet the minimum 50 foot requirement. The applicant should show the buffers on the plan and indicate if and where they do not meet the 50 foot requirement. Also, on Page 5 under the Proposed Action for Wetland A and on Sheet WL 1.3, it states that a minor amount of buffer will be eliminated through buffer averaging. Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance does not provide for buffer averaging. Therefore, the applicant will either need to request a buffer reduction for the areas affected, or change the lot sizes or configurations, as necessary. 2. While the revised Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Program report (page 6) and Sheet WL 1.3 now address some methods to minimize the impacts to wetland C from the access roadway (creation of a vertical wall instead of roadway fill slope and carrying out all work from the roadway side), the City will need to see the engineering drawings of this proposed approach. 3. Page 5 of the Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Program report for Wetland C, Proposed Action, still mentions the possible supplementation of hydrology from roof- top drains. Under what conditions would this be required and how would it be evaluated? When will this determination be made? How is this affected by the geotechnical consultant's recommendation to not allow rooftop drainage to be discharged on site? 4. The applicant should provide a discussion of existing wetland and buffer functions and explain how the proposed mitigation plan enhances functions. The plan should make it clear what functions are being targeted in the mitigation plan? Comments specific to Wetland Planting Plan (Sheets WL 1.1 -1.3) 1. Sheet WL 1.1 and 1.2. Since the northern edge of Wetland C will essentially act as a buffer along the access road, plantings there should be denser to provide additional protection to the remainder of the wetland. The same comment applies to the small buffer area along 53rd Avenue South. 2. Sheet WL 1.2. The symbols showing existing trees should be defined on the plan. 3. The wetland sign on Sheet WL 1.2 does not conform to the required language in the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( "Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information. ") and should be modified accordingly. In addition, the City does not provide signs. 4. The Wetland Buffer /Shrubs legend on Sheet WL 1.2 should be double checked for consistency with what is shown on the drawing. For example, the plan does not show where Carex obnupta or Scripus microcarpus will be planted. 4 5. Sheet WL 1.3 — Shrub and Evergreen Tree planting details: All burlap is to be removed completely from the root ball before installation. 6. Sheet WL 1.3, Planting notes. Recent research has shown that amending the planting hole is not a good practice for planting in restoration sites. The City requests that the planting notes be modified to indicate that planting hole is to be backfilled with native soil and that compost is to be placed on the surface after planting. Alternatively, entire areas for planting can be amended with compost and not just the planting holes. 7. Sheet WL 1.3 Planting notes should also include a statement about roots prior to planting such as: Plants shall be removed from their containers immediately prior to planting. Immediately prior to installation, root balls shall be examined and loosened throughout at least the outer 1 inch of root ball. Any damaged, matted, or circling roots shall be pruned. 8. More detail will be needed in the final plan regarding the quality and characteristics of the plants to be installed and procedures for inspecting plants (for example: Plants shall be healthy and vigorous, well branched, with well- developed roots, normal in pattern of growth, and free of pests and diseases. Damaged, diseased, pest- infested, scraped, bruised, dried -out, burned, broken, or otherwise defective plants will be rejected. Woody plants with abrasions of the bark or sunscald will be rejected. Plants must be container grown unless otherwise specified. Root balls must hold together when the plant is removed from the pot, except that a small amount of loose soil may be on the top of the rootball. Plants must not be root - bound; there must be no circling roots present in any plant inspected. Rootballs that are cracked or broken when removed from the container shall be rejected.). 9. Sheet WL 1.3, Vegetation Maintenance Plan: add that maintenance activities may include: replacing plants that did not survive and re- seeding of grass. Maintenance activities should include weeding to the dripline of installed plants, even if invasive species cover is less than 15 %. 10. Where removal of invasive plants will be done with an excavator, protective measures for trees to be retained on -site will need to be specified. V. Comments by the Public Works Department: The following will be required as conditions of the preliminary approval: 1. Dedicate 10' along 53rd Ave. S. for Public Street — see sample Statutory Warranty Deed w/Excise Tax Affidavit form enclosed. The on -site street including cul -de -sac, shall be private and within private easement. 2. Provide draft, private ingress /egress and utilities maintenance agreement, for review by Public Works — sample previously provided. T 3. If shared access is provided for lots 1, 2 and 3, provide draft, joint use and access easement, as applicable, for review by Public Works — sample previously provided. Also, separate easement documents will be required for any other private easements for example private easement north side of lot 1, 2 and 3. Valvue sewer easement document is required for the new sewer line on lot 6. 4. Owner shall sign a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless agreement, to be recorded at King County Office of Records, separate from the CCR — sample previously provided. Informational comments and construction permit related comments: 1. Provide approved plan sheet(s) from Val -Vue Sewer District. 2. Provide note on short plat map and Civil Plans, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005; April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports 3. Individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. 4. All utilities are required to be underground, per City ordinance. 5. Revise the storm water technical information report to include downstream analysis, based on the King County Surface Water Design Manual. 6. Storm drainage for the widened portion of 531-d Ave. South, shall be directed to flow along and continuing North along the Public street. This area for detention, shall also be part of the on -site detention calculations. 7. Turnover documents will be required for the infrastructure along 53rd Ave. South: for sidewalk, pavement, curb /gutter, and street lighting; within the City Right -of -Way. Street lighting within the Private Street shall also be turned over to the City. 8. `Tract A Drainage' shall be private and maintained by the owner(s) of the short plat. The private detention shall be underground per the geotechnical recommendations and as required by the Public Works Department. The detention tank/vault, shall be per King County Surface Design Manual. The detention tank/vault and private street, including street lighting, shall be built to City Public standards. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner ALASKA =111 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. MISSOURI FLORIDA MEV GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS OREGON WASHINGTON April 28, 2006 City of Tukwila Public Works Department /Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. David McPherson RECEIVED MAY 0 2 206d TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW SERVICES, FIVE RIVERS 7 -LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON This letter presents the results of our peer review of supplemental geotechnical engineering studies prepared by LSI Adapt, Inc. for proposed development on the above- referenced property in Tukwila, Washington. The supplemental geotechnical studies are dated February 9 and April 25, 2005. The purpose of our review services is to offer an opinion on the appropriateness and adequacy of the supplemental geotechnical engineering reports. We also reviewed relevant information that you provided regarding slope stability on a previously proposed development known as Hillcrest, located to the southwest of the Five Rivers site and west of the Valley View Estates site. We previously reviewed geotechnical studies for the Valley View Estates. LSI Adapt, Inc. prepared two reports entitled, "Geotechnical Supplement No. 2" and "Geotechnical Supplement No. 3." Both reports dealt with slope stability issues for the subject property. Geotechnical Supplement No. 2 addressed the relevance of the previous landslide history on the adjacent parcel to the south. We take no exception to LSI Adapt, Inc.'s opinion that the conclusions of other reviewers regarding slope stability related to Valley View Estates are not directly relevant for the Five Rivers' property development. It is our opinion that the slope stability hazards on the Hillcrest site, studied by our firm on behalf of the City of Tukwila in 1992, 1993, and 1994, are potentially more severe than the hazards on the Five Rivers site. The Hillcrest site is directly upslope from the Valley View Estates site. Thus, our previous conclusions regarding development of the Hillcrest site do not alter our previously expressed opinions about the development of the Five 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21 -1- 09892 -003 SHANNON 6WILSON. INC. City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. David McPherson April 28, 2006 Page 2 Rivers site and the geotechnical reports prepared for the Five Rivers site. In our opinion, the LSI Adapt, Inc. supplementary reports have met the standards outlined in the Tukwila Municipal Code. I am available at (206) 695 -6875 if you have any questions. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. EF7S /21/ 0 8 Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Associate MWP:TMG /mwp 2 I -1- 09892 - 003 -L l /wp /LKD /06 21 -1- 09892 -003 ALASKA SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. COLRIDA ORADO MEV GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS OREGON WASHINGTON April 13, 2006 City of Tukwila Public Works Department/Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attn: Mr. David McPherson RECEIVED APR 14 2006 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS RE: PROPOSAL FOR ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW SERVICES, FIVE RIVERS 7 -LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON This letter confirms your authorization for Shannon & Wilson, Inc. to perform additional peer review of supplemental geotechnical engineering studies for proposed development on the above - referenced property in Tukwila, Washington. The supplemental' geotechnical studies were prepared by LSI Adapt, Inc. The purpose of our review services will be to offer an opinion on the appropriateness and adequacy of the supplemental geotechnical engineering reports. We will also review relevant information that you provided regarding slope stability on a previously proposed development known as Hillcrest, located to the south of the Five Rivers site. Our fee and the terms under which our services are offered will be on a lump sum basis in accordance with the enclosed Standard General Terms and Conditions. Our fee will be $600, which includes review of the above - mentioned `documents and preparation of a written summary of our findings. Invoices for payment will be submitted to you as our client. Please sign in the space provided and return a copy of this letter, which will then serve as an agreement between us. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., has prepared the enclosed "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Proposal" to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals.. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 www.shannonwilson.com 21 -3 -51118 -001 City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. /Engineering Division Attn: Mr. David McPherson April 13, 2006 Page 2 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service and look forward to working with you. I am available at (206) 695 -6875 if you have any questions. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E. Associate MWP:TMG /mwp Enclosures: Standard General Terms and Conditions, SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Important Information About Your Geotechnical Proposal I accept the above conditions and authorize the work to proceed. By Signature (print) Organization 21- 3- 51118 - 001- L1 /wp /LKD Date 21 -3 -51118 -001 Iii I SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants MEW Attachment to and part of our Proposal: 21 -3 -51118 -001 Date: April 13, 2006 City of Tukwila, Public Works Department/Engineering To: Division Re: Five Rivers 7 -Lot Short Plat, Tukwila, Washington STANDARD GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (ALL PURPOSE) ARTICLE 1 — SERVICES OF SHANNON & WILSON Shannon & Wilson's scope of work (Work) shall be limited to those services expressly set forth in its Proposal and is subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Shannon & Wilson shall procure and maintain all business and professional licenses and registrations necessary to provide its services. Upon Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), Shannon & Wilson shall assist Client in attempting to obtain, or on behalf of Client and in Client's name attempt to obtain, those permits and approvals required for the project for which Shannon & Wilson's services are being rendered. Client acknowledges, depending on field conditions encountered and subsurface conditions discovered, the number and location of borings, the number and type of field and laboratory tests, and other similar items, as deemed necessary by Shannon & Wilson in the exercise of due care, may need to be increased or decreased; if such modifications are approved by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. If conditions actually encountered at the project site differ materially from those represented by Client and/or shown or indicated in the contract documents, or are of an unusual nature which materially differ from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent for the locality and character of the services provided for in Shannon & Wilson's scope of work, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. Without increasing the scope of work, price, or schedule contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson may employ such subcontractors as Shannon & Wilson deems necessary to assist in furnishing its services. If Shannon & Wilson's scope of work is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 2 — FEES AND EXPENSES FOR RENDERING SERVICES LUMP SUM AMOUNT Shannon & Wilson's total fee for performing all of the services described in the Scope of Work shall be the lump sum amount of $600. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to monthly progress payments in proportion to the percentage of the completed Work bears to all of the services described the Scope of Work. Fees For Additional Services Fees for Shannon & Wilson's services attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our Scope of Work will be based on the actual time expended on the project, including travel, by our personnel and will be computed by multiplying the actual number of hours worked times the employees direct salary rate times 3.3. • The hourly rates for the services of our staff will be doubled for time spent actually providing expert testimony. ADDITIONAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses other than salary costs that are directly attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our scope of work will be invoiced at our cost plus 15 percent. Examples include, but are not limited to, expenses for out -of -town travel and living, information processing equipment, instrumentation and field equipment rental, special fees and permits, premiums for additional or special insurance where required, long distance telephone charges, local mileage and parking, use of rental vehicles, taxi, reproduction, local and out -of -town delivery service, express mail, photographs, film, laboratory equipment fees, shipping charges and supplies. A unit price of $7.00 per hour will be charged for computer time to prepare spreadsheets, $25.00 per hour for AutoCAD and modeling software use, and $35.00 per hour for GIS computer work. ARTICLE 3 — TIMES FOR RENDERING SERVICES Shannon & Wilson shall perform its services in accordance with the schedule set forth in its Proposal. If Shannon & Wilson's Proposal sets forth specific periods of time for rendering services, or specific dates by which services are to be completed, and such periods of time or dates are extended or delayed through no fault of Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. If Shannon & Wilson's schedule is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 4 — PAYMENTS TO SHANNON & WILSON Invoices shall be prepared in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's standard invoicing practices and shall be submitted to Client by Shannon & Wilson monthly. The amount billed in each invoice shall be calculated as set forth in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Unless Shannon & Wilson's Proposal contains a fixed lump -sum price, Shannon & Wilson's actual fees may exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal. Shannon & Wilson shall not exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal by more than ten percent (10 %) without the prior written consent of Client; provided however, unless the Client authorizes additional funds in excess of the estimate contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall have no obligation to continue work on the project. SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Page 1 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. If Client fails to pay Shannon & Wilson's invoice within 30 days after receipt, the amounts due Shannon & Wilson shall accrue interest at the rate of one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per month (or the maximum rate of interest permitted by law, if less) after the 301h day. In addition, Shannon & Wilson may, after giving seven (7) days written notice to Client, suspend services under this Agreement until Shannon & Wilson has been paid in full. If Client disputes Shannon & Wilson's invoice, only the disputed portion(s) may be withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion(s) shall be paid. Records of Shannon & Wilson's direct and indirect costs and expenses pertinent to its compensation under this Agreement shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. Upon request, such records shall be made available to Client for inspection on Shannon & Wilson's premises and copies provided to Client at cost. ARTICLE 5 — CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES Client shall grant or obtain free access to the project site for all equipment and personnel necessary for Shannon & Wilson to perform its services. ARTICLE 6 — STANDARD OF CARE / ABSENCE OF WARRANTIES / NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE SAFETY OR CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE Standard of Care The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement shall be the skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of Shannon & Wilson's profession, providing the same or similar services, under the same or similar circumstances, at the same time and locality as the services were provided by Shanncr. The construction, alteration, or repair of any object or structure by Shannon & Wilson shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with general industry standards, and conform to this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson warrants for one (1) year from substantial completion of the Work, all goods delivered hereunder shall be new and free from defects in material or workmanship, and shall conform to the specifications, drawings, or sample(s) specified or furnished, if any, and shall be merchantable and fit for their intended purpose(s). Shannon & Wilson warrants that Shannon & Wilson has good and marketable title to all goods delivered hereunder, and that all goods delivered hereunder shall be free and clear of all claims of superior title, liens, and encumbrances of any kind. Subsurface explorations and testing identify actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. Actual conditions at other locations of the project site, including those inferred to exist between the sample points, may differ significantly from conditions that exist at the sampling locations. The passage of time or intervening causes may cause the actual conditions at the sampling locations to change as well. Interpretations and recommendations made by Shannon & Wilson shall be based solely upon information available to Shannon & Wilson at the time the interpretations and recommendations are made. Shannon & Wilson shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services, data, interpretations, and recommendations resulting therefrom, and Client shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. Shannon & Wilson shall correct any substandard work without additional compensation, except to the extent that such inaccuracies are directly attributable to deficiencies in Client- furnished information. No Warranties Shannon & Wilson makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, about Shannon & Wilson's professional services. Client- Furnished Documents Shannon & Wilson may use requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson in performing its services under this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson may rely on the accuracy and completeness of requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from Shannon & Wilson's reliance on Client- furnished information, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Site Damage Shannon & Wilson shall take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the project site, but it is understood by Client that, in the normal course of Shannon & Wilson's services, some project site damage may occur, and the correction of such damage is not part of this Agreement unless so stated in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from any project site damage caused by Shannon & Wilson, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Buried Structures If there are any buried structures and/or utilities on the project site where subsurface explorations are to take place, Client shall provide Shannon & Wilson with a plan showing their existing locations. Shannon & Wilson shall contact a utility locator service to request that they identify any public utilities. Shannon & Wilson shall use reasonable care and diligence to avoid contact with buried structures and/or utilities as shown. Shannon & Wilson shall not be liable for any loss or damage to buried structures and/or utilities resulting from inaccuracy of the plans, or lack of plans, or errors by the locator service relating to the location of buried structures and/or utilities. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify, and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from damage to buried structures and/or utilities caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Aquifer Cross - Contamination Despite the use of due care, unavoidable contamination of soil or groundwater may occur during subsurface exploration when drilling or sampling tools are advanced through a contaminated area, linking it to an aquifer, underground stream, or other hydrous body not previously contaminated and capable of spreading contaminants off the project site. Because Shannon & Wilson is powerless to totally eliminate this risk despite use of due care, and because sampling is an essential element of Shannon & Wilson's services, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from cross - contamination caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Page 2 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Opinions of Probable Construction Costs If opinions of probable construction costs are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson's opinions of probable construction costs shall be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represent its judgment as a professional generally familiar with the industry. Opinions of probable construction costs are based, in part, on approximate quantity evaluations that are not accurate enough to permit contractors to prepare bids. Further, since Shannon & Wilson has no control over: the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others; the contractor's actual or proposed construction methods or methods of determining prices; competitive bidding; or market conditions, Shannon & Wilson cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction cost will not vary from opinions of the components of probable construction cost prepared by Shannon & Wilson. If Client or any contractor wishes greater assurance as to probable construction cost, Client or contractor shall employ an independent cost estimator. Review of Contractor's Shop Drawings and Submittals If review of a contractor's shop drawings and submittals are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review and take appropriate action on the contractor's submittals, such as shop drawings, product data, samples, and other data, which the contractor is required to submit, but solely for the limited purpose of checking for general overall conformance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. This review shall not include a review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities; dimensions; weights or gauges; fabrication processes; construction means, methods, sequences or procedures; coordination of the work with other trades; or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the contractor. Shannon & Wilson's review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time, in Shannon & Wilson's judgment, to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not be construed to mean that Shannon & Wilson has reviewed the entire assembly of which the item is a component. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for any deviations by the contractor in the shop drawings and submittals from the construction documents, which are not brought to the attention of Shannon & Wilson by the contractor in writing. Construction Observation If construction observation is included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall visit the project site at intervals Shannon & Wilson deems appropriate, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by Client and Shannon & Wilson, in order to observe and keep Client generally informed of the progress and quality of the work. Such visits and observations are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of any contractor's work, but rather are to allow Shannon & Wilson, as a professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress in order to determine, in general, whether the work is progressing in a manner indicating that the work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's authority shall be limited to observing, making technical comments regarding general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept, and rejecting any work which it becomes aware of that does not comply with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's acceptance of any non - conforming work containing latent defects or failure to reject any non - conforming work not inspected by Shannon & Wilson shall not impose any liability on Shannon & Wilson or relieve any contractor from complying with their contract documents. All construction contractors shall be solely responsible for construction site safety, the quality of their work, and adherence to their contract documents. Shannon & Wilson shall have no authority to direct any contractor's actions or stop any contractor's work. If Shannon & Wilson is not retained to provide construction observation of the implementation of its design recommendations, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law,_ waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from the implementation of Shannon & Wilson's design recommendations, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. No Responsibility for Site Safety Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not: supervise, direct, have control over, or authority to stop any contractor's work; have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected by any contractor, be responsible for safety precautions and programs incident to any contractor's work; or be responsible for any failure of any contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to the contractor, all of which are the sole responsibility of the construction contractors. This requirement shall apply continuously, regardless of time or place, and shall in no way be altered because a representative of Shannon & Wilson is present at the project site performing his/her duties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Shannon & Wilson shall never be deemed to have assumed responsibility for the project's site safety by either contract or conduct. No act or direction by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed the exercise of supervision or control of any contractor's employees or the direction of any contractor's performance. Any direction provided by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed solely to ensure the contractor's general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. No Responsibility for Contractor's Performance Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for safety precautions, the quality of any contractor's work, or any contractor's failure to furnish or perform their work in accordance with their contract documents. Except Shannon & Wilson's own employees and its subcontractors, Shannon & Wilson shall not: be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, or other persons at the project site, or otherwise furnishing or performing any work; or for any decision based on interpretations or clarifications of Shannon & Wilson's design concept given without the consultation and concurrence of Shannon & Wilson. Approval of Contractor's Applications for Payment If approval of a contractor's applications for payment are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review the amounts due the contractor and issue a recommendation about payment to Client. Shannon & Wilson's review and approval shall be limited to an evaluation of the general progress of the work and the information contained in the contractor's application for payment and a representation by Shannon & Wilson that to the best of the Shannon & Wilson's knowledge, the contractor has performed work for which payment has been requested, subject to further testing and inspection upon substantial completion. The issuance of a recommendation for payment shall not be construed as a representation that: Shannon & Wilson has made an exhaustive check or a detailed or continuous inspection check of the quality or quantity of the contractor's work; approved the contractors means, methods, sequences, procedures, or safety precautions; or that contractor's subcontractors, laborers, and suppliers have been paid. ARTICLE 7 — CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF DOCUMENTS Confidentiality Shannon & Wilson agrees to keep confidential and to not disclose to any person or entity (other than Shannon & Wilson's employees and subcontractors), without the prior consent of Client, all information furnished to Shannon & Wilson by Client or learned by Shannon & Wilson as a result of its work on the project; provided however, that these provisions shall not apply to information that: is in the public domain through no fault of Shannon & Wilson; was previously known to Shannon & Wilson; or was independently acquired by Shannon & Wilson from third- parties who were under no obligation to Client to keep said information confidential. This paragraph shall not be construed to in any way restrict Shannon & Wilson from making any disclosures required by SEA -LS -2006 (1!2006) Page 3 of 6 SHANNON & VVIt_SON, INC. law. Client agrees that Shannon & Wilson may use and publish Client's name and a general description of Shannon & Wilson's services with respect to the project in describing Shannon & Wilson's experience and qualifications to others. Copyrights and Patents — Shannon & Wilson shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Client from any and all actions, damages, demands, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), losses, and liabilities arising out of any claims that any goods or services furnished by Subcontractor infringe any patent, trademark, trade name, or copyright. Use of Documents All documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson are instruments of service with respect to the project, and Shannon & Wilson shall retain a copyrighted ownership and property interest therein (including the right of reuse) whether or not the project is completed. Shannon & Wilson grants to Client a non - exclusive, irrevocable, unlimited, royalty -free license to use any documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson for Client. Client may make and retain copies of such documents for their information and use. Such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by Client, or others, after the passage of time, on extensions of the project, or on any other project. Any such reuse without written verification or adaptation by Shannon & Wilson, as appropriate for the specific purpose intended, shall be at Client's sole risk, and Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from such reuse, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Any verification or adaptation of the documents for extensions of the project or for any other project by Shannon & Wilson shall entitle Shannon & Wilson to additional compensation to be agreed upon by Client and Shannon & Wilson. Copies of documents that may be relied upon by Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by Shannon & Wilson. Text, data, or graphics files in electronic media format are furnished solely tor the convenience of Client. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic, files shall be at the user's sole risk. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern. Because data stored in electronic media can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of the data's creator, the party receiving an electronic file agrees that it shall perform acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days after its receipt, after which, unless notice of any errors are given in writing to the delivering party, the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the data thus transferred. Any errors reported within the 60- day acceptance period shall be corrected by the party delivering the electronic files at their sole expense. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for maintaining documents stored in electronic media format after acceptance by Client. When transferring documents in electronic media format, neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson makes any representations as to long -term compatibility, usability, or readability of documents resulting from the use of software application packages, operating systems, or computer hardware differing from those used for the document's creation. ARTICLE 8 - INSURANCE Shannon & Wilson shall purchase and maintain during the term of this contract, the following insurance coverage at its sole expense: Commercial General Liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence /$2,000,000 annual aggregate Bodily Injury/Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Blanket Contractual Liability, Broad Form Products and Completed Operations, Explosion/Collapse /Underground (XCU) Exposures, and Washington Stop Gap coverage. Auto Liability - $1,000,000 Bodily Injury/Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Owned, Hired, and Non -Owned Liability coverage. Umbrella Liability - $10,000,000 Bodily Injury/Property Damage combined Single Limit in excess of Commercial General Liability, Auto Liability, and Employers' Liability. Workers' Compensation - Statutory in monopolistic states and $500,000 per accident/$500,000 per disease/$500,000 disease policy aggregate Employers' Liability in non - monopolistic including if applicable, U.S. Longshore & Harbor Workers coverage. Professional Liability - $5,000,000 per claims /$5,000,000 annual aggregate for professional errors and omissions including Pollution Liability coverage. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall name Client as an additional insured on its Commercial General Liability policy. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall deliver to Client certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage. Such certificates shall be furnished before commencement of Shannon & Wilson's services. Client shall cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on any Commercial General Liability insurance carried by Client that is applicable to the project. Client shall require the project owner to require the general contractor on the project to purchase and maintain Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability, Workers Compensation, and Employers Liability insurance, with limits no less than set forth above, and to cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on that Commercial General Liability insurance. Client shall require the project owner include the substance of this paragraph in the prime construction contract. All insurance policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation. ARTICLE 9 - HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Disclosure of the Existence of Hazardous Environmental Conditions Client has disclosed to Shannon & Wilson all data known to Client concerning known or suspected hazardous environmental conditions, including but not limited to, the existence of all asbestos, PCBs, petroleum, hazardous waste, or radioactive material, if any, located at or near the project site, including its type, quantity, and location, or has represented to Shannon & Wilson that, to the best of Client's knowledge, no hazardous environmental conditions exist at or near the project site. If any hazardous environmental condition is encountered or believed to exist, Shannon & Wilson shall notify Client and, to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations, the project site owner, and appropriate governmental officials. SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Page 4 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Disposal of Non- Hazardous Samples and Hazardous or Toxic Substances All substances on, in, or under the project site, or obtained from the project site as samples or as byproducts (e.g., drill cuttings and fluids) of the sampling process are the project site owner's property. Shannon & Wilson shall preserve such samples for forty -five (45) calendar days after Shannon & Wilson's issuance to Client of the final instrument of service that relates to the data obtained from them. Shannon & Wilson shall dispose of all non- hazardous samples and sampling process byproducts in accordance with applicable law; provided however, any samples or sampling process byproducts that are, or are believed to be, affected by regulated contaminants shall be packaged by Shannon & Wilson in accordance with applicable law, and turned over to Client or left on the project site. Shannon & Wilson shall not transport store, treat, dispose of, or arrange for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of, any substances known, believed, or suspected to be affected by regulated contaminants, nor shall Shannon & Wilson subcontract for such activities. Shannon & Wilson shall, at Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), help Client or the project site owner identify appropriate alternatives for transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of such substances, but Shannon & Wilson shall not make any independent determination about the selection of a transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Client or the project site owner shall sign all manifests for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of substances affected by regulated contaminants; provided however, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary if Client directs Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's employees, or Shannon & Wilson's agents to sign such manifests and/or to hire for Client or the project site owner a contractor to transport store, treat, or dispose of the contaminated substances, Shannon & Wilson shall do so only as Client's disclosed agent. Contaminated Equipment and Consumables Client shall reimburse Shannon & Wilson for the cost of decontaminating field or laboratory equipment that is contaminated by regulated materials encountered at the project site and for the cost of disposal and replacement of contaminated consumables. In some instances, the cost of decontamination may exceed the fair market value of the equipment, were it not contaminated, together with the cost of properly transporting and disposing of the equipment. in such instances, Shannon & Wilson will notify Client and give Client the option of paying for decontamination or purchasing the equipment at its fair market value immediately prior to contamination. If Client elects to purchase equipment, Client and Shannon & Wilson will enter into a specific agreement for that purpose. Any equipment that cannot be decontaminated shall be considered a consumable. Client's Liability for Hazardous or Toxic Materials Except to the extent caused by Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, Client shall: indemnify and hold harmless Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors and their partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees), or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the arrangement for and/or ownership, operation, generation, labeling, transportation, storage, disposal, treatment, release, or threatened release of any hazardous or toxic materials, as defined by CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws, on and/or from the project site. ARTICLE 10 - ALLOCATION OF RISK Indemnification of Client To the maximum extent permitted by law, Shannon & Wilson shall: indemnify and hold harmless Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the negligent or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions, or breach of contract or warranty express or implied, by Shannon & Wilson or any of its subcontractors; but only to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's relative degree of fault. In furtherance of these obligations, and only with respect to Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees and agents, Shannon & Wilson waives any immunity it may have or limitation on the amount or type of damages imposed under any industrial insurance, worker's compensation, disability, employee benefit, or similar laws. Shannon & Wilson acknowledges that this waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated. Limitation of Shannon & Wilson's Liability A. Total Liability Limited to Insurance Proceeds Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents and, or.any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to the project or this Agreement, shall be limited to the insurance proceeds payable on behalf of or to Shannon & Wilson by any insurance policies applicable thereto. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our liability in this manner, we will negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total liability is limited as set forth above. B. Professional Liability Limited to $50,000 or 10% of Fee With respect to professional errors or omissions only, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, or any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Page 5 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON. ING. (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to the professional errors or omissions of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, or their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or, or any of them, shall not exceed the aggregate total amount of $50,000.00, or ten percent (10 %) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our professional liability to these sums, we will negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total professional liability is limited to $50,000.00 or ten percent (10 %) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. ARTICLE 11 — MISCELLANEOUS Termination This Agreement may be terminated without further obligation or liability by either party, with or without cause (for convenience), upon 30 days prior written notice to the other. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to compensation for all services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by the non - breaching party upon any breach of this Agreement that remains uncured after 10 days notice to the breaching party by the non - breaching party. Upon payment of all amounts due Shannon & Wilson, Client shall be entitled to copies of Shannon & Wilson's files and records pertaining to services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries This Agreement shall be binding upon each party's assigns, successors, executors, administrators, and legal representatives. Neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson may assign or trans ei any rig under u. nitcrts, ire .his Agreement without the written consent of the other. No assignment shall release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, impose, or give rise to any duty owed by Client or Shannon & Wilson to any third -party. All duties and responsibilities undertaken under this Agreement shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of Client and Shannon & Wilson. There are no intended third -party beneficiaries. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should a court find a third -party to be a beneficiary of this Agreement, it is the intent of the parties that the judicially created third -party beneficiary be bound by and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Choice of Law Any applicable Statute of Limitation shall be deemed to commence running on the date which the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, as a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall give written notice of their claims, including all amounts claimed, and the factual basis for their claims, to the other party within one (1) year of when the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than one (1) year from the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. As a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall first submit their claims to non - binding mediation through and in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws (except choice and conflict of law provisions) of the state in which the Project is located. Any judicial action shall be brought in the state in which the Project is located. Attorneys' Fees Should any dispute or claims arise out of this Agreement, whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Should neither party prevail on all of their claims or receive all of the relief they sought, then the substantially prevailing party shall be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Waiver A waiver of any of the terms and conditions or breaches of this Agreement shall not operate as a subsequent waiver. Headings The headings used in this agreement are for general ease of reference only. They have no meaning and are not part of this Agreement. Integration This Agreement, together with all attachments hereto, are incorporated by reference into each other, and supercede all prior written and oral discussions, representations, negotiations, and agreements on the subject matter of this Agreement and represent the parties' complete, entire, and final understanding of the subject matter of this Agreement. Survival Notwithstanding completion or termination of this Agreement for any reason, all representations, warranties, limitations of liability, and indemnification obligations contained in this Agreement shall survive such completion or termination and remain in full force and effect until fulfilled. Severability If any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement are found to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, and the court shall attempt to judicially reform the void or unenforceable provisions to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the original intent expressed in the provisions, to render it valid and enforceable. If the court is unable to reform the provisions to render it valid and enforceable, the court shall strike only that portion which is invalid or unenforceable, and this Agreement shall then be construed without reference to the void or unenforceable provisions. SEA -LS -2006 (1/2006) Page 6 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment to and part of Proposal 21 -3 -51118 -001 Date: April 12, 2006 To: City of Tukwila, Public Works Department/Engineering Division Attn: Mr. David McPherson IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSAL More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you manage your risks. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. If you have never before dealt with geotechnical or environmental issues, you should recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by the consultant, who then applies judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions; their reaction to construction activity; appropriate design of foundations, slopes, impoundments, recovery wells; and other construction and/or remediation elements. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE. The nature of subsurface explorations —the types, quantities, and locations of procedures used —in large measure determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical/environmental report and the design based upon it. The more comprehensive a subsurface exploration and testing program, the more information it provides to the consultant, helping to reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions and the attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. Even the cost of subsurface construction may be lowered. Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic element of geotechnical/environmental design, which should be accomplished jointly by the consultant and the client (or designated professional representatives). This helps the parties involved recognize mutual concerns and makes the client aware of the technical options available. Clients who develop a subsurface exploration plan without the involvement and concurrence of a consultant may be required to assume responsibility and liability for the plan's adequacy. READ GENERAL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. Most consultants include standard general contract conditions in their proposals. One of the general conditions most commonly employed is to limit the consulting firm's liability. Known as a "risk allocation" or "limitation of liability," this approach helps prevent problems at the beginning and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them, should they arise. Various other elements of general conditions delineate your consultant's responsibilities. These are used to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, thereby helping all parties recognize who is responsible for different tasks. In all cases, read your consultant's general conditions carefully and ask any questions you may have. HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a consultant's report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your consultant to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechn- ical/environmental report. This allows a consultant to explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and to review their plans and specifications so that issues can be dealt with adequately. Although some other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical/environmental concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent consultant. Page 1 of 2 1/2006 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION MONITORING SERVICES. Most experienced clients also retain their consultant to serve during the construction phase of their projects. Involvement during the construction phase is particularly important because this permits the consultant to be on hand quickly to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to problems. The consultant can also monitor the geotechnical/environmental work performed by contractors. It is essential to recognize that the construction recommendations included in a report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork and/or drilling, design consultants need to observe those conditions in order to provide their recommendations. Only the consultant who prepares the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid. The consultant submitting the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of preliminary recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. REALIZE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. If you have requested only a geotechnical engineering proposal, it will not include services needed to evaluate the likelihood of contamination by hazardous materials or other pollutants. Given the liabilities involved, it is prudent practice to always have a site reviewed from an environmental viewpoint. A consultant cannot be responsible for failing to detect contaminants when the services needed to perform that function are not being provided. ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF YOUR CONSULTANT IS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. A geotechnical/environmental investigation will sometimes disclose the existence of conditions that may endanger the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public. Your consultant may be obligated under rules of professional conduct, or statutory or common law, to notify you and others of these conditions. RELY ON YOUR CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. Your consulting firm is familiar with several techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risk exposure for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Ask your consultant, not only about geotechnical and environmental issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE /Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2006 HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES June 21, 2006 Ms. Aleanna Kondelis, Planner /Project Manager @ Cramer NW, Inc. 945 North Central, #104 Kent, Washington 98031 LIN g ,reci RECEIVED cm OF TUKWILA MAR .0 8 20071 PERMIT CEWTEP RE: (Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, City of Tukwila Final Mitigation Program for Unavoidable Wetland Impacts Associated with the Primary Access Roadway Dear Ms. Kondelis, The prior mitigation program documents for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat have been revised overtime to be consistent with the newly adopted changes in the City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45 effective December 2004 and comments provided by the City of Tukwila staff. The following final mitigation program document has been further revised ton include comments provided by the City of Tukwila within a letter dated May 16, 2006 and our team meeting with City staff. In particular, the newly adopted ordinance has changed the criteria used by the City to categorize different wetland areas and has changed the associated protective buffers associated with these wetlands. In addition, the City of Tukwila staff has recommended the restoration of existing degraded onsite wetland areas rather than the creation of new onsite wetland and the primary compensatory mitigation feature. Examples of the ordinance changes include: O Under the prior regulations Wetland A and Wetland C met the criteria for designation as Type 2 Wetlands because both of these wetlands exhibited a forested plant community that comprised more than 20% of the wetland area. HOWEVER, this criterion is no longer within the new regulations. As such, under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A and Wetland C appear best defined as Type 3 Wetlands. e Under the newly adopted regulations the City may allow Type 3 Wetlands to be altered or relocated only with the permission on the City and with a mitigation or enhancement plan that complies with the standards of mitigation required in Chapter 18.45. The goal of the final mitigation program is to provide full and complete compensation for unavoidable impacts to a City of Tukwila regulated wetland as a direct result of the development of a required access roadway which meets City of Tukwila roadway and public health /safety standards. The final mitigation plan shall also increase the functions of the retained wetland and associated buffer areas through restoration and enhancement of viable plant communities composed of a variety of native species. wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions 1 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 5- Rivers 01248 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 habitattech @gwest.net WETLAND DETERMINATION As outlined in the Habitat Technologies letter dated September 16, 2003, wetland determination for the Ave Rivers Preliminary Plat was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. • Manual) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Based on these methods four (4) areas that exhibits all three of these criteria were identified onsite. In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary, however, this swale does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and does not meet the City of Tukwila definition as a "watercourse" under TMC18.45.06.920. WETLAND SIZE (sqft) PRIOR CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING PRIOR STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH NEWLY ADOPTED. CITY WETLAND RATING NEWLY ADOPTED STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 4,320 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet B 898 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON - REGULATED C 3,503 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet D 663 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON- REGULATED Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southeastern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. As discussed with City of Tukwila staff a scattering of trees (red alder — Alnus rubra, black cottonwood — Populus trichocarpa, Pacific willow - Salix lasiandra) were present along the edge of this wetland. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland eventually entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. The wetland was well shaded by red alder trees rooted primary outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to be the result of an intemal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. 2 5- Rivers 01248 Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila non- regulated because of small size ( <1,000sgft). Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder (approximately 15 years old) rooted both within and outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite and included the old, concrete foundation and assorted garbage. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Based on a - review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland D: This wetland was located within a shallow depression formed by an old internal roadway within the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and emergent plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain saturated well into the growing season. .Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland D meets the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated (PSSE); and palustrine, emergent seasonally flooded /saturated (PEME). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila non - regulated because of small size ( <1,000 sqft). CITY OF TUKWLA Environmentally Sensitive Areas Chapter 18.45 A Type 1 Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is characterized by the presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, of the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those species; 2. The wetland has 40 -60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. The wetland is equal to or greater than five acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water; or 4. The wetland is documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3 5- Rivers 01248 A Type 2_Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is equal to or greater than one acre in size; 2. The wetland has three or more wetland classes and is Tess than 5 acres; 3. The wetland is characterized by the presence of nesting sites for priority species as listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or 4. The wetland is hydrologically connected (non - isolated) to a Type 1 or Type 2 watercourse. A Type 3 Wetland is a wetland that is greater than 1,000 square feet and Tess than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH Type 1 Wetland 100 feet Type 2 Wetland 80 feet Type 3 Wetland 50 feet SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION Development of the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat focuses on establishing independent lots for the future development of residential homesites consistent with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and local zoning. The development of these independent lots has avoided direct impacts to identified City of Tukwila regulated wetlands as much as possible. However, to meet City of Tukwila roadway and public health /safety standards a minor direct impact to Wetland C has been defined as unavoidable Through compensatory mitigation the Selected Development Action would not result in a "net loss" of regulated wetland function or value consistent with the City of Tukwila — Environmentally Sensitive Areas — Chapter 18.45. The selected site development plan would result in the following actions: Alternative Roadway Alignments: As a part of the development of the final site plan the project team reviewed a number of alternative roadway alignments which would allow access between the proposed new homesites and 53rd Avenue South. Important elements of this reviewed included the avoidance /minimization to an onsite wetland, the elevation changes between the project site and 53rd Avenue South, roadway alignment with adjacent properties, public health and safety, City roadway and slope standards, and existing traffic offsets. Following this assessment the project team met with City staff and upon the direction of the City staff identified that the roadway alignment as presently proposed within the center of the project site best meets City roadway standards, best meets City public health and safety requirements, and minimizes adverse impacts to the onsite wetland. 4 5- Rivers 01248 WETLAND SIZE (sqft) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE PROPOSED ACTION A 3,712 sqft 3 This wetland and its associated established buffer would be retained and restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. Hydrology for the retained wetland would be supplemented by the addition of rooftops drains to these areas (if required). The retained buffer adjacent to the roadways to the north and west would be replanted with a dense variety of native species to provide greater protection to the retained wetland. B 527 sqft Non - Regulated This non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide for an internal roadway and new lot areas. C 3,417 soft 3 Majority of this wetland would be retained. However, 336 square feet of this wetland would be directly impacted by the development of the new access roadway. In addition 1,320 square feet of this wetland would be converted into protective buffer without being filled. The total impact to this wetland equals 1,656 square feet. As compensation for the unavoidable impacts to Wetland C at least 5,893 square feet of existing wetland area within Wetland C and Wetland A shall_ be resorted through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. The retained buffer shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. Hydrology for the retained wetland would be supplemented by the addition of rooftops drains to these areas (if required). D 691 sqft Non- Regulated Majority of this non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide new lot area. That portion of this wetland within the retained buffer of Wetland C and Wetland A would be retained. 5 5- Rivers 01248 SELECTED COMPENSATORY MG,,,T@O APPROACH Site planning for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat has focused on the mandated hierarchy of wetland impact reduction: 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, and 3) compensation. These avoidance and minimization strategies included a site design to reduce impacts to onsite wetland systems. The present site design would retain the majority of regulated onsite Wetlands A and C, restore and enhance existing regulated wetland and buffer areas, and establish protective buffers in accordance with newly revised City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45. Unavoidable impacts to Wetland C shall be mitigated through the restoration of at least 5,893 square feet of existing wetland area within Wetland C and Wetland A. Restoration shall include the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. The retained buffer areas associated with Wetland C and Wetland A shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs (see attached Site Plan). Wetland B and the majority of Wetland D shall be filled to created the internal roadway and new homesite lots. Both of these wetlands are isolated, less than 1,000 square feet in area, exhibit a low functional value rating, and are not regulated by the City of Tukwila. The overall impacts to Wetland C and its associated buffer resulting from the development of the new access roadway shall be minimized through the creation of a near vertical wall rather than a roadway fill slope. Potential impacts associated with the construction of this new supportive wall shall be minimized by ensuring that all work would be completed from the roadway side of the new roadway corridor. The work area would be clearly marked and protected with silt fencing and appropriate erosion controls. The defined work area would follow the established edge of the new roadway right of way and would not extend into the retained wetland or retained buffer. Mitigation Benefits The restoration of the retained wetland and buffer areas is designed to accompany site development. The primary benefits associated with the proposed compensatory mitigation program include the restoration and enhancement of a viable wetland and buffer complex of native emergents, shrubs, and trees within an area presently impacted by past land use activities. The selected plant species would increase diversity and complexity within the mitigation site. In addition, the wetland and buffer complex shall be defined within an independent tract (Tract B). Wetland and Buffer Functions Targeted for Restoration and Enhancement As outlined in the wetland delineation reports prepared for this project site the identified onsite wetlands were identified to exhibit an overall LOW value rating. The entire project site has been modified by prior land use actions that include a homesite within 6 5- Rivers 01248 the area of existing Wetland A. The understory within the wetland and adjacent buffer areas was dominated by dense thickets of blackberries. ® Existing Hydrologic Support and Water Quality Benefits (low) - These wetlands were smaller than one acre in total size and located in a rapidly developing part of the City of Tukwila. These wetlands appeared to retain less than 25% of the runoff which occurs and exhibited a vegetation density Tess than 80 %. The primary water quality benefit provided by these wetlands includes the biofiltration of a limited amount of surface stormwater from onsite and offsite areas. • Existing Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Support (low) - These wetlands were smaller than one acre in size and located in a rapidly developing part of City of Tukwila. A limited amount of stormwater from onsite and offsite appeared to be retained onsite. Evidence of shallow seasonal ponding and saturation to the surface are present into the early part of the growing season. ® Existing Natural Biological Function (low) - These wetlands exhibit a limited range of plant diversity and vegetation complexity. These wetlands have a single habitat type. The plant community has been modified by past and ongoing land use activities. These wetlands do not exhibit any unique features and because of the limited seasonal pattern of shallow ponding did not appeared to provide suitable amphibian spawning areas. The proposed compensatory mitigation program would remove existing garbage and invasive plants. Following removal the area would be planted with a variety of native plants common to the local area. In addition, the planting would be denser than normal within the areas adjacent to the roadways to the north and west of Wetland C. The proposed compensatory mitigation program is designed to achieve an overall increase in the functions of the onsite wetland and associated buffer areas. Proposed Hydrologic Support and Water Quality Function Improvements (moderate improvement) — The existing invasive species and garbage would be removed from the retained wetland and buffer areas. The identified garbage includes old auto parts and old household materials. The restoration and enhancement actions are designed to increase the ability of the wetland and buffer to provide biofiltration of potential pollutants. Hydrology patterns within the wetland and buffer areas would not be altered. In addition, the existing seeps located at the southwestern edge of Wetland C would not be altered. Proposed Stormwater Storage and Groundwater Support Function Improvements (low to moderate improvement) — The restoration and enhancement actions would not alter the existing stormwater storage and groundwater support function of the onsite wetlands. This function would not be significantly increased by the proposed action. 7 5- Rivers 01248 Proposed Natural Biological Function Improvements (moderate to high improvement) - The project site exhibits a limited range of plant diversity and vegetation complexity, and has been greatly altered by prior land use actions. The restoration and enhancement actions would alter the existing plant communities which are dominated by invasive species through the removal of these invasive species and the establishment of viable wetland and plant communities composed of a variety of native plant species. The selected plants are common to the area and provide a wide range of feeding opportunities, nesting opportunities, cover opportunities, and structural support for wildlife common to the area. The restoration and enhancement actions would also install a variety of habitat features which would further provide feeding opportunities, nesting opportunities, cover opportunities, and structural support for wildlife common to the area. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM 1. As compensation for the unavoidable direct impact to 336 square feet of City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland C) and the conversion of 1,320 square feet of City of Tukwila Type .3 Wetland (Wetland C) into buffer, a minimum of 5,893 square feet of retained wetland within Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored. The amount of wetland to be restored provides a 3.0 to 1.0 restoration ratio (restored to impacted). Wetland restoration shall include the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. 2. Protective buffers shall be established for Wetland A and Wetland C. A minor amount of buffer area along the eastern edge of Wetland C and along the northern edge of Wetland A shall be eliminated for unavoidable roadway construction. 3. The buffer associated with the retained Wetland C and Wetland A shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. 4. Habitat features (i.e. standing snags and downed logs) shall be placed within the created wetland, and restored wetland and buffer areas to provide structural diversity and habitats for wildlife common to the area. 3. Habitat features (i.e. standing snags and downed Togs) shall be placed within the restored wetland and buffer areas to provide structural diversity and habitats for wildlife common to the area. 4. All onsite activities shall be monitored by the onsite biologist. Following the completion of onsite planting activities a "record- drawing" plan and implementation report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila. 8 5- Rivers 01248 5. Following City of Tukwila approval of the implemented program a five -year monitoring program shall be undertaken to ensure the success of the compensatory mitigation program. A series of financial guarantees shall also be implemented (if required by the City of Tukwila) to assure that the proposed work is completed and is successful. 6. Temporary and Tong -term erosion control measures shall be implemented. These measures include silt fencing during site preparation and wetland restoration, and seeding of exposed soil areas. 7. The outer boundary of Tract B (Wetlands A and C, and their associated established buffers) shall be marked with standard City of Tukwila "Wetland Buffer Boundary" signs at 25 -foot intervals. The signs shall state "Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC Chapter 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 8. This outer buffer boundary of Tract B shall be permanently fenced to limit intrusion into these areas. The fence can be either a six -foot solid -wood fence, a split rail, six - foot chain link fence, or other City of Tukwila pre- approved substitute. At least one access gate shall be provided through the fence for maintenance and monitoring purposes. GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The GOAL of the Compensatory Mitigation Program is to fully compensate for the unavoidable adverse impact to Wetland C resulting from the development of a new access roadway. Upon the completion of this mitigation program there shall be no net loss of regulated wetland functions or values, and an increase in the potential for the established wetlands and buffers to protect local aquatic and terrestrial habitats. To achieve the defined GOAL, the following OBJECTIVES and PERFORMANCE CRITERIA have are defined: Objective A. A minimum of 5,893 square feet of existing degraded wetland area within retained Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored. Performance Criterion #A1: As defined at representative sample plots the emergent plant community within the restored 5,893 square feet of existing wetland area shall exhibit at least an 80% coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #A2: As defined by representative sample plots the scrub /shrub and sapling vegetation class within the restored 5,893 square feet of existing wetland area shall exhibit at least a 50% aerial coverage within five years following initial planting. 9 5- Rivers 01248 Performance Criterion #A3: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored wetlands shall exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following planting. Performance Criterion #A4: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 80% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored wetlands and buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the fifth growing season following planting. Objective B. The buffer areas associated with Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored and shall exhibit a scrub /shrub and sapling tree vegetation classes within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #B1: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following planting. Performance Criterion #B2: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 80% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the fifth growing season following planting. Objective C. The restored wetland and buffer areas shall include the placement of snags and downed logs which provide nesting and cover habitat for passerine birds common to the area. Performance Criterion #C1: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored portion of Wetland A. Performance Criterion #C2: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored portion of Wetland C. Performance Criterion #C3: A minimum of three (3) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at 10 5- Rivers 01248 bottom of rootball) and a minimum of three (3) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored buffer areas adjacent to Wetland A and Wetland C. SELECTED PLANT COMMUNITIES The plants selected for placement within the restored wetland and buffer areas shall be obtained as nursery stock. These selected species are native and commonly occur in the local area. The plant species prescribed are selected to increase plant diversity, match present onsite communities, increase wildlife habitats, and enhance the aquatic environment (Appendix A). 11 5- Rivers 01248 PLANT ID COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PROPOSED SPACING (oc) PROPOSED SIZE PLANTING LOCATION 2 SAL Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 16 PIS Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland buffer edge 23 THP Western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland buffer edge 6 TSH Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer 19 ACM Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer 9 FRL Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 3 PYF Western crabapple Pyrus fusca 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 9 RON Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 102 ROG Wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 135 SYA Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 19 ACC Vine maple Acer circinatum 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 7 LOI Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 15 PHC Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 20 COS Red osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera 4 ft 2 gal Wetland 9 SAS Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 4 ft 2 gal Wetland 11 5- Rivers 01248 75 CAO Carex obnupta 1 ft . 4 inch plug Wetland Salix sitchensis 75 SCM Small fruited bulrush 1 ft 4 inch plug Wetland Scirpus microcarpus MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION Essential to the success of the compensatory mitigation program is the accurate inspection of onsite activities immediately prior to and during the initial wetland and buffer restoration phase. These activities include pre - implementation site inspection, onsite inspection and technical direction during wetland restoration and planting activities, and post - planting site inspection and evaluation. Where removal of invasive plants would be accomplished with an excavator the project biologist and the excavator operator shall first identify the work area and then install protective orange construction fencing to protect the root collars of desirable trees to be retained. All work within the protected root collar area shall be completed with hand tools and shall not adversely impact the desirable trees. The pre - implementation site inspection allows the project team and the project biologist to evaluate and, if necessary, undertaken minor adjustments in the onsite implementation steps. These steps include analysis of project site elevation features, project sequencing and timing, final grade analysis, unforeseen required minor modifications to the original establishment plan, and the establishment of environmental protections (silt fences, etc.) required during implementation. Onsite technical inspection during implementation and planting activities shall be implemented by the project biologist. The project biologist shall perform implementation oversight and address minor unforeseen implementation difficulties to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. The removal of existing invasive vegetation within the mitigation area shall be undertaken by hand and potentially a small excavator. All removed vegetation shall be conveyed by a large 10 -yard dump truck to an approved upland disposal area. The project biologist shall also be responsible for ensuring that the species and sizes of native plants selected and noted within the final planting plan are utilized during implementation. If selected native species become unavailable, the project biologist shall consult with the City of Tukwila for substitute plant species to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. Post - implementation site inspection/ evaluation shall include the preparation of a "record- drawings" and associated implementation report which shall be submitted to the City of Tukwila. 12 5- Rivers 01248 MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROJECT TASK TASK SCHEDULE Completed on or before Onsite pre - implementation project meeting July 15, 200x Placement of protective fencing, final marking, and identification of work area. July 30, 200x Removal of invasive vegetation and existing garbage. Aug. 15, 200x Placement of habitat features. Aug. 30, 200x' Seeding of disturbed areas. Aug. 30, 200x Planting of wetland and adjacent buffer. Nov. 15, 200x Record - drawing and implementation report to City Dec. 5, 200x Should this mitigation implementation not following the time period noted above the project team would coordinate a revised schedule with the City of Tukwila. PROJECT MONITORING Following the successful completion of the proposed restoration actions a five year monitoring and evaluation program shall be undertaken. The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the selected mitigation as measured by an established set of performance criteria (see above). This monitoring shall also provide valuable information on the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS o Vegetation Sampling Methodology Permanent vegetation sampling plots shall be located within the restored wetlands and the restored buffer areas. Observations and measurements shall be recorded for all plant species in order of dominance based on the relative percent cover for each species within the various vegetation strata. Sampling for tree and shrub species shall be completed in 30 -foot radius sampling plots. The evaluation of the success of the compensatory mitigation program shall be based on the expected cover percentages and the selected survival rate for trees and shrubs. These defined performance criteria shall be applied at the times of yearly monitoring. The percent of aerial cover and the percent survival rate shall be based on combined counts of existing, volunteer plants, and planted species during vegetation monitoring. Sample location shall be shown on the design and the "record drawings" (i.e. "as- built ") plans, and shall correspond to identified photopoints. Trees and shrubs shall be visually evaluated to determine the rate of survivorship, health, and vigor of each plant. 13 5- Rivers 01248 1. As a part of each monitoring period the project biologist shall count the number of live plants which are planted within the representative sample plots. Plants shall be identified to species and observations of general plant condition (i.e., plant health, amount of new growth) are to be recorded for each plant. 2. At all identified sample plots the project biologist shall determine percent coverage of vegetation for emergent species and for the scrub /shrub and sapling tree species. 3. At identified sample plots within the restored wetland and buffer areas the project biologist shall count the number of undesirable invasive plants and estimate the aerial coverage (as if the observer were looking straight down from above) of these invasive plants. Undesirable plants include blackberries, Scot's broom, tansy ragwort, reed canarygrass, and plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List. 4. At identified sample plots within the restored wetland and buffer areas the project biologist shall count the number of desirable "volunteer' plants and estimate the aerial coverage of these plants. 5. The project biologist shall take photographs that show the entire compensatory mitigation area. During the five year monitoring period photos shall be taken in the same direction and at the same location to provide a series of photos. These photos shall show plant growth, plant species, and plant coverage. 6. Upon the completion of each annual monitoring period the project biologist shall prepare a report defining methods, observations, and results along with the date the observations were completed. Each report shall be provided to the City of Tukwila. 7. The monitoring schedule is defined as: A. Twice a year for two years following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once early in the growing season (late March to mid - April) and once again near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity an annual report shall be prepared and provided to the City of Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of the fall monitoring. B. Once a year for years three, four, and five following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity an annual report shall be prepared and provided to the City of Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of the fall monitoring. 14 5- Rivers 01248 • Vegetation Monitoring Sequence MONITORING YEAR VEGETATION MONITORING SUBMITTAL OF MONITORING REPORT YEAR -1 On or about April 15, 200x +1 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +1 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +1 YEAR -2 On or about April 15, 200x +2 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +2 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +2 YEAR -3 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +3 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +3 YEAR -4 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +4 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +4 YEAR -5 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +5 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +5 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance of the restored wetland and buffer plant communities may be required to assure the long -term health and welfare of the wetland's and buffer's environmental functions. Such maintenance shall be identified during the monitoring period and undertaken only following discussion and coordination with the City of Tukwila. The overall objective is to establish undisturbed plant communities that do not require maintenance. Activities may include, but are not limited to, the removal of invasive non- native vegetation and the irrigation of selected areas. Established maintenance activities include the removal of any trash within the wetland or buffer. Maintenance activities include replacing plants that did not survive and re- seeding with grasses. Maintenance activities shall include weeding to the dripline of installed plants, even if invasive species cover less than 15 %. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NON - NATIVE VEGETATION As a contingency, should the removal of invasive non - native vegetation become necessary, the project proponent shall contact City of Tukwila to establish and define specific actions to be taken. Resultant contingency plan activities shall be implemented when the ongoing vegetation monitoring program indicates that plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List, blackberries, reed canarygrass, or Scot's broom are becoming dominant in the community or exceed 15% of the aerial coverage of the planting areas. SEEDING FOR EXPOSED AREAS Seeding for all exposed surfaces within the created wetland and restored adjacent buffer shall be completed within two weeks following the completion of debris removal and placement of clean, highly organic topsoil. 15 5-Rivers 01248 Wetland Area Soil Moisture Conditions L➢pla common name scientific name percent by weight Redtop Agrostis alba 50% Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 50% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) common name scientific name percent by weight Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 15% Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 40% Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne 30% Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 15% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) CONTINGENCY PLAN As a contingency, should the proposed compensatory mitigation program fail to meet the performance criteria, the project proponent shall undertake required remedial actions. Where plant survival is the failing component, the project proponent shall replant and ensure the success of this second planting which shall be held to the same standard of success as measured by threshold criteria and monitoring processes. Where non - native, invasive vegetation exceeds 15% aerial coverage the project proponent shall undertake removal actions. Such removal actions shall be completed using hand tools or pulling the plants by hand to remove the invasive vegetation without disrupting the soil profile. All cut or pulled vegetation shall be removed from the mitigation area and disposed in an approved location. Herbicides shall only be used following approval by the City of Tukwila. All herbicide application shall be completed by a licensed professional. Should additional remedial actions be required, the project proponent shall meet with the City of Tukwila to establish and define actions to be taken to meet the desired goal of this mitigation program. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The project proponent shall ensure that a minimum of one (1) inch of water is supplied each week to the compensatory mitigation area between June 1 and October 15 for a least the first two years following initial planting. The calculated amount of required water shall include both natural rainfall and temporary irrigation. The need for additional years of irrigation shall be determined based on site conditions and overall plant survival. The amount of water supplied to the compensatory mitigation area shall be increased at the direction of the City of Tukwila or if onsite monitoring defines such a need. 16 5- Rivers 01248 PLANTING NOTES With the exception of the identified grass seed mixtures, all plant materials utilized within the restored wetland and buffer areas shall be native to the Puget Sound Region. The onsite biologist shall inspect plant materials to assure the appropriate plant schedule and plant characteristics are met. The project proponent shall warrant that all plants would remain alive and healthy for a period of one year following completion of planting activities. The project proponent shall . replace all dead and unhealthy plants with plants of the same specifications. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE Financial guarantee shall be provided for this project and shall be defined in two parts. Part One (Implementation Guarantee) shall be associated with the initial onsite compensation elements of the proposed plan. Part Two (Performance Guarantee) shall be associated with the monitoring and reporting elements of the proposed compensation plan. These guarantees shall be held by the City of Tukwila and be equal to 150% of the actual estimated costs for identified activities. This increased percentage shall allow for adequate funds to be available as a contingency should actions be required to meet the goals of these plans. The Implementation Guarantee shall be deemed to be released by the City of Tukwila upon the successful completion of the initial onsite compensation elements and the acceptance by the City of Tukwila. The Performance Guarantee shall be deemed to be released upon meeting the established threshold criteria and acceptance by the City of Tukwila of the required reporting documents. Implementation Guarantee TASK ASSOCIATED COST Removal of invasive vegetation and garbage. Final site preparation prior to planting (8 hrs machine and 2 person crew at $150 /hr plus 4 person crew for 16 hrs at $100 /hr) $ 2,800.00 Silt fencing and installation (approximately 400 linear feet) $ 2,000.00 87 trees and installation ($45.00 /each) $ 3,915.00 307 shrubs and installation ($15 /each) $ 4,605.00 150 emergents and installation ($1 /each) $ 150.00 Snags, Togs, and installation (14 at $150 /each) $ 2,100.00 Outer buffer boundary fence and installation ($12 /linear foot) $ 4,800.00 Temporary irrigation system $ 3,000.00 Onsite biologist (16 hours at $100 /hr) $ 1,600.00 Production of "record drawing" and report (8 hrs at $100 /hr). $ 800.00 SUB -TOTAL $ 25,770.00 Required 50% contingency $ 12,886.00 IMPLEMENTATION GUARANTEE TOTAL $ 38,655.00 17 5- Rivers 01248 Performance Guarantee TASK ASSOCIATED COST Year -One onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $100 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $100 /hr) $ 1,400.00 Year -Two onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $110 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $110 /hr) $ 1,600.00 Year -Three onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $110 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $110 /hr) $ 1,600.00. Year -Four onsite monitoring with expenses One time for plants (5 hrs at $120 /hr) Annual report with photos (3 hrs at $120 /hr) $ 1,100.00 Year -Three onsite monitoring with expenses One time for plants (5 hrs at $120 /hr) Annual report with photos (3 hrs at $130 /hr) $ 1,100.00 Temporary Irrigation Program - One inch of water per week between May 1st and October 15th for years one and two. $ 4,500.00 Invasive Vegetation Removal and Weeding - Three times (early March, early April, mid -June) for years one, two, and three (each at 8 hrs, 2 person crew at $50 /hr.) $ 3,600.00 SUB -TOTAL $ 14,900.00 Required 50% contingency $ 7,450.00 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE TOTAL $ 22,350.00 Following your review of this conceptual mitigation program document please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119 with any questions, suggestions, or wish to meet with the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming 18 5- Rivers 01248 REFEREY,iCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y -87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi._ Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS /OBS- 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus . appendices. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Amiy Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, June 1973. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975. 19 5- Rivers 01248 APPENDIX A Beneficial Uses of Plants Proposed for Planting in the Wetland and Buffer 20 5- Rivers 01248 BENEFICIAL USES OF PLANTS USED IN WETLAND AND BUFFER • RESTORATION AND: ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES TREE STRATA BOTANICAL NAIiE SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES . . • Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menzlesll FACU buffer • Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Excellent insect habitat which® areprey for wildlife. Important structural habitat. component, alive or as a snag. . Western red cedar Thula plicate . FAC. wetland and buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good along riparian areas. Good soil stability value. Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla FACU buffer • Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good along riparian areas. _ Sitka spruce Picea sltchensis • FAC wetland and buffer . Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Seed cones drop iri fall. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good soil stability value. big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum FACU buffer • Important structural habitat component; alive or as a snag. Stumps produce dense mass of sprout stems. Seed eaten by many wildlife species. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Good soil stability value. . Oregon ash Fraxirnus latifolia FACW wetland and buffer edge Female trees produce seeds that are eaten by many species of wildlife: Provides escape /refuge , cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat Western paper birch Betula papyrivera ' FAC wetland edge Hardy, fast growing. Seeds especially valued by goldfinches, siskins, and juncos: Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat _ cascara Rhamnus purshiana FAC- buffer edge Good soli, binding characteristics and grows well in disturbed sites. Provides escape/refuge cover, . nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. ' bitter cherry Prunus emarginata FACU buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and.insect habitat. Fruit eaten by.wildlife. Good soil stability value. • .. . Western crabapple Pyrus fusca FACW ' wetland and buffer edge Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. . black haimthorne Crataegus dougiesil FAC wetland and buffer edge Dense crown provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. • Pacific willow Salix laslandra . FACW+ . wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat_ Does not produce seed or: fruit for use by .. wildlife. . . ' SHRUB AND GROUND. COVER STRATA BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR • STATUS PLANTING LOCATION - BENEFICIAL USES . Sitka willow Sank sitchensls FACW • wetland and buffer edge Fast growing. Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escaPe/refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. Scouter willow Salix scouleriana FAC `. '. wetland and buffer edge - Fast growing. Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. red -osier dogwood • Cornus stolonifera FACW - wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Attractive multi -stem shrub with or without stems. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. White fruit eaten by wildlife. . Jsalrnonberry . Rubus spectabilis FAC+ wetland and buffer edge Good soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value for wildlife. Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value • and are persistent well Into winter. peafruit rose Rosa pisocarpa , FAC wetland and buffer edge .Excellent soil- binding characteristics.. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa FACU buffer and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas: Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. - Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capltatus FACW- wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil - binding characteristics. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. . - vine maple Acer circinatum FAC- FACU - buffer edge buffer Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi-stem shrub. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Winged fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil- binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. Gillet Gaultherla shallon . Oregon -grape - Berberls nervosa UPL buffer Good soil - binding characteristics. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. snowberry Symphoricarpus albus FACU " buffer Excellent soil - binding characteristics. Produces edible berries used by wildlife. Provides escape and . refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. black twinberry L onicera Involucrata • FAC+ . buffer Good soil - binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds.: Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Good soil-binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and Insect habitat. Pacific red elderberry Sambucus racemosa FACU buffer prickly currant Ribas lacustre FAC+ wetland and buffer edge Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. . BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES . gooseberry, Ribes divaricatum FAC wetland and buffer edge Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. . _ flowering current Ribes aangulneum UPL buffer . Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to 'hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. . hazelnut Corylus cornuta FACU buffer Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi=stem shrub. Excellent escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Nuts eaten by wildlife. Important small mammal winter stored food. kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva -ursl FACU- buffer Good soil- binding characteristics.' Produces abundant; edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. • thlmbleberry Rubus parviflorus FAC- buffer . Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum UPL buffer Good soil- binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. oceabspray Holodlscus discolor - buffer Good-sbil- binding characteristics and does well on disturbed sites. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by. wildlife. slough sedge - Carew obnupta OBL wetland Good soil - binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by wildlife. . small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus .OBL wetland Good soil- binding characteristics. Seeds eaten by wildlife. common cattail Typha latlfolia ' OBL wetland _ Good soil- binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Stems and seeds are eaten by wildlife. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting sites, and insect habitat. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES January 28, 2006 Ms. Aleanna Kondelis, Planner /Project Manager @ Cramer NW, Inc. 945 North Central, #104 Kent, Washington 98031 lu� APR Ag2°6 PERMIT RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, City of Tukwila Conceptual Mitigation Program for Unavoidable Wetland Impacts Associated with the Primary Access Roadway Dear Ms. Kondelis, The initial conceptual mitigation programs for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat dated December 19, 2003 and April 1, 2005 have been revised below to be consistent with the newly adopted changes in the City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45 effective December 2004 and comments provided by the City of Tukwila staff. In particular, the newly adopted ordinance has changed the criteria used by the City to categorize different wetland areas and has changed the associated protective buffers associated with these wetlands. In addition, the City of Tukwila staff has recommended the restoration of existing degraded onsite wetland areas rather than the creation of new onsite wetland and the primary compensatory mitigation feature. Examples of the ordinance changes include: • Under the prior regulations Wetland A and Wetland C met the criteria for designation as Type 2 Wetlands because both of these wetlands exhibited a forested plant community that comprised more than 20% of the wetland area. HOWEVER, this criterion is no longer within the new regulations. As such, under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A and Wetland C appear best defined as Type 3 Wetlands. • Under the prior regulations Wetland B and Wetland D met the criteria for designation as Type 3 Wetlands. HOWEVER, the new regulation sets a minimum wetland size for regulation at 1,000 square feet. As such, under the newly adopted regulations Wetland B and Wetland D appear best defined as non - regulated. • Under the newly adopted regulations the City may allow Type 3 Wetlands to be altered or relocated only with the permission on the City and with a mitigation or enhancement plan that complies with the standards of mitigation required in Chapter 18.45. The goal of the conceptual mitigation program is to provide full and complete compensation for unavoidable impacts to a City of Tukwila regulated wetland as a direct wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions 1 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 5- Rivers 01248 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 habitattech @gwest.net result of the development of a required access roadway which meets City of Tukwila roadway and public health /safety standards. WETLAND DETERMINATION As outlined in the Habitat Technologies letter dated September 16, 2003, wetland determination for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Based on these methods four (4) areas that exhibits all three of these criteria were identified onsite. In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary, however, this swale does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and does not meet the City of Tukwila definition as a "watercourse" under TMC18.45.06.920. WETLAND SIZE (sqft) PRIOR CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING PRIOR STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH NEWLY ADOPTED CITY WETLAND RATING NEWLY ADOPTED STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 4,320 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet B 898 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON - REGULATED C 3,503 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet D 663 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON - REGULATED Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southeastern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. As discussed with City of Tukwila staff a scattering of trees (red alder — Alnus rubra, black cottonwood — Populus trichocarpa, Pacific willow - Salix lasiandra) were present along the edge of this wetland. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland eventually entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the projectsite. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling 2 5- Rivers 01248 plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. The wetland was well shaded by red alder trees rooted primary outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to be the result of an internal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila non - regulated because of small size ( <1,000sgft). Wetland C: This wetland was located within a shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant community composed of young red alder (approximately 15 years old) rooted both within and outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite and included the old concrete foundation and assorted garbage. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland D: This wetland was located within a shallow depression formed by an old internal roadway within the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and emergent plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain saturated well into the growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland D meets the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated (PSSE); and palustrine, emergent seasonally flooded /saturated (PEME). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila non- regulated because of small size ( <1,000 sqft). CITY WETLAND BOUNDARY VERIFICATION The onsite wetland boundaries have been reviewed and verified by City of Tukwila environmental staff. 3 5- Rivers 01248 CITY OF TUKWILA Environmentally Sensitive Areas Chapter 18.45 WETLAND AND STREAM TYPES (newly adopted) A Type 1 Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is characterized by the presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, of the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those species; 2. The wetland has 40 -60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. The wetland is equal to or greater than five acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water; or 4. The wetland is documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A Type 2 Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is equal to or greater than one acre in size; 2. The wetland has three or more wetland classes and is less than 5 acres; 3. The wetland is characterized by the presence of nesting sites for priority species as listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or 4. The wetland is hydrologically connected (non - isolated) to a Type 1 or Type .2 watercourse. A Type 3 Wetland is a wetland that is greater than 1,000 square feet and less than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH Type 1 Wetland 100 feet Type 2 Wetland 80 feet Type 3 Wetland 50 feet SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION Development of the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat focuses on establishing independent lots for the future development of residential homesites consistent with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and local zoning. The development of these independent lots has avoided direct impacts to identified City of Tukwila regulated wetlands as much as possible. However, to meet City of Tukwila roadway and public health /safety standards a minor direct impact to Wetland C has been defined as unavoidable Through compensatory mitigation the Selected Development Action would not result in a "net Toss" of regulated wetland function or value consistent with the City of Tukwila — 4 5- Rivers 01248 Environmentally Sensitive Areas — Chapter 18.45. The selected site development plan would result in the following actions: WETLAND SIZE (sqft) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE PROPOSED ACTION A 3,712 sqft 3 This wetland and its associated established buffer would be retained and restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. Hydrology for the retained wetland would be supplemented by the addition of rooftops drains to these areas (if required). A minor amount of buffer area along the northern edge of this wetland would be eliminated through buffer averaging. Compensatory buffer area would be added to the overall site between Wetland A and Wetland C. The addition of this buffer area would ensure a connection between these to wetland area. B 527 sqft Non- Regulated This non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide for an internal roadway and new lot areas. C 3,417 sqft 3 Majority of this wetland would be retained. However, 336 square feet of this wetland would be directly impacted by the development of the new access roadway. In addition 1,320 square feet of this wetland would be converted into protective buffer without being filled. The total impact to this wetland equals 1,656 square feet. As compensation for the unavoidable impacts to Wetland C at least 5,000 square feet of existing wetland area within Wetland C and Wetland A shall be resorted through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. The retained buffer shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. Hydrology for the retained wetland would be supplemented by the addition of rooftops drains to these areas (if required). 5 5- Rivers 01248 SELECTED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION APPROACH Site planning for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat has focused on the mandated hierarchy of wetland impact reduction: 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, and 3) compensation. These avoidance and minimization strategies included a site design to reduce impacts to onsite wetland systems. The present site design would retain the majority of regulated onsite Wetlands A and C, restore and enhance existing regulated wetland and buffer areas, and establish protective buffers in accordance with newly revised City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45. Unavoidable impacts to Wetland C shall be mitigated through the restoration of at least 5,000 square feet of existing wetland area within Wetland C and Wetland A. Restoration shall include the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. The retained buffer areas associated with Wetland C and Wetland A shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs (see attached Site Plan). Wetland B and the majority of Wetland D shall be filled to created the internal roadway and new homesite lots. Both of these wetlands are isolated, less than 1,000 square feet in area, exhibit a low functional value rating, and are not regulated by the City of Tukwila. The overall impacts to Wetland C and its associated buffer resulting from the development of the new access roadway shall be minimized through the creation of a near vertical wall rather than a roadway fill slope. Potential impacts associated with the construction of this new supportive wall shall be minimized by ensuring that all work would be completed from the roadway side of the new roadway corridor. The work area would be clearly marked and protected with silt fencing and appropriate erosion controls. The defined work area would follow the established edge of the new roadway right of way and would not extend into the retained wetland or retained buffer. 6 5- Rivers 01248 A minor amount of buffer area along the eastern edge of this wetland would be eliminated through buffer averaging. Compensatory buffer area would be added to the overall site between Wetland A and Wetland C. The addition of this buffer area would ensure a connection between these to wetland area. D 691 sqft Non- Regulated Majority of this non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide new lot area. That portion of this wetland within the retained buffer of Wetland C and Wetland A would be retained. SELECTED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION APPROACH Site planning for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat has focused on the mandated hierarchy of wetland impact reduction: 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, and 3) compensation. These avoidance and minimization strategies included a site design to reduce impacts to onsite wetland systems. The present site design would retain the majority of regulated onsite Wetlands A and C, restore and enhance existing regulated wetland and buffer areas, and establish protective buffers in accordance with newly revised City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45. Unavoidable impacts to Wetland C shall be mitigated through the restoration of at least 5,000 square feet of existing wetland area within Wetland C and Wetland A. Restoration shall include the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. The retained buffer areas associated with Wetland C and Wetland A shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs (see attached Site Plan). Wetland B and the majority of Wetland D shall be filled to created the internal roadway and new homesite lots. Both of these wetlands are isolated, less than 1,000 square feet in area, exhibit a low functional value rating, and are not regulated by the City of Tukwila. The overall impacts to Wetland C and its associated buffer resulting from the development of the new access roadway shall be minimized through the creation of a near vertical wall rather than a roadway fill slope. Potential impacts associated with the construction of this new supportive wall shall be minimized by ensuring that all work would be completed from the roadway side of the new roadway corridor. The work area would be clearly marked and protected with silt fencing and appropriate erosion controls. The defined work area would follow the established edge of the new roadway right of way and would not extend into the retained wetland or retained buffer. 6 5- Rivers 01248 Mitigation Benefits The restoration of the retained wetland and buffer areas is designed to accompany site development. The primary benefits associated with the proposed compensatory mitigation program include the restoration and enhancement of a viable wetland and buffer complex of native emergents, shrubs, and trees within an area presently impacted by.past land use activities. The selected plant species would increase diversity and complexity within the mitigation site. In addition, the wetland and buffer complex shall be defined within an independent tract (Tract B). DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM 1. As compensation for the unavoidable direct impact to 336 square feet of City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland C) and the conversion of 1,320 square feet of City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland C) into buffer, a minimum of 5,000 square feet of retained wetland within Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored. The amount of wetland to be restored provides a 3.0 to 1.0 restoration ratio (restored to impacted). Wetland restoration shall include the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. 2. Protective buffers shall be established for Wetland A and Wetland C. A minor amount of buffer area along the eastern edge of Wetland C and along the northern edge of Wetland A shall be eliminated. Through buffer averaging additional buffer area shall be added within the southwestern corner of the project site. 3. The buffer associated with the retained Wetland C and Wetland A shall also be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs, the removal of garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. 4. Habitat features (i.e. standing snags and downed logs) shall be placed within the created wetland, and restored wetland and buffer areas to provide structural diversity and habitats for wildlife common to the area. 3. Habitat features (i.e. standing snags and downed logs) shall be placed within the restored wetland and buffer areas to provide structural diversity and habitats for wildlife common to the area. 4. All onsite activities shall be monitored by the onsite biologist. Following the completion of onsite planting activities a "record- drawing" plan and implementation report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila. 5. Following City of Tukwila approval of the implemented program a five -year monitoring program shall be undertaken to ensure the success of the compensatory mitigation program. A series of financial guarantees shall also be implemented (if 7 5- Rivers 01248 required by the City of Tukwila) to assure that the proposed work is completed and is successful. 6. Temporary and Tong -term erosion control measures shall be implemented. These measures include silt fencing during site preparation and wetland restoration, and seeding of exposed soil areas. 7. The outer boundary of Tract B (Wetlands A and C, and their associated established buffers) shall be marked with standard City of Tukwila "Wetland Buffer Boundary" signs at 25 -foot intervals. 8. This outer buffer boundary of Tract B shall be permanently fenced to limit intrusion into these areas. The fence can be either a six -foot solid -wood fence, a split rail, six - foot chain link fence, or other City of Tukwila pre- approved substitute. At least one access gate shall be provided through the fence for maintenance and monitoring purposes. GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The GOAL of the Compensatory Mitigation Program is to fully compensate for the unavoidable adverse impact to Wetland C resulting from the development of a new access roadway. Upon the completion of this mitigation program there shall be no net loss of regulated wetland functions or values, and an increase in the potential for the established wetlands and buffers to protect local aquatic and terrestrial habitats. To achieve the defined GOAL, the following OBJECTIVES and PERFORMANCE CRITERIA have are defined: Objective A. A minimum of 5,000 square feet of existing degraded wetland area within retained Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored. Performance Criterion #A1: As defined at representative sample plots the emergent plant community within the restored 5,000 square feet of existing wetland area shall exhibit at least an 80% coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #A2: As defined by representative sample plots the scrub /shrub and sapling vegetation class within the restored 5,000 square feet of existing wetland area shall exhibit at least a 50% aerial coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #A3: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored wetlands shall exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following planting. 8 5- Rivers 01248 Performance Criterion #A4: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 80% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored wetlands and buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the fifth growing season following planting. Objective B. The buffer areas associated with Wetland C and Wetland A shall be restored and shall exhibit a scrub /shrub and sapling tree vegetation classes within five years following initial planting. Performance Criterion #B1: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following planting. Performance Criterion #B2: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 80% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the restored buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the fifth growing season following planting. Objective C. The restored wetland and buffer areas shall include the placement of snags and downed logs which provide nesting and cover habitat for passerine birds common to the area. Performance Criterion #C1: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at . bottom of rootball) and a minimum of two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored portion of Wetland A. Performance Criterion #C2: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored portion of Wetland C. Performance Criterion #C3: A minimum of three (3) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of three (3) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored buffer areas adjacent to Wetland A and Wetland C. 9 5- Rivers 01248 SELECTED PLANT COMMUNITIES The plants selected for placement within the restored wetland and buffer areas shall be obtained as nursery stock. These selected species are native and commonly occur in • the local area. The plant species prescribed are selected to increase plant diversity, match present onsite communities, increase wildlife habitats, and enhance the aquatic environment (Appendix A). 10 5- Rivers 01248 PLANT ID COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PROPOSED SPACING (oc) PROPOSED SIZE PLANTING LOCATION 2 SAL Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 16 PIS Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland buffer edge 23 THP Western red cedar Thuja plicata 10 ft 4 ft height minimum. Wetland buffer edge 6 TSH Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer 19 ACM Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer 6 FRL Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 3 PYF Western crabapple Pyrus fusca 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland 7 RON Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 77 ROG Wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 96 SYA Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 19 ACC Vine maple Acer circinatum 4 ft 2 gal Buffer 4 LOI Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata • 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 4 PHC Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge 9 COS Red osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera 4 ft 2 gal Wetland , 9 SAS Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 4 ft 2 gal Wetland 42 CAO Carex obnupta Salix sitchensis 1 ft 4 inch plug . Wetland 41 SCM Small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 1 ft 4 inch plug Wetland 10 5- Rivers 01248 MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION Essential to the success of the compensatory mitigation program is the accurate inspection of onsite activities immediately prior to and during the initial wetland and buffer restoration phase. These activities include pre - implementation site inspection, onsite inspection and technical direction during wetland restoration and planting activities, and post - planting site inspection and evaluation. The pre - implementation site inspection allows the project team and the project biologist to evaluate and, if necessary, undertaken minor adjustments in the onsite implementation steps. These steps include analysis of project site elevation features, project sequencing and timing, final grade analysis, unforeseen required minor modifications to the original establishment plan, and the establishment of environmental protections (silt fences, etc.) required during implementation. Onsite technical inspection during implementation and planting activities shall be implemented by the project biologist. The project biologist shall perform implementation oversight and address minor unforeseen implementation difficulties to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. The removal of existing invasive vegetation within the mitigation area shall be undertaken by hand and potentially a small excavator. All removed vegetation shall be conveyed by a large 10 -yard dump truck to an approved upland disposal area. The project biologist shall also be responsible for ensuring that the species and sizes of native plants selected and noted within the final planting plan are utilized during implementation. If selected native species become unavailable, the project biologist shall consult with the City of Tukwila for substitute plant species to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. Post - implementation site inspection/ evaluation shall include the preparation of a "record- drawings" and associated implementation report which shall be submitted to the City of Tukwila. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROJECT TASK TASK SCHEDULE Completed on or before Onsite pre - implementation project meeting July 15, 200x Placement of protective fencing, final marking, and identification of work area. July 30, 200x Removal of invasive vegetation and existing garbage. Aug. 15, 200x Placement of habitat features. Aug. 30, 200x Seeding of disturbed areas. . Aug. 30, 200x Planting of wetland and adjacent buffer. Nov. 15, 200x Record - drawing and implementation report to City Dec. 5, 200x 11 5- Rivers 01248 Should this mitigation implementation not following the time period noted above the project team would coordinate a revised schedule with the City of Tukwila. PROJECT MONITORING Following the successful completion of the proposed restoration actions a five year monitoring and evaluation program shall be undertaken. The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the selected mitigation as measured by an established set of performance criteria (see above). This monitoring shall also provide valuable information on the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS • Vegetation Sampling Methodology Permanent vegetation sampling plots shall be located within the restored wetlands and the restored buffer areas. Observations and measurements shall be recorded for all plant species in order of dominance based on the relative percent cover for each species within the various vegetation strata. Sampling for tree and shrub species shall be completed in 30 -foot radius sampling plots. The evaluation of the success of the compensatory mitigation program shall be based on the expected cover percentages and the selected survival rate for trees and shrubs. These defined performance criteria shall be applied at the times of yearly monitoring. The percent of aerial cover and the percent survival rate shall be based on combined counts of existing, volunteer plants, and planted species during vegetation monitoring. Sample location shall be shown on the design and the "record drawings" (i.e. "as- built ") plans, and shall correspond to identified photopoints. Trees and shrubs shall be visually evaluated to determine the rate of survivorship, health, and vigor of each plant. 1. As a part of each monitoring period the project biologist shall count the number of live plants which are planted within the representative sample plots. Plants shall be identified to species and observations of general plant condition (i.e., plant health, amount of new growth) are to be recorded for each plant. 2. At all identified sample plots the project biologist shall determine percent coverage of vegetation for emergent species and for the scrub /shrub and sapling tree species. 3. At identified sample plots within the restored wetland and buffer areas the project biologist shall count the number of undesirable invasive plants and estimate the aerial coverage (as if the observer were looking straight down from above) of these invasive plants. Undesirable plants include blackberries, Scot's broom, tansy ragwort, reed canarygrass, and plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List. 12 5- Rivers 01248 4. At identified sample plots within the restored wetland and buffer areas the project biologist shall count the number of desirable "volunteer" plants and estimate the aerial coverage of these plants. 5. The project biologist shall take photographs that show the entire compensatory mitigation area. During the five year monitoring period photos shall be taken in the same direction and at the same location to provide a series of photos. These photos shall show plant growth, plant species, and plant coverage. 6. Upon the completion of each annual monitoring period the project biologist shall prepare a report defining methods, observations, and results along with the date the observations were completed. Each report shall be provided to the City of Tukwila. 7. The monitoring schedule is defined as: A. Twice a year for two years following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once early in the growing season (late March to mid - April) and once again near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity an annual report shall be prepared and provided to the City of Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of the fall monitoring. B. Once a year for years three, four, and five following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity an annual report shall be prepared and provided to the City of Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of the fall monitoring. • Vegetation Monitoring Sequence MONITORING YEAR VEGETATION MONITORING SUBMITTAL OF MONITORING REPORT YEAR -1 On or about April 15, 200x +1 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +1 Report due'Oct. 7, 200x +1 YEAR -2 On or about April 15, 200x +2 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +2 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +2 YEAR -3 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +3 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +3 YEAR -4 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +4 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +4 YEAR -5 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +5 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +5 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance of the restored wetland and buffer plant communities may be required to assure the long -term health and welfare of the wetland's and buffer's environmental functions. Such maintenance shall be identified during the monitoring period and undertaken only following discussion and coordination with the City of Tukwila. The 13 5- Rivers 01248 overall objective is to establish undisturbed plant communities that do not require maintenance. Activities may include, but are not limited to, the removal of invasive non- native vegetation and the irrigation of selected areas. Established maintenance activities include the removal of any trash within the wetland or buffer. REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NON - NATIVE VEGETATION As a contingency, should the removal of invasive non - native vegetation become necessary, the project proponent shall contact City of Tukwila to establish and define specific actions to be taken. Resultant contingency plan activities shall be implemented when the ongoing vegetation monitoring program indicates that plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List, blackberries, reed canarygrass, or Scot's broom are becoming dominant in the community or exceed 15% of the aerial coverage of the planting areas. SEEDING FOR EXPOSED AREAS Seeding for all exposed surfaces within the created wetland and restored adjacent buffer shall be completed within two weeks following the completion of debris removal and placement of clean, highly organic topsoil. Wetla Uplar common name scientific name 1 percent by weight Redtop Agrostis alba 50% Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 50% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) common name scientific name 1 percent by weight Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 15% Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 40% Perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne 30% Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 15% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) CONTINGENCY PLAN As a contingency; should the proposed compensatory mitigation program fail to meet the performance criteria, the project proponent shall undertake required remedial actions. Where plant survival is the failing component, the project proponent shall replant and ensure the success of this second planting which shall be held to the same standard of success as measured by threshold criteria and monitoring processes. Where non - native, invasive vegetation exceeds 15% aerial coverage the project proponent shall undertake removal actions. Such removal actions shall be completed using hand tools or pulling the plants by hand to remove the invasive vegetation without 14 5- Rivers 01248 disrupting the soil profile. All cut or pulled vegetation shall be removed from the mitigation area and disposed in an approved location. Herbicides shall only be used following approval by the City of Tukwila. All herbicide application shall be completed by a licensed professional. Should additional remedial actions be required, the project proponent shall meet with the City of Tukwila to establish and define actions to be taken to meet the desired goal of this mitigation program. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The project proponent shall ensure that a minimum of one (1) inch of water is supplied each week to the compensatory mitigation area between June 1 and October 15 for a least the first two years following initial planting. The calculated amount of required water shall include both natural rainfall and temporary irrigation. The need for additional years of irrigation shall be determined based on site conditions and overall plant survival. The amount of water supplied to the compensatory mitigation area shall be increased at the direction of the City of Tukwila or if onsite monitoring defines such a need. PLANTING NOTES With the exception of the identified grass seed mixtures, all plant materials utilized within the restored wetland and buffer areas shall be native to the Puget Sound Region. The onsite biologist shall inspect plant materials to assure the appropriate plant schedule and plant characteristics are met. The project proponent shall warrant that all plants would remain alive and healthy for a period of one year following completion of planting activities. The project proponent shall replace all dead and unhealthy plants with plants of the same specifications. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE Financial guarantee shall be provided for this project and shall be defined in two parts. Part One (Implementation Guarantee) shall be associated with the initial onsite compensation elements of the proposed plan. Part Two (Performance Guarantee) shall be associated with the monitoring and reporting elements of the proposed compensation plan. These guarantees shall be held by the City of Tukwila and be equal to 150% of the actual estimated costs for identified activities. This increased percentage shall allow for adequate funds to be available as a contingency should actions be required to meet the goals of these plans. The Implementation Guarantee shall be deemed to be released by the City of Tukwila upon the successful completion of the initial onsite compensation elements and the acceptance by the City of Tukwila. The Performance Guarantee shall be deemed to be released upon meeting the established threshold criteria and acceptance by the City of Tukwila of the required reporting documents. 15 5- Rivers 01248 - Implementation Guarantee • TASK ASSOCIATED COST Removal of invasive vegetation and garbage. Final site preparation prior to planting (8 hrs machine and 2 person crew at $150 /hr plus 4 person crew for 16 hrs at $100 /hr) $ 2,800.00 Silt fencing and installation (approximately 400 linear feet) $ 2,000.00 75 trees and installation ($45.00 /each) $ 3,375.00 225 shrubs and installation ($15 /each) $ 3,375.00 83 emergents and installation ($1 /each) $ 83.00 Snags, Togs, and installation (14 at $150 /each) $ 2,100.00 Outer buffer boundary fence and installation ($12 /linear foot) $ 4,800.00 Temporary irrigation system $ 3,000.00 Onsite biologist (16 hours at $100 /hr) 0 $ 1,600.00 Production of "record drawing" and report (8 hrs at $100 /hr). $ 800.00 SUB -TOTAL $ 23,933.00 Required 50% contingency $ 11,966.50 IMPLEMENTATION GUARANTEE TOTAL $ 35,8997.50 . Performance Guarantee TASK ASSOCIATED COST Year -One onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $100 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $100 /hr) $ 1,400.00 Year -Two onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $110 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $110 /hr) $ 1,600.00 Year -Three onsite monitoring with expenses Two times for plants (10 hrs at $110 /hr) Annual report with photos (4 hrs at $110 /hr) $ 1,600.00 Year -Four onsite monitoring with expenses One time for plants (5 hrs at $120 /hr) Annual report with photos (3 hrs at $120 /hr) $ 1,100.00 Year -Three onsite monitoring with expenses One time for plants (5 hrs at $120 /hr) Annual report with photos (3 hrs at $130 /hr) $ 1,100.00 Temporary Irrigation Program - One inch of water per week between May 1st and October 15th for years one and two. $ 4,500.00 Invasive Vegetation Removal - Three times (early March, early April, mid -June) for years one, two, and three (each at 8 hrs, 2 person crew at $50 /hr.) $ 3,600.00 SUB -TOTAL $ 14,900.00 Required 50% contingency $ 7,450.00 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE TOTAL $ 22,350.00 16 5- Rivers 01248 Following your review of this conceptual mitigation program document please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119 with any questions, suggestions, or wish to meet with the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming 17 5- Rivers 01248 REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y -87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS /OBS- 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, June 1973. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975. 18 5- Rivers 01248 APPENDIX A Beneficial Uses of Plants Proposed for Planting in the Wetland and Buffer 19, 5- Rivers 01248 - BENEFICIAL USES OF PLANTS USED IN WETLAND AND BUFFER RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES TREE STRATA BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Excellent insect habitat which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Western red cedar Thujaplicata FAC • wetland and buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good along riparian areas. Good soil stability value. Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla FACU buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. ,Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good along riparian areas. Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis FAC wetland and buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Seed cones drop in fall. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good soil stability value. big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum FACU buffer Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Stumps produce dense mass of sprout stems. Seed eaten by many wildlife species. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Good soil stability value. Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW wetland and buffer edge Female trees produce seeds that are eaten by many species of wildlife. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Western paper birch Betula papyrivera FAC wetland edge Hardy, fast growing. Seeds especially valued by goldfinches; siskins, and juncos. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. cascara • Rhamnus purshiana FAC - buffer edge Good soil- binding characteristics and grows well in disturbed sites. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. bitter cherry Prunus emarginata FACU buffer Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. Western crabapple Pyrus fusca FACW wetland and buffer edge Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. black hawthorne Crataegus douglasii FAC wetland and buffer edge Dense crown provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. Pacific willow Salix.lasiandra FACW+ wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. - = -� --- SHRUB AND GROUND COVER STRATA BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES Sitka willow Salixsitchensis FACW wetland and buffer edge Fast growing. Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. Scouler willow . Salixscouleriana FAC wetland and buffer edge Fast growing. Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. red -osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera FACW wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Attractive multi -stem shrub with or without stems. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. White fruit eaten by wildlife. satmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC+ wetland and buffer edge Good soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value for wildlife. _ Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC.. wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. peafruit rose Rosa pisocarpa FAC wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa FACU buffer and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus FACW- wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. vine maple Acer circinatum FAC- buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Winged fruit eaten by wildlife. salal Gaultheria shallon FACU buffer Good soil- binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. Oregon grape Berberis nervosa UPL buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces-edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. snowberry Symphoricarpus albus FACU buffer Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Produces edible berries used by wildlife. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. black twinberry Lonicera involucrata FAC+ buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Pacific red elderberry • Sambucus racemosa. FACU buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. prickly current Ribes lacustre . FAC+ wetland and buffer edge Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. -- .:'' _� • BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES gooseberry Ribes divaricatum FAC wetland and buffer edge Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. flowering current. Ribes.sanguineum UPL buffer Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. hazelnut Corylus cornuta FACU buffer Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Nuts eaten by wildlife. Important small mammal winter stored food. kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos uva -ursi FACU- buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces abundant, edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. thimbleberry Rubus parviflorus FAC- _ buffer Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum UPL buffer Good soil- binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. oceanspray Holodiscus discolor - buffer Good soil- binding characteristics and does well on disturbed sites. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by wildlife. slough sedge Carex obnupta OBL wetland Good soil- binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by wildlife. small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL wetland Good soil- binding characteristics. Seeds eaten by wildlife. common cattail Typha latifolia OBL wetland Good soil- binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Stems and seeds are eaten by wildlife. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting sites, and insect habitat. city of Tukwila U C 0 2'0 5 b 'av 11°3 RECEIVE0H- Abi.pf Tee_ 253 g41 /RLI2 e 2.a-er 153 65-6. 6 155" X51 (O t 54 7Ogg Steven M Mullet, Mayor COMMUiNI r DEVELOPMENT Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 3, 2005 Aleanna Kondelis Cramer NW, Inc. 945 N. Central #104 Kent WA 98032 Re: Request for additional information for Short Plat and SEPA application. File numbers L05 -040 and E05 -008. II P►VGrS Dear Ms. Kondelis: Based on review of your submittals the following information is required to further process your application: I. Planning Department comments: The survey plan must be revised as follows: a) Show the access road as a private tract. b) Provide legal descriptions of the existing and proposed lots. c) Add the file number. d) Include signature block for Tukwila short subdivision committee approval. e) The total number of lots is stated as 8. The number should be changed to the actual proposed lots. f) The property line along the southwest corner of the subject site is not accurately shown. It does not match with the King County Assessor's map. 2. Please address the following comments regarding lot layout: a) The civil plan must show planned access to lots, driveways, expected locatiop . and finished floor elevations of the proposed homes. Access to lots 1, 2 and 3 appears to be difficult. Lot 6 has a 15 feet sewer easement in the middle of the lot and it appears that there may not be enough room- to locate a house on that lot. Also, please note that there is 30 feet setback that is recommended by the geotechnical engineer on lots 4, 5 and 6. b) The private road section shall be reduced to include 24 feet of pavement with sidewalk, curb and gutter on both sides. It appears that you may be able to reduce the total width, which is currently shown as 48 feet. 6300 Sou.'hcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 3. a) The numbering of the lots and the list of trees to be removed as shown on the landscape plan is incorrect. For the calculation of replacement trees, a separate drawing must be included that shows the existing trees, location of steep slopes and sensitive areas and the trees to be removed from the sensitive areas or their associated buffers must be clearly marked. c) The landscaping plan must show any proposed landscaping in the storm- W(/ drainage vault area. Further a number of trees are proposed within 30 feet setback along the east property line. This setback was recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Please co- ordinate the landscaping plan with the geotechnical report. Also, trees are shown adjacent to the drainage vault. Also refer to the attached memo from Sandra Whiting, City's Urban Biologist regarding additional comments on tree replacement and landscape plan. 4. CCR's for the proposed short plat should address maintenance of private �� rt drainage, private road and maintenance of sensitive area tracts. 5. Following are comments pertaining to corresponding item in the SEPA checklist: ESA Screening Checklist: Since response to 3 -0, 5 -0, 3 -1, 3 -2 is yes, please provide details in the SEPA checklist. SEPA Checklist: B.1.e. Be more specific about the proposed grading. Detailed information and preliminary grading plan is required to analyze any environmental impacts. B.1.g. Be more specific and provide the percentage. B.1.h. Be more specific. B.3.a.3 Please provide a response regarding the amount of fill and source of fill. B.3.b.1 Geo- technical report states that ground water is present at approximately 10 feet below surface and it is likely that this level fluctuates and the geo- technical analyses was done during a very dry period. Also, substantial grading is proposed for the infrastructure and foundations of residential structures. Please discuss what measures are proposed if groundwater is encountered during grading and discuss the impacts associated with it. B.3.c.1 Instead of referring to the drainage report, please provide a response as all the agencies are just mailed the SEPA checklist. B.4.b. The proposal must meet all TMC regulations related to vegetation removal. Information requested above under subdivision preliminary plat, related to wetlands and significant trees within any sensitive areas including slopes is required to determine if all impacts associated with vegetation removal will be addressed by existing city codes. B.4.d Please refer to comments on the landscaping plan and amend your response. B.7.b.1. Is any mitigation proposed to reduce the noise from the adjacent freeway? B.12.a. Was any pedestrian connection proposed to the Crystal Springs Park or the elevated walkway.along Klickitat Drive considered? II.Building Department comments: Please note that as part of the building permit review process individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. Approval of the subgrade by a geotechnical engineer for each foundation excavation including the drainage vault will be required. Rockries will not be approved for this site unless the backfill is constructed in accordance with a design by a licensed professional engineer. III. Fire Department comments: Ensure hydrant spacing meets the 150' to a proposed structure by path of travel and no point greater than 300' requirement. IV. Comment by Sandra Whiting, the City's Urban Biologist: A. Comments on the Revised Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan General Comments on Proposed Mitigation 1. Wetland C. a. To reduce the amount of wetland filling, the pavement width could be reduced to 24 feet from 28 feet, reducing the width of the private access road needed. Refer to comments from the Public Works Department. b. It is likely that there will be encroachment into the wetland during construction of the access road beyond what as shown as the area to be filled. The Mitigation Plan should discuss these temporary impacts to Wetland C during construction of the access road and explain how those impacts will be mitigated. c. The filling of Wetland C will leave the wetland with no buffer for much of its length along the new access roadway and a reduced buffer for a small portion. In order to protect the function of the wetland that remains after construction, a buffer will be necessary. A portion of the remaining wetland should be designated as buffer along the north side of the wetland abutting the new access road. A buffer reduction under the SAO could be requested (reducing the buffer by no more than 50 %, or 25 feet). Additional wetland mitigation acreage will then be needed to make up for the amount lost to the buffer designation. 2. The proposed wetland creation to the south of Wetland A puts the wetland buffer on City of Seattle right of way, which does not provide a functional buffer, since it is mowed and vehicles may use it periodically. In addition, part of the wetland would be constructed through a sewer line easement, which the applicant does not have authority to use and means the wetland could be disrupted on occasion. The proposed location for creation is unacceptable for these reasons. It is recommended that instead of wetland creation, the applicant consider either creating wetland in a different location or using wetland enhancement in wetlands C and A as mitigation for the unavoidable wetland filling. Due to the presence of rubbish and invasive vegetation in the wetlands and their buffers, enhancement could be a way to significantly improve wetland function. Enhancement requires a ratio of 3:1. 3. For Wetland A, in lieu of reducing the wetland acreage by designating part of it as buffer, it is recommended that the applicant first request a buffer reduction and provide a buffer enhancement plan. Then the applicant could designate additional buffer only as necessary to meet the 25 foot reduced buffer requirement, or the boundary of Lot 7 could be moved slightly. Reducing the buffer width instead of doing a "paper fill' of the buffer would also reduce the amount of total wetland acreage required to be mitigated. 4. The applicant is responsible for obtaining Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations for the wetlands and all applicable Federal and State permits for wetland filling. The applicant shall submit copies of correspondence with the applicable Federal and State agencies to the City. Specific Comments on Mitigation Plan (some comments may not apply if the applicant changes the approach to wetland mitigation) 5. Page 1, second bullet. The 1000 -foot exemption also existed under the previous Sensitive Areas Ordinance, so this is not a change with respect to Wetlands B and D. 6. Page 3 first complete paragraph. There is a typographical error - Wetland A is not non - regulated. 7. Page 3, bottom of page. While it is true that wetland boundaries were reviewed by City staff, what was apparently agreed in the field regarding the boundaries of Wetland C is not the boundary that is indicated on the drawings. See the discussion of Wetland C delineation below. 8. Page 5, table, Wetland A. The square footage of the proposed created wetland shown in the table does not match that shown on the drawing. 9. Page 5, table, Wetland A. Directing roof -top drains to the wetlands is not in accordance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report letter prepared by LSI Adapt Inc. on April 4, 2003. This report specifically says that no surface or roof runoff should be infiltrated on site and instead should be tight lined and discharged to the municipal sewer system. Therefore, this method should not be used to supplement wetland hydrology. Given this restriction, will there be a problem in maintaining wetland hydrology if stormwater is not discharged into the wetlands? Related to that, what will be the potential impacts on the site hydrology of increasing impervious surfaces, collecting stormwater and putting it into the sewer and of filling wetlands B and D? 10. Page 6. This section of the mitigation plan should describe the alternative locations considered for the location of the access road and explain why the impacts to Wetland C cannot be avoided or reduced by relocating the road. 11. Page 7, item 8. A split rail fence is preferred. 12. Page 7, Goal and Objective of the Mitigation Plan. See general comment #3 above regarding conversion of part of Wetland A to buffer. 13. Page 9, "Selected Plant Communities ". Where will the construction access be located? 14. Page 15, seeding. Please explain the rationale for using non - native grasses in the seed mix for the wetland and buffer areas. Is it in order to have some short-lived species that will eventually be replaced by other vegetation? Also, why Agrostis alba, since it is apparently shade intolerant? 15. Page 14. The proposed hydrology monitoring schedule for the created wetland (through May 15) does not coincide with demonstrating the performance standard stated on page 8 for soil saturation through June. 16. Drawings. All the site drawings show a different acreage amount for the wetland creation than what is stated in the mitigation plan (1803 sq.ft. versus 1903 sq.ft.). Wetland C Delineation After Wetland C boundaries were re- flagged in the field per the City's request, the site was revisited on September 22 to check the wetland boundaries and to locate the center- line of the proposed driveway /access road. The wetland flags are now clearly marked and the flag numbers are accurately depicted on the drawing sent to us. However, the determination of the location of center -line of the drive was not possible, as no stakes or other marking were visible in the field. While in the field, saturated soils and wetland vegetation were observed outside the currently flagged boundary of Wetland C between Flags CC -4 and CC -5. A soil pit was dug to characterize the soils. The soils were saturated and met hydric soil criteria, and the dominant plant in the vicinity was salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), which meets the wetland vegetation criterion. Therefore, it appears that Wetland C extends beyond the currently flagged area between CC -4 and CC -5. A change in the wetland boundary in the area in question would not affect the applicant's proposal, nor would it likely change the wetland classification. We should, however, make sure the wetland boundaries and acreage are accurate. There was no indication in the Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Report of June 2002 that a sample plot was established in this area. However, if the area has already been evaluated by the consultant and ruled out as wetland, the City would be happy to review existing data before deciding on the need to go back into the field. If there are no data on this area, the wetland consultant should recheck this area. It would make sense for me to meet the consultant in the field to check this area together. B. Comments on Tree replacement and Landscape Plan 1. The lot numbers are not consistent with those shown on the drainage plan. V" �i � 2. The plan should make clear which trees are to be preserved within the clearing limit. For example on Lot "5 ", the replacement schedule shows that no trees will be removed, but there are two 19 -inch cherry trees shown within the clearing limit. Are they to be preserved? The same question applies to Lot "6" and Lot "7" where several trees are identified within the clearing limits, while the schedule shows no trees to be removed. Lot "8" has 2 52 -inch maples and a 30 inch alder within the clearing limits (on the boundary line with Sensitive Areas Tract B), while the schedule indicates one 52 inch tree will be removed. Are the other trees to be preserved? 3. In the schedule for the roadway tree replacement, it appears that one 15 -inch tree to be removed is not accounted for (Alder near Tract A). 4. The proposed tree replacement plan shows several Douglas Firs to be planted in or on the edges of the southeast corner of Wetland A. Conditions are likely too wet for Douglas Fir in those locations. Alternative trees that are tolerant to saturated soils and perhaps seasonal ponding should be substituted (such as Western Red Cedar, Sitka Spruce, Oregon Ash and others). 5. Planting trees only around the edges of the development defeats the purpose of the tree ordinance, which is designed to protect sensitive areas, such as slopes. Trees help to stabilize slopes and, therefore, some of the proposed trees should be interspersed throughout the site. 6. The tree replacement plan should be coordinated with the wetland consultant so that some of the replacement trees could be planted in the Sensitive Areas tract. This will likely result in the selection of a greater variety of tree species to improve wetland and buffer function. It also might mean some changes in planting techniques and soil amendment from what is proposed for the landscaping plan. 7. The plan should provide for irrigation for the newly installed trees. 8. Recent studies have shown that amending soils only in the planting hole is often detrimental to the tree. Instead, soils should be amended in the entire area where the trees are to be planted, or alternatively, no amendments should be added and compost should be placed as mulch around the tree and beneath the bark mulch. V. Comments by the Public Works Department: See attached. If you have any questions, please call me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner Comments from Public Works Department, Dave McPherson. Short Plat — L05 -040 1. Provide additional information per the Short Plat Checklist — see enclosed. 2. 06/14/05 Met with Ryan Larson (Senior Storm Water Engineer) & John Howat (Storm Water & Sanitary Sewer Superintendent) on site, to confirm location of existing storm drainage system. Development can tie into storm system, within City Right -of -Way. For the Short Plat and site development, the storm drainage report shall include a Downstream Analysis. 3. Show how proposed house on Lot 6, can be built over the existing sanitary sewer easement and sanitary sewer main. 4. Show how proposed lots are to be accessed off the proposed Private street, considering the steep slopes and possible retaining walls. Especially, for proposed Lots 1 & 2. 5. Dedicate 10' along 53rd Ave. S. for Public Street — see sample Statutory Warranty Deed w/Excise Tax Affidavit form enclosed. The on -site street including cul -de- sac, shall be private and within private easement. 6. Provide draft, private ingress /egress and utilities maintenance agreement, for review by Public Works — see sample enclosed. 7. Provide draft, joint use and access easement, as applicable, for review by Public Works — see sample enclosed. 8. The private street (Tract `C'), may be revised to 24' width of pavement, reduced from 28' in width. The cul -de -sac shall remain as shown on the site plan (46' radius to back of sidewalk). This will reduce the overall width of the private road. 9. `Tract A Drainage' shall be private and maintained by the owner(s) of the short plat. The private detention shall be underground per the geotechnical recommendations and as required by the Public Works Department. The detention tank/vault, shall be per King County Surface Design Manual. The detention tank/vault and private street, including street lighting, shall be built to City Public standards. 10. The CCR should include a joint private ownership and maintenance of private storm system and should also include a Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement. 11. A drainage swale across proposed lots 1, 2 and 3 will need to be investigated by the Civil and Geotechnical Engineers. Please address how the drainage design will account for the existing swale. Please discuss what measures are proposed if groundwater is encountered during grading and discuss the impacts associated with it. 12. Wetland 'C' is shown on the Civil plan by Jaeger Engineering, to be partially filled. The private street and a portion of 53`d Ave. South adjacent to the site, will need to be elevated and have side slopes or retaining wall(s). Therefore, the wetland area to be filled, will be greater than shown on the plan sheet, due to construction requirements. 13. Owner shall sign a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless agreement, to be recorded at King County Office of Records, separate from the CCR — see sample enclosed. Short Plat Survey Plan 1. Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005; April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Revise printed legal descriptions as applicable — see enclosed. 3. Revise short plat map — see enclosed comments indicated by Orange markings. 4. Provide legal description for private storm drainage Tract `A', on short plat map. 5. Provide legal description for private street Tract `C', on short plat map. 6. Provide legal description for private sensitive area Tract `B', on short plat map. 7. Provide note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes and trenches. Informational Comments Short Plat Site Development Plan 1. Provide street lighting plan, to be constructed to current City Public standards. 2. Provide approved plan sheet(s) from Val -Vue Sewer District. 3. Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005; April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports 4. Individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. 5. All utilities are required to be underground, per City ordinance. 6. Provide landscaping plan, for private storm drainage detention tank/vault. Miscellaneous Permit 1. The applicant shall apply for Public Works and Building permit approval. 2. Civil site plans shall be designed per City of Tukwila standards, details, and specifications. 3. An infrastructure design and construction standard manual, is available at the Public Works Department and on the City of Tukwila web -site. 4. Revise the storm water technical information report, based on the King County Surface Water Design Manual. To include a downstream analysis. 5. Storm drainage for the widened portion of 53rd Ave. South, shall be directed to flow along and continuing North along the Public street. This area for detention, shall also be part of the on -site detention calculations. 6. Please note that the drainage design must look at elevations of the footing drains and the elevation of the drainage vault. 7. Turnover documents will be required for the infrastructure along 53rd Ave. South: for sidewalk, pavement, curb /gutter, and street lighting (if applicable); within the City Right -of -Way. 8. Street Use permit is required including Bond/Insurance for work within City right -of -way. 9. Public Works has reviewed the Subsurface Soils Investigation from Spears Engineering & Technical Services, dated May 28, 2004. If the private road is approved as part of the Short Plat and Public Works permit, this report will be referenced on the plans and made part of the permit conditions. Cramer Northwest, Inc. Surveyors *Planners *Engineers September 14, 2005 City of Tukwila Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila WA 98188 Re: Five Rivers Minnie, RECEIVED SEP 14 2005' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Attached please find the map reflecting the reflagging of wetland C, clearly numbering the flags and providing an updated site plan that reflects the boundaries (i.e. putting the flag numbers on the plan), as provided by Habitat Technologies (Tom Deming). In addition the boundaries should be remarked in the field as well as the center point of the proposed driveway provided by Dryco and Jagger Engineering. If you have any further questions or request please feel free to contact the professionals directly or provide me with additional information requests. Thanks again. Sincerely, Aleanna`Kondelis Project Manager 945 N. Central, Suite #104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852 -4880 Fax (253) 852 -4955 www.cramernw.com E -mail: cni@cramernw.com Page 1 of 1 PLAT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON • DECLARATION i •ti KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the undersigned •owners in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a long, subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The. undersigned further declare this plat to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the some is made with the free consent and in . accordance with the desire,: of ;the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and Seals. Nome. Name Name Name Name Name. STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King . I certify.-that I. know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this .instrument and acknowledged it. to (his /her). free and voluntary . act for the uses purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature. of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires be and STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) . free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated .My appointment expires. 1 r\L11JVnli�.., v" There are are no delinquent special assessments, and all special assessments on any of the property that is dedicated as streets. alleys or for other public use are paid in full. Examined and approved this date by this department City of Tukwilla. Finance Director Date I certify that .all : property taxes are paid and that a deposit has been made in sufficient.: amount to pay the taxes for the following year, that there are no delinquent spedcial assessments certified 'to this office for collection; and that all special assessments on any of the property herein dedicated as streets, alleys, or for other public use are paid in full. Examined and approved this date by th' department IR sa King County Treasurer's Office Date txammea ono approveu toy .,.,e �. .............. this _ day of 2000 Director COUNTY ASSESSOR'S APPROVAL Examined and approved by this .department this - day of 2000 Assessor Deputy Assessor PORTION- OF see 3232E 335949' A,P,NI 115720 -0090 588 15'18'E 64.5' LOT 2 6514. SF 306.04' TRACT A DRAINAGE 4 E 64.5'. ELMO LOT 3 6514 SF RAING AULT • LOT • 4 \ 6508 SF SW 1/4, •SW 1 /4, S -23, T 23, R 4 E LEGAL DESCRIPTION _ TRACT 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 47, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTONI EXCEPT. THAT PORTION • THEREOF' WITHIN A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5372503. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FT. THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR PIPELINE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 3641174. AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30. THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN NORTHERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 9 FROM A POINT ON SAID SOUTH LINE WHICH IS 200 FT. WESTERLY OF THE 'W' LINE SURVEY OF' PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1, SOUTH 178 ST. TO SOUTH 126 ST., AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO._. 5568720. AND EXCEPT THE PORTION OF THE REMAINDER LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL. WITH AND 20 FT. NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE D2 CENTERLINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1, SOUTH 178 ST. TO SOUTH 126 ST., AS CONVEYED TO. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED. UNDER RECORDING NO. 5653378. f LOT' 5- .6570 SF -30' SETBACK FOR BASEMENTS FOR FOUNDATIONS GREATER THAN 36' DEEP. STATE OF WASHING1ON County of King I. certify.'. that I know or have satisfactory that' evidence signed this instrument and acknowledged it to (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary :Public Dated My appointment expires RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record this day of 2001..at M in book of at page at the request of the City of Tukwilla. be and 599 SF OF WE LAND C, • TO E - FIL ED . 20\ CLASS NR WETLAND P 898 SF , (TO BE FILLED INTERSTATE 405 S. 159 ST SITE SOUTHCENTER MALL S. 159 ST 520 SF OF ETLAND A TO BE FILLED VICINITY MAP cEnxm CREATION i 1803 Sr fyl 10' SAN. SEWER ESMT. 12'49'E 36621' •. S88 12'491 98139'/ i CITY OF SEATTLE WA MAIN ROW \\ VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 ESTABLISHED BY: WSDOT ID: HC17 -6 Located in the City of Tukwila, west of the Southecenter Mall on the Klickitct Drive /I -5 undercrossing..The mark is a WSDOT brass disk set in the center of the sidewalk in the southeast corner of the bridge. It is 129.0. feet west of. the centerline of the Southcenter Parkway and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of Klickitct Drive. TOTAL AREAI 117,210 SF 2.69 ACRES NO, OF LOTS! 7 CURRENT ZONING, LDR OPEN SPACE, 47785 SF (40.87.) • ( INPSEP) 1 inch = 60 ft. DRYCO DRYCO SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I. G. PHIL SARGENT, CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. Surveying, Inc. 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WASHINGTON (253)- 826 -0300 FAX (253) 826 -9703 FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27010 115 AVE SE KENT, WA. - 98031_ DATE • 3/18/2005 CHKD. BY JOB NO. SHEET G. PHIL SARGENT P.LS. 34145 Minnie Dhaliwal - Fwd: 5 Rivers, Wetland Issues Page 1 From: Minnie Dhaliwal To: Ale @cramernw.com Date: 8/3/05 3:08PM Subject: Fwd: 5 Rivers, Wetland Issues Ally: Attached are review comments from the City's wetland biologist. Please address this before we can further review the wetland and the mitigation report. As soon as I get comments from the City's Public Works department I will send you the rest of the review comments. Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner City of Tukwila 206 - 431 -3685 Minnie Dhaliwal - 5 Rivers, Wetland Issues Page 1] From: Sandra Whiting To: Minnie Dhaliwal Date: 7/29/05 8:41 AM Subject: 5 Rivers, Wetland Issues I have reviewed the most recent site plan provided to us (dated 3/18/05) that shows wetland boundaries. Some of the boundaries did not appear to correspond to the boundaries agreed on with the City earlier in the permit process. An attempt to locate all the boundaries in the field was not successful because the numbering of the flags was very confusing. The boundaries of the site are not marked and no contours were provided on the site plan so it was difficult to determine where the proposed driveway would be placed and what the limits of the water main right -of -way are. Therefore, I recommend that before proceeding on a more in depth review of the revised conceptual mitigation plan that we ask the wetland biologist to go back out to the site and reflag wetland C, clearly numbering the flags and providing us with an updated site plan that reflects the boundaries (i.e. putting the flag numbers on the plan). In addition it would be helpful to have the boundaries marked as well as the center point of the proposed driveway. Once that information is provided, I will return to the field to verify the boundaries and will proceed with review of the mitigation plan. Sandra Sandra Whiting Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206 - 431 -3663 Cizy of Tukwila Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED JUNE 27, 2005 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: Aleanna Kondelis, Cramer NW, Inc. LOCATION: On the east side of 53`d Avenue South and between Klickitat Drive and S. 159th Street. (Parcel # 1157200090) OWNER OF THE PROPERTY: Jaswinder Sekhon FILE NUMBERS: E05 -008 (SEPA) L05 -040 (Short Plat) L04 -004 (Special Permission for Sensitive Area Ordinance deviations) PROPOSAL: The proposal is to short plat one lot in to 7 lots. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: L05 -040 (Short Plat) L04 -004 (Special Permission for Sensitive Area Ordinance deviations) Miscellaneous Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on the SEPA application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on July 11, 2005. If you have questions about this proposal contact Minnie Dhaliwal, Planner -in- charge of this file at 206 - 431 -3670. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Director on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 206 -431 -3670. The Department will provide you with information on appeal if you are interested. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: June 17, 2005 June 23, 2005 June 27, 2005 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 PLAT NO. TREASURER'S CERTIFICATES: KING COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Thera are no dot meryai amusements, and m wedet awasmsnh on any et ExamJnb and approved by this departm.mt the property that is ded.c.t.d as Wash, alleys or for ether pubes axe are paid in full e,i, day a( 2000 RECORDING NO. VOL. /PAGE _ Examined and approved this CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON date M the deportment 50 0 25 50 100 200 City of Takedk Finance Director Date Dad l mat oe property cane ere cold and that a Upset ha. beam mode ten sufficient COUNTY ASSESSOR'S APPROVAL °"° "�tn pay n. for w raw.na y.� that en.re or. no danawnt ,p.eaw Examined and approved by this department assessments certified to this oRke for collection: and that as epedal assessment. on 6ry the property herein docketed u streets. diem at for other public use ue paid aaa day of 2000 SCALE: 1.1 -- ._. „ DECLARATION 1" so' PORTION OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 23, T 23, R 4 E KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the undersigned owners in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a long subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The undersigned further declare this plat to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the some is mode with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and Beets. _ hd Examined and approved w. dote department. 16g County Trea,urar's Offip Oats Ash Deputy Asseaor L LEGAL DESCRIPTION A, P, N I 115720-0090 TRACT 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 47, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON) SRI 30.30'E me40 .A EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF WITHIN A TRACT OF' LAND a X 20' vj W > 4C ( "11 V i ` —" CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5372503. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FT. THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SEATNO. TLE FOR PIPELINE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER 20' �Yc / F _ 1 TRACT A AGE RECORDING 3641I 74. • AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 THEREOF' LYING EASTERLY OF \ A LINE DRAWN NORTHERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 9 FROM A POINT ON SAID SOUTH LINE WHICH IS 200 FT. WESTERLY OF THE 'V' LINE SURVEY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1, SOUTH 178 ST. TO SOUTH 126 ST., AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 5568720. Name Name Nome None NomeNomeDRAAIN STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S88 15'18'E 66.0' 306.04' a 2 LOT 1 w. 6530 SF = er ' cr Ss. - ` o p 4t.a' ♦ 64.5' LOT 2 6514 SF 64.9' LOT 3 6514 SF $ ��� 59 WE TO FIL S, DRAINGE VAULT § m^ AND EXCEPT THE PORTION OF THE REMAINDER LYING '` '�� SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 20 `. r' FT. NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE D2 CENTERLINE OF PRIMARY `t STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1, SOUTH 178 ST. TO SOUTH 126 ST., LOT 4 �` ,' .�w AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED 6508 SF v RECORDED UNDER RECORDING N0. 5653378. +� 'b 3Q' �f TRAFK FOR signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public 6�.5'_ 64.5' '? ' BASEMENTS FOR r - -- 24� ��\zu LOT 5 \ FOUNDATIONS GREATER 6570 SF THAN 36' DEEP. ` Dated SF OF, LAND C ED / ! I 1 20)t 1 n ZI 20' \�� %ji, . y a`:F c aa,tat m .[ - 37.5' �R / v x440, LOT 7 CLASS w 126•`' \\ .� VETLAMa s / r FILLS LOT 6 i r \ `� w 10180 SFr r \ N, r r / t Ina Gm" CA W yu' x n INTERSTATE 405 My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that a 7700 SF CI. — _= 6,5,__ r r `t I aA �'-- ` 159 2 ST SOUTNCENTER mmi r \ f \ v Term p % T --= - btriOtEm k�� ry r t`\k ' \ 920 SF ff �� r \ 1 11 b TLAND A TD tut r A. r 1 l 1 ti SITE signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated 59 ST d \ V , \� / BE FILLED •T 3 V r34r \ 1 11 VICINITY MAP \ / .320 sF r�%lO�JO�� \ 1 t` \�� S�ENSTq sea °r �O�q -?; 1 j 10' SAN. SEWER ESMT. ^ . r . _ L � _ - - - ' % ; .._._- ..-- .,._........... r ye . - e' 1 -. i ��� S88 12'49'E 98.691 / 8 / .pi /i �,,7 / _ ---' TOTAL AREAn 117,210 2,69 NO. OF LOTS. 8 CURRENT ZONING LDR OPEN SPACE 47785 A.. My appointment expires a $ 1 r STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 12'49 E 366.21' ._ _ a p, f CTTY OF SEATTLE VA MAIN ROC, Z� -• `\ 1J ` f -- VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 ESTABLISHED BY: WSDOT , ID: HC17 -6 Located in the City of Tukwila, west of the Southecenter Moll on the Klicktat Drive /I -5 undercrossing. The mark is a WSOOT \ - brass disk set in the center of the sidewalk in the southeast comer of the bridge. It is 129.0 feet west of the centerline of the Southcenter Parkway and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of Klickitat Drive. © ¢ SF ACRES SF C40.8%) . ( IN ) 1 inch llo ft. VOL /PAGE signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his /her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE flied for record this day of 2001..ot M in book of at page at the request of the City of Tukwina• Deputy Director, King County Director, K'fl County Assessor SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: R iy. o£.��`I�? DRYCO 1, C. PHIL SARGENT, CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A 0IR55Y MADE 8Y 05 OR UNDER MY DIRECTION w CONFORMANCE ...:� WON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. 3' I`. DRYCO Surveying, Inc. ��� -•- FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 2701 0 115 AVE SE KENT, WA. 98031 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST ; ?, °. ;';; : '. SUMNER, WASHINGTON COiV1rAUtN i} DW14• BY J JJ DATE 3/18/2005 JOB NO. DE'�ELOPMEN+CHKD. BY SCALE 1" = 50' SHEET 1 1 OF (253) 826 -0300 FAX (253) 826 -9703 G. PHIL SARGENT P.LS. 34145 i::. +:t r• ::: • . Dept: Of Communi ty:Tievel opment .- - , • - ,-.°■-:"-:',- r",. . . . : : .• '.. .."" ''' - '' ''' ''' : ' City of TukWila:...,',.', .,. .. :,' ' 4 •'''.;;,;:‘ ' ':., : ''; ''' ...' , ',■ ' AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION ., ... . . -.:gti-:!: ,..,:k,q,„,...,,.,,-,.-:::,,,,,:,..,: -,4,.. _ ,,:if, :HEREBY DECLARE HA' /. 2G0.444,t_ ',•qt,''', 1. s , ' Notice of Public Hearing -....,,v-6,:- ,-, DeterminatiOlv:ofr_Non;SignifTcanceg'-':* : .....„i,.,--4,;,:pp,,,,:,--__.,.-.0.-. ;.,-,.,:,:i.:,:r„..,.,..,t,il!x2,:-- - - -2.]—,.,..-:''x.::30:;',-..-,..-..-, ---. Notice of Public Meeting :.:. t•-,-4...-: >1 ,i',..,:i• : MitiOtedA/etirminationl.ofiN&C Significance', . --- • • , '': • •'''...''': ',.'‘:-. ,••,=, ,-pv_ '' _fTCance -',"-•':',--",'''', ...„, Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt ......;;;,4'.... . . . . , . . DeterktilOtAdm:,of-Signi-ficancelt Scoping i1 ' otite,v .' ..7..:- ','- '-' ; -ii: • : ' .,":"' • 'z•'. ;:-- '..:-• ',.',',.:,.,•::-..,."■'..; , , ,; 4: PI ,1/2:".-A,,,---- ?.. .'. Board of Appeals Agenda: Tkt Notidez6,-,ction., .- ,,... • . ,.. .c.lt.k,;,-.-:-). :,,,•‘;,... ,::::., Planning Commission Agenda Pkt 1.,';'.7.*; i+!■:.: ; , " Officfal4NOtice: ‘..'..-`-=--;.::.r-: . '"",,-54:*!;.";$--s."2,:,,t ',... .'-' -'1-?.!1,4474'%ftish,.,17;:i,i,!%g't " •." I ,''-', P,1 ''.• , I .„.,,i-or• . Short Subdivision Agenda NotiCel0Application7, - •,-.:,--,q..z," --..i,,,,,, .-!...---.:,....•..,.-.-...., • Shoreline Mgmt Permitc,:..,,-. Notic64) .l ,,.-, .....,, plicationo ShorelineMgmt mi.,:b - Perp: .•..0.1 ,,..:i.... .. , . _ — FAX To Seattle Times - ,-...41.- Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Clastifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle 1W98111 , ,,.‘..„-,,, . , . - Other?: . ,... , t -.:.., , ,e. :: , - 7)t w , ,.. ,,..„., , ,;„. Was mailed to each of the)ddresses listed oh410§, ...-, year 2005; 1:7,4-,2 ",■"Ai. ' 1.« -,,,4, • .,,,•'07•.`?Vi..., tl. Project Name: Project Number: c---00g L-05- • Mailer's Signature: FEDERAL AGENCIES (r ) 'U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. ( L. �= =� (:�j ) () FEDERACRIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ,(::)' DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE .( U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. (:).kNATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES (.) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV QEPLOE.ECQLOGY, SEPA DMSION' )'OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL • SEND CHKLIST DETERMINATIONS SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ('-{OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ADEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. c DEPT OF FISHERIES & WI LDLIFE µ ._ 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 SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES (IT JKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () QWEST () SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 0 PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT&T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS () FIRE () POLICE () FINANCE ( ) PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK UTIU 1ES CITY AGENCIES () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE () KC. DEV & ENV!R SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR p 1(.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 N VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA -TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU () STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE' • NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( A ICKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE, L c -� i. t"I' Jr (.'CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ('FISHERIES PROGRAM (.%WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P: WDMINISTRAT!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 APPUCATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CLTUKWILA.WA.US.WWW J111VU111 r u J11CCLS- State of Washington Unknown John G. Barnes 15814 — 51" Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 City of Tukwila 14475 — 591 Ave S Seattle WA 98168 John Tamburelli 646 SW 134th Street Seattle WA 98146 Amon Manan 16424 — 53rd Place S Tukwila WA 98188 use template ror )ioi— MDS Holdings LLC 15817 — 53rd Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 John G. Barnes 15828 — 51" Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 City of Seattle P.O. Box 34018 Seattle WA 98124 Military Road Project LLC 26513 —171" Ave SE Kent WA 98042 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5161® Cramer Northwest, Inc. Surveyors •Planners •Engineers City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 RE: Five Rivers — Surrounding Properties List Minnie, REc =Ivor,) JUN 1 7 1005 DEpymuiviry Opp T June 14, 2005 Per the City of Tukwila short subdivision checklist we are required to provide mailing label for the surrounding property owners. As we discussed, King County no longer provides this services out -right. Using the IMAP tools I have created a buffer and prepared these mailing labels based on that information. To the best of my knowledge the following properties fall within 500' of the subject site. Parcel (s) 1157200060 1157200070 1157200071 1157200072 1157200080 1157200081 1157200100 1157200101 5379200030 5379200005 5379200006 5379200010 2623049138 Owner State of Washington MDS Holdings LLC John G. Barnes John G. Barnes City of Tukwila City of Seattle John Tamburelli Vikram Deep Singh Military Road Project LLC Amon Manan Amon Manan Military Road Project LLC Military Road Project LLC Mailing Address/ Site Address Unknown 15817 — 53`d Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 15814 — 51S` Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 15828 — 51S` Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 14475 — 59th Ave S Seattle WA 98168 P.O. Box 34018 Seattle WA 98124 646 SW 134th Street Seattle WA 98146 15816 — 53rd Ave S Tukwila WA 98188 26513 — 17151 Ave SE Kent WA 98042 16424 — 53rd Place Tukwila WA 98188 16424 — 53rd Place Tukwila WA 98188 26513 —171St Ave SE Kent WA 98042 26513 —1715` Ave SE Kent WA 98042 The information provided was taken off the King County IMAP assessor's information on June 14, 2005, a print out is provided. Thank you, Aleanna Kondelis Project Manager 945 N. Central, Suite #I04 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852 -4880 Fax (253) 852 -4955 www.cramernw.com E -mail: cni(a,cramernw.com Page 1 of 1 Map Output King County Nome ws Comm.nt& Search~ Page 1 of 2 iMAP - Property Information (Planning) SR 518; Q292 007"L1': S'16bT,H�ST 0035 ) ° •. 0e4b.. 1 1'.122! i12 W 01255 iLUi ' Eloly • • ! 1 I— I -02,26 F •:(p.. e • --) rinG`J, r • '.' -�1 to 0L1G7 032-• �• ,.0 ±20i 0308' In +00 ` • r # F 039 i030 �F•� .•, J- 043f1_. r • 1312 f 5131 N i 4.1(.1./5; C14eJ it &61. :0343 b341 1(.1.3•1:c".,3, 03 L' � r 4C1 2333 King Caunty0JC+ 3h0366 • 1LL 1 G 1-4ir.140 ;. L10JC1{ (.1(.1t-L17., %lnGO f _16aRD PL i 1 • — 1- Age /" J' f Selected Parcels theBufferPoygons County Boundary Streets ►Cgra:r; A•x.;a's Forest Production District Boundary .1 Agricultural Production District Boundary of Urban Growth Area Line 1.1 Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Mucldeshoot Tribe �IL'j0 King County owned properties Parcels riv Legend Zoning Labels Zoning A.10 Ag tc3:rei - -. ale CU pen 10 axe. A-35. Agit -S:re, me ail per 35 =LI. F • Fere.t RA•2:5 =RerliAul,muCUpG 5erne. RAZ414 A.- W, cricCU par 5axe; RA:10 = R ri` Ama, cx: Cif ?a: 10:rc:. LIR .n Urlen Reswve, eneDUx 5ase3 R•1• Rcdeetia?, erx: CU ou axe R.. - Re eksrio. 4 CU !Jai else R -6 • Rc•3de .f 8 C-iJ x: ase R =8. Rericke ie, 8 CU pen glee R =12 = Rer.4:143i, 12 CU pen .rze 11•18. Rc. chore, 18 CU pm :cm R -2:. Recd =•eci, 24 Cu per aae R -4 Re:tk r'• 48 per ase (o 9 Li I II .V8 • Creg•l hmat Fki=ittla Carr ri:yoJ :l R3- Regal:1i 3r�1:3 O.OScc 1 • txl:r:+1 11 Oh= Incorporated Area RECEIVED JUN 1 `c 2005 COMMUNiTy , -'JELOPMENr http: / /www5. metrokc. gov /servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap ?ServiceName= overview &Clie... 6/14/2005 June 23, 2005 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Aleanna Kondelis Cramer NW, Inc. 945 N. Central #104 Kent WA 98032 Re: Notice of complete application for Short Plat and SEPA application. File numbers L05 -040 and E05 -008. Dear Ms. Kondelis: The Department of Community Development received your application to short plat one lot into seven Tots. Based on the review of your submittal your application is deemed complete. Your application has been routed to the department of Public Works, City's Wetland biologist and the Fire Department for their code related review. 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. If after review of your application by all departments, any additional information is required we will contact you. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, Minnie Dhaliwal Senior Planner 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Minnie Dhaliwal, Senior Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: June 15, 2005 SUBJECT: Five Rivers — 8 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South & South 158th Street SEPA, Short Plat, and Miscellaneous Comments SEPA — E01 -027 The environmental checklist should be revised as follows: 16. Utilities b. Electricity - Natural Gas - Telephone - Water — City of Tukwila Sanitary Sewer — Val -Vue Sewer District 1. 06/14/05. Met with Ryan Larson (Senior Storm Water Engineer) & John Howat (Storm Water & Sanitary Sewer Superintendent) on site, to confirm location of existing storm drainage system. Development can tie into storm system, within City Right -of -Way. For the Short Plat and site development, a storm drainage report is required including a Downstream Analysis. 2. Geotechnical reports including peer reviews, have been completed and meet the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080. Public Works Director shall make final Geotechnical approval determination. 3. Show how proposed house on Lot 7, can be built over the existing sanitary sewer easement and sanitary sewer main. 4. Show how proposed lots are to be accessed off the proposed Private street, considering the steep slopes and possible retaining walls. Especially, for proposed Lots 1 & 2. 5. Storm drainage for the widened portion of 53rd Ave. South, shall be directed to flow along and continuing North along the Public street. This area for detention, shall also be part of the on -site detention calculations. Short Plat — 1. Provide sanitary sewer availability certificate from Val -Vue Sewer District. 2. Dedicate 10' along 53rd Ave. S. for Public Street. The on -site street including cul -de -sac, shall be private and within private easement. 3. Provide draft, private ingress /egress and utilities maintenance agreement, for review by Public Works. 4. `Tract A Drainage', shall be private and maintained by the owner(s) of the short plat. The private detention shall be underground per the geotechnical recommendations and as required by the Public Works Department. The detention tank/vault, shall be per King County Surface Design Manual. The detention tank/vault and private street, including street lighting, shall be built to City Public standards. 5. The CCR should include a joint private ownership and maintenance of (1) private storm system (2) street lighting within the private street, including payment of the monthly power bill to provider (3) the private street. 6. The CCR should also include a Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement. Short Plat Survey Site Plan 1. Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005; April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Provide legal description for proposed private storm drainage tract, on short plat map. 3. Provide note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes and trenches. 4. Owner shall sign a Sensitive Areas Ordinance Hold Harmless agreement, to be recorded at King County Office of Records, separate from the CCR. Informational Comments Short Plat Site Development Plan 1. Provide street lighting plan, to be constructed to current City Public standards. 2. Provide approved plan sheet(s) from Val -Vue Sewer District. 3. Provide note on short plat map, to comply with the Geotechnical Engineering Report, by LSI Adapt, Inc., dated August 6, 2001; September 4, 2003; February 9, 2005;April 25, 2005 and subsequent geotechnical reports 4. Individual house foundation and drainage system, shall meet a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations. 5. All utilities are required to be underground, per City ordinance. 6. Provide landscaping plan, for private storm drainage detention tank/vault. Miscellaneous Permit 1. The applicant shall apply for Public Works and Building permit approval. 2. Civil site plans shall be designed per City of Tukwila standards, details, and specifications. 3. An infrastructure design and construction standard manual, is available at the Public Works Department and on the City of Tukwila web -site. 4. Provide a storm water technical information report, based on the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Including a downstream analysis. 5. Turnover documents will be required for the infrastructure along 53rd Ave. South: for sidewalk, pavement, curb /gutter, and street lighting (if applicable); within the City Right -of -Way. 6. Street Use permit is required including Bond/Insurance for work within City right -of -way. 7. Street lighting, on -site, shall be privately owned, maintained, and the monthly power bill shall be paid by property owners of the Short Plat. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES APRIL 1, 2005 Ms. Aleanna Kondelis, Planner /Project Manager @ Cramer NW, Inc. 945 North Central, #104 Kent, Washington 98031 Mr. Jim Jaeger, g Jaeger Engineering 9419 South 204th Place Kent, Washington 98031 RECEIVED. 'JUN 7PR5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: Five Rivers Preliminary Plat, City of Tukwila Conceptual Mitigation Program for Unavoidable Wetland Impacts Dear Project Team, The initial conceptual mitigation program for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat dated December 19, 2003 has been revised below to be consistent with the newly adopted changes in the City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45 effective December 2004. In particular, the newly adopted ordinance has changed the criteria used by the City to categorize different wetland areas and has changed the associated protective buffers associated with these wetlands. For example: • Under the prior regulations Wetland A and Wetland C met the criteria for designation as Type 2 Wetlands because both of these wetlands exhibited a forested plant community that comprised more than 20% of the wetland area. HOWEVER, this criterion is no longer within the new regulations. As such, under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A and Wetland C appear best defined as Type 3 Wetlands. • Under the prior regulations Wetland B and Wetland D met the criteria for designation as Type 3 Wetlands. HOWEVER, the new regulation sets a minimum wetland size for regulation at 1,000 square feet. As such, under the newly adopted regulations Wetland B and Wetland D appear best defined as non - regulated. - • Under the newly adopted regulations the City may allow Type 3 Wetlands to be altered: or relocated only with the permission on the City and with a mitigation or enhancement plan that complies with the standards of mitigation required in Chapter 18.45. The objective of the revised conceptual mitigation program provided below is to outline the actions that would be undertaken onsite to provide full and complete replacement of area, function, and value of onsite wetlands that would be unavoidable impacted by the proposed development of this residential community. This •conceptual mitigation wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife -- mitigation and permitting solutions P.O. Box.1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 5- Rivers 01248 voice 253 - 845 -5119 fax 253 - 841 -1942 habitattech@gwest.net program also includes the restoration of the onsite wetland areas to be retained to protect the Tong -term environmental quality of these areas. WETLAND DETERMINATION As outlined in the Habitat Technologies letter dated September 16, 2003, wetland determination for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat was based on sample plots which contained hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wash. Manual) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual). Based on these methods four (4) areas that exhibits all three of these criteria were identified onsite. In addition, a very seasonal swale was identified generally along the southern site boundary, however, this swale does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and does not meet the. City of Tukwila definition as a "watercourse" under TMC18.45.06.920. WETLAND SIZE (sqft) PRIOR CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE FUNCTION AND VALUE RATING PRIOR STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH NEWLY ADOPTED CITY WETLAND RATING NEWLY ADOPTED STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH A 4,320 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet B 898 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON - REGULATED C 3,503 sqft 2 Low 50 feet 3 50 feet D 663 sqft 3 Low 25 feet NON- REGULATED Wetland A: This wetland was located within a shallow depression at the eastern end of the defined onsite swale along the southeastern project site boundary. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. As discussed with City of Tukwila staff a scattering of trees (red alder — Alnus rubra, black cottonwood — Populus trichocarpa, Pacific willow - Salix lasiandra) were present along the edge of this wetland. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and adjacent parcels. Surface water that left this wetland eventually entered a stormwater catchment near the southeast corner of the project site. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland A meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland B: This wetland was located within a shallow depression within the east - central portion of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a shrub and sapling 2 5- Rivers 01248 plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. The wetland was well shaded by red alder trees rooted primary outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to be the result of an internal roadway which had compacted this small depression. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite. Wetland B meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979) criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub /shrub, seasonally flooded (PSSC). Under the newly 'adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Non - Regulated because of small size (<1,000sqft). Wetland C: This wetland was located within a. shallow depression near the southwestern corner of the project site. This wetland was dominated by a forested plant Community composed of young red alder (approximately 15 years old) rooted both within and outside the defined wetland boundary. This wetland appeared to have formed following the removal of an old homesite and included the old concrete foundation and assorted garbage. This wetland appeared to remain ponded into the early growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite and offsite, and from a number of seeps along the toe of the adjacent fill supporting 53rd Avenue South. Based on a review of the project site and discussions with City of Tukwila staff, Wetland C meets the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) criteria for classification as a palustrine, forested, seasonally flooded (PFOC). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland. Wetland D: This wetland was located within a shallow depression formed by an old internal roadway within the project site. This wetland . was dominated by a shrub and emergent plant community that had been altered by prior land use actions. This wetland appeared to remain saturated well into the growing season. Hydrology for this wetland was provided by stormwater runoff from onsite.' Wetland D meets the USFWS criteria for classification as a palustrine, scrub/shrub, seasonally flooded /saturated (PSSE); and palustrine, emergent seasonally flooded /saturated (PEME). Under the newly adopted regulations Wetland A was identified to meet the criteria for designation as a City of Tukwila Non - Regulated because of small size ( <1,000 sqft). CITY WETLAND BOUNDARY VERIFICATION The onsite wetland boundaries have been reviewed and verified by City of Tukwila environmental staff. 3 5- Rivers 01248 CITY OF TUKWILA — Environmentally Sensitive Areas Chapter 18.45 WETLAND AND STREAM TYPES (newly adopted) A Type 1 Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is characterized by the presence of species listed by the federal government or State as endangered or threatened, of the presence of critical or outstanding habitat for those species; 2. The wetland has 40 -60% permanent open water in dispersed patches with two or more classes of vegetation; 3. The wetland is equal to or greater than five acres in size and has three or more wetland classes, one of which may be substituted by permanent or open water; or 4. The wetland is documented as regionally significant waterfowl or shorebird areas by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A Type 2 Wetland is a wetland that meets any of the following criteria: 1. The wetland is equal to or greater than one acre in size;. 2. The wetland has three or more wetland classes and is less than 5 acres; 3. The wetland is characterized by the. presence of nesting sites for priority species as listed by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or 4. The wetland is hydrologically connected (non - isolated) to a Type 1 or Type 2 watercourse. A Type 3 Wetland is a wetland that is greater than 1,000 square feet and Tess than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes. WETLAND TYPE STANDARD BUFFER WIDTH .Type 1 Wetland .100 feet Type 2 Wetland 80 feet Type 3 Wetland 50 feet SELECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTION Development of the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat focuses on establishing independent lots for the future development of residential homesites consistent with the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and local zoning'. Through compensatory mitigation the Selected Development Action would not result in a "net loss" of regulated wetland area, function, or value consistent with the City of Tukwila — Environmentally Sensitive Areas — Chapter 18.45. The selected site development plan would result in the following actions: 4 5- Rivers 01248 WETLAND SIZE (sqft) CITY OF TUKWILA WETLAND TYPE PROPOSED ACTION A 4,320 sqft 3 This wetland and its associated established buffer would be retained and restored through the removal of invasive shrubs and garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. However, 520 square feet of this wetland would be converted into buffer without the - placement of fill. In addition, 1,903 square feet of new wetland would be created along the southern edge of this wetland through the removal of existing soils and the planting of native trees, shrubs, and emergents. Hydrology for the retained and new wetland would be supplemented by the addition of rooftops drains to these areas. This wetland creation area is designed to provide full mitigation for the unavoidable filling of 599 square feet of Wetland C and the conversion of 520 square feet of Wetland A into buffer. B 898 sqft Non - Regulated This non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide for an internal roadway and new lot areas. C 3,503 sqft 3 Majority of this wetland would be retained. The retained wetland and associated buffer would be restored through the removal of invasive shrubs and garbage, and the planting of native trees and shrubs. A small part of this wetland (599 square feet) would be unavoidable filled to created the required primary access roadway for the new homesites. Mitigation for the unavoidable impact would be provided within the new wetland area to be created adjacent to Wetland A. D 663 sqft Non - Regulated Majority of this non - regulated wetland would be filled to provide new lot area. That portion of this wetland within the buffer of Wetland C would be retained. 5 5- Rivers 01248 SELECTED COMPENSATORY MITIGATION APPROACH Site planning for the Five Rivers Preliminary Plat has focused on the mandated hierarchy of wetland impact . reduction: 1) avoidance, 2) minimization, and 3) compensation. These avoidance and minimization strategies included a site design to reduce impacts to onsite wetland systems. The present site design would retain the majority of regulated onsite Wetlands A and C, restore and enhance existing regulated wetland and buffer areas, and establish protective buffers in accordance with newly revised City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45. Unavoidable impacts to Wetland C and Wetland A would be mitigated through - the creation of an alternative onsite wetland area contiguous with Wetland A. Wetland B and the majority of Wetland D would be filled to created the internal roadway and new homesite lots. Both of these wetlands are isolated, Tess than 1,000 square feet in area, exhibit a low functional value rating, and are not regulated by the City of Tukwila. Mitigation Benefits The development of the proposed mitigation wetland area, along with the restoration/ enhancement of the existing retained wetland and buffer areas is designed to accompany site development. The primary benefits associated with the proposed mitigation program include the creation of a viable wetland and buffer composed of native emergents, shrubs, and trees within an area presently impacted by past land use activities. The selected plant species would increase diversity and complexity within the mitigation site. In addition, the retained portions of Wetlands A, C, and D, along with the mitigation wetland area and the associated buffers would be defined within an independent tract (Tract B). This tract would allow for the connection of the retained wetland and buffer areas onsite. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM 1. As compensation for the unavoidable impact to 599 square feet of City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland C) and the conversion of 520 square feet of City of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland A) into buffer, a new wetland area equal to 1,903 square feet would be created contiguous with the south - central edge of Wetland A. The amount of wetland to be created provides a 1.7 to 1.0 replacement ratio (created to impacted). . Wetland creation would be accomplished through the excavation of an existing upland area along the southern edge of Wetland A. Wetland creation would include the over excavation of existing soils to a depth of approximately 12 inches below final grade and replacement of a layer 12 to 18 inches deep of clean, highly organic topsoil to match the existing elevation within Wetland A. 6 5- Rivers 01248 2. The existing degraded wetland and upland areas adjacent to the retained portion of Wetland C, Wetland A, and the retained portions of Wetland D would be cleared of existing debris, existing piles of imported fill, and existing invasive shrubs. These areas would then be planted with a mixture of native trees and shrubs common to the area (Appendix A). These activities would restore the wetland plant communities and establish buffers that protect and enhance the functions and value of these wetland areas. The width of this buff er would be established at consistent with the City of Tukwila Chapter 18.45. Additional buffer area would also be added along in the southwestern corner of the project site. This additional buffer would allow for the connection of the area associated with Wetland A and the area associated with Wetland C. 3. Habitat features (i.e. standing snags and downed logs) shall be placed within the created wetland, and restored wetland and buffer . areas to provide structural diversity and habitats for wildlife common to the area. 4. All onsite activities shall be monitored by the onsite biologist Following the completion of onsite planting activities a "record- drawing" plan and implementation report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Tukwila. 5. Following City of Tukwila approval of the implemented program a five -year monitoring program shall be undertaken to ensure the success of the mitigation program. A series of financial guarantees shall also be implemented (if required by the City of Tukwila) to assure that the proposed work is completed and is successful. 6. Temporary and Tong -term erosion control measures shall be implemented. Thee measures include silt fencing during site preparation and wetland construction, and seeding of exposed soil areas. 7. The outer buffer boundary of Tract B (Wetlands A and C, and their associated established buffers) shall be marked with standard City of Tukwila "Wetland Buffer Boundary" signs at 25 -foot intervals. 8. This outer buffer boundary of Tract B shall be permanently fenced to limit intrusion into these areas. The fence can be either a six -foot solid -wood fence, a split rail, six - foot chain link fence, or other City of Tukwila pre- approved substitute. At least one access gate shall be provided through the 'fence for maintenance and monitoring purposes. GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MITIGATION PLAN The GOAL of the Compensatory Mitigation Program is to fully compensate for the unavoidable adverse impact to 599 square feet of impact to Wetland C and the unavoidable conversion of 520 square feet of Wetland A from wetland to buffer. Upon the completion of this mitigation program there would be no net Toss of regulated 7 5- Rivers 01248 wetland acreage, functions, or values; and an increase in the potential for the established wetlands and buffers to protect local aquatic and terrestrial habitats. To achieve the defined GOAL, the following OBJECTIVES and PERFORMANCE CRITERIA have are defined: Objective A. The created compensatory wetland area shall total 1,903 square feet in size. Site design for the created wetland shall focus on excavation and final surface elevations within the wetland area to establish an early growing season (March - April) water regime dominated by soil saturation to the surface over approximately 100% of the created wetland area. This design shall allow soil saturation within the rooting zone to occur through the spring and early summer. The created wetland shall be hydrologically connected to the onsite Wetland A and shall receive hydrologic support from local rainfall and rooftops drains. Performance Criteria #A1: 1,903 square feet of compensatory mitigation wetland area shall exhibit an early growing season (March - June) water regime dominated by soil saturation to the surface. Objective B. The created compensatory mitigation wetland area shall total 1,903 square feet. This created wetland area shall exhibit a scrub /shrub and sapling tree vegetation classes within five years following initial planting. Performance Criteria #B1: As defined at representative sample plots the emergent plant community within the 1,903 square. feet of the compensatory mitigation wetland area shall exhibit at least an 80% coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance Criteria #B2: As defined by representative sample plots the scrub /shrub and sapling vegetation class within the 1,903 square feet of the compensatory mitigation wetland area shall exhibit at least a 50% aerial coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance Criteria #B3: As defined by representative sample plots the scrub /shrub and sapling vegetation class within the restored buffers for Wetlands A and C shall exhibit at least a 50% aerial coverage within five years following initial planting. Performance 'Criteria #B4: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 100% of the trees and shrubs initially planted within the created compensatory wetland, and the restored wetlands and buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the first growing season following planting. Performance Criteria #B4: As defined by plant counts at representative sample plots 80% of the trees and shrubs initially planted, within the created 8 5- Rivers 01248 compensatory wetland, and the restored wetlands and buffers shall exhibit survival through the end of the fifth growing season following planting. Objective C. The compensatory mitigation wetland and the restored and enhanced buffer area shall include the placement of snags and downed Togs which provide nesting and cover habitat for passerine birds common to the area. Performance Criteria #C1: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length,` rriinimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at. 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the compensatory mitigation area Performance Criteria #C2: A minimum of two (2) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of. two (2) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored and enhanced areas of Wetland A and Wetland C. Performance Criteria #C3: A minimum of three (3) snags (minimum 10 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at the top, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) and a minimum of three (3) downed logs (minimum 20 feet in length, minimum 20 inch diameter at 10 feet above root collar, minimum 10 foot diameter at bottom of rootball) shall be placed within the restored buffer areas adjacent to Wetland A and Wetland C. SELECTED PLANT COMMUNITIES The plant communities and plants selected for the created wetland and restored construction access through the adjacent buffer would be obtained as nursery stock. These selected species are native and commonly occur in the local area. The plant species prescribed are selected to increase plant diversity, match present onsite communities, increase wildlife habitats, and enhance the aquatic environment (Appendix A). 9' 5- Rivers 01248 PLANT ID COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME PROPOSED SPACING (oc) PROPOSED SIZE PLANTING LOCATION SAL Pacific willow Salix lasiandra 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland PIS Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis 10 ft - 4 ft height minimum Wetland buffer edge THP Western red cedar Thuja plicate 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland buffer edge 9' 5- Rivers 01248 MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION Essential to the success of the mitigation program is the accurate inspection of onsite activities immediately prior to and during- the initial wetland creation phase. These activities include pre - implementation site inspection, onsite inspection and technical direction during wetland creation and planting activities, and post - planting site inspection and evaluation. The pre - implementation site inspection allows the project team and the project biologist to , evaluate and, if necessary, undertaken minor adjustments . in the onsite implementation steps. These steps include analysis of project site elevation features, project sequencing and timing, final grade analysis, unforeseen required minor modifications to the original establishment plan, and the establishment of environmental protections (silt fences, etc.) required during implementation. Onsite technical inspection during implementation and planting activities shall be implemented by the project biologist. The project biologist shall perform implementation oversight and 10 5- Rivers 01248 TSH Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer ACM Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum 10 ft 4 ft height minimum Buffer.' FRL Oregon Ash Fraxinus latifolia 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland PYF Western crabapple Pyrus fusca 8 ft 4 ft height minimum Wetland RON . Nootka rose Rosa nutkana 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge ROG Wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa 4 ft 2 gal Buffer SYA Snowberry Symphoricarpus albus '4 ft 2 gal Buffer ACC Vine maple Acer circinatum 4 ft : 2 gal Buffer LOI Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge PHC Pacific ninebark Physocarpus • capitatus 4 ft 2 gal Wetland buffer edge COS Red osier dogwood Corpus stolonifera 4 ft 2 gal Wetland SAS Sitka willow Salix sitchensis 4 ft 2 gal Wetland CAO Carex obnupta Salix sitchensis 1 ft 4 inch plug Wetland SCM Small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus 1 ft 4 inch plug Wetland MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTION Essential to the success of the mitigation program is the accurate inspection of onsite activities immediately prior to and during- the initial wetland creation phase. These activities include pre - implementation site inspection, onsite inspection and technical direction during wetland creation and planting activities, and post - planting site inspection and evaluation. The pre - implementation site inspection allows the project team and the project biologist to , evaluate and, if necessary, undertaken minor adjustments . in the onsite implementation steps. These steps include analysis of project site elevation features, project sequencing and timing, final grade analysis, unforeseen required minor modifications to the original establishment plan, and the establishment of environmental protections (silt fences, etc.) required during implementation. Onsite technical inspection during implementation and planting activities shall be implemented by the project biologist. The project biologist shall perform implementation oversight and 10 5- Rivers 01248 address minor unforeseen implementation difficulties to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. The removal of existing vegetation and soil materials within the mitigation area shall be undertaken by a large excavator. Access to the mitigation area shall be limited to a single corridor at the southwestern corner of the project site. All removed vegetation and soil materials shall be conveyed by a large 10 -yard dump truck to an approved upland disposal area within the project site. The clean, highly organic topsoil needed within the mitigation area shall be conveyed by a large 10 -yard dump truck and spread by the excavator. Final site grading and the placement of the habitat features shall be accomplished by -the large excavator or a small dozer. The large excavator shall also be used rip the access corridor and place clean, highly organic topsoil at the completion of the site work to eliminate soil compaction as a result of vehicle traffic within the corridor. The project biologist shall also be responsible for ensuring that the species and sizes of native plants selected and noted within the final planting plan are utilized during implementation. If selected native species become unavailable, the project biologist would consult with the City of Tukwila for substitute plant species to assure that the intent of the compensatory mitigation program is met. Post- implementation site inspection/ evaluation shall include the preparation of a "record- drawings" which would be submitted to the City of Tukwila. MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE PROJECT TASK . TASK SCHEDULE Completed on or before Onsite pre - implementation project meeting July 15, 200x Placement of protective fencing, final marking, and identification of work area. . July 30, 200x Grading of wetland mitigation area and buffer areas to remove existing soils. Aug. 15, 200x Replacement of clean, highly organic topsoil within the created wetland and buffer areas. Aug. 30, 200x Placement of habitat features. Aug. 30, 200x Seeding of disturbed areas. Aug. 30, 200x Irrigation of created wetland. As needed following seeding Planting of created wetland and adjacent buffer. Nov. 15, 200x Record- drawings'and report to City Dec. 5, 200x Should this mitigation implementation not following the time period noted above the project team would coordinate a revised schedule with the City of Tukwila. 11 5- Rivers 01248 PROJECT MONITORING Following the successful completion of the proposed wetland creation planting a five year monitoring and evaluation program would be undertaken. The purpose of this program is to ensure the success of the selected mitigation as measured by an established set of performance criteria (see above). This monitoring shall also provide valuable information on the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. STANDARDS OF SUCCESS • Vegetation Sampling Methodology and Monitoring Schedule Permanent vegetation sampling plots shall be located within the created wetland, the restored wetlands, within the adjacent restored buffer, and within the restored _ construction access. Observations and measurements shall be recorded for all plant species in order of dominance based on the relative percent cover for each species within the various vegetation strata. Sampling for tree and shrub species shall be completed in 30 -foot radius sampling plots. The evaluation of the success of the compensatory mitigation program would be based on the expected cover percentages and the selected survival rate for trees and shrubs. These defined performance criteria shall be applied at the times of yearly monitoring. The percent of aerial cover and the percent survival rate shall be based on combined counts of existing, volunteer plants, and planted species during vegetation monitoring. Sample location shall be shown on the design and the "record drawings" (i.e. "as- built ") plans, and shall correspond to identified photopoints. Trees and shrubs shall be visually evaluated to determine the rate of survivorship, health, and vigor of each plant. • Vegetation Monitoring 1. As a part of each monitoring period the project biologist shall count the number of live plants which are planted within the representative sample plots. Plants shall be identified to species and observations of general plant condition (Le., plant health, amount of new growth) are to be recorded for each plant. 2. At all identified sample plots the project biologist shall determine percent coverage of vegetation for emergent species and for the scrub /shrub and sapling tree species. 3. At identified sample plots within the created wetland and the restored buffer the project biologist shall count the number of undesirable invasive plants and estimate the aerial coverage (as if the observer were looking straight down from above) of these invasive plants. Undesirable plants include blackberries, Scot's broom, tansy ragwort, reed canarygrass, and plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List. 12. 5- Rivers 01248 4. At identified sample plots within the created wetland and the restored buffer the project biologist shall count the number of desirable "volunteer" plants and estimate the aerial coverage of these plants. 5. The project biologist shall take photographs that show the entire compensatory mitigation area. During the five year monitoring period photos shall be taken in the same direction and at the same location to provide a series of photos. These photos shall show plant growth, plant species, and plant coverage. 6. Upon the completion of the initial project planting and upon the completion of each annual monitoring period the project biologist shall prepare a report defining methods, observations, and results along with the date the observations were completed. Each report shall be provided to the City of Tukwila. 7. The monitoring schedule is defined as: A. Twice a year for two years ' following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once early in the growing season (late March to mid - April) and once again near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity an annual report shall be prepared and provided to the City of Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of the fall monitoring. B. Once a year for years three, four, and five following the completion of initial onsite planting. For each monitoring year, onsite monitoring shall be completed once near the end of the growing season (mid- September). For each onsite monitoring activity a report shall be prepared and provided to the City of. Tukwila within three weeks after the completion of onsite monitoring. • Wetland Hydrology Pattern Monitoring 1. During the spring of each monitoring period following the completion of the initial planting the project biologist shall monitor hydrology patterns within the created wetland to ensure that the area exhibits a seasonal hydrology sufficient to meet the criteria of the 1987 Manual, and the Wash. Manual. 2. Upon the completion of each spring monitoring period the project biologist shall prepare a report defining methods, observations, and results along with the date the observations were completed. This report shall be attached as a part of the annual monitoring reports. 3. The wetland hydrology pattern monitoring schedule is defined as once a week for the spring months of the first and second growing seasons following the completion of planting actions, and twice during the spring of the third, fourth, and fifth years following initial planting. Onsite monitoring shall use two established shallow ground 13 5- Rivers 01248 water monitoring wells (maximum of 24 inches in depth) within the wetland area recently created and two established shallow ground water monitoring wells (maximum of 24 inches in de pth) within the adjacent wetland area. Beginning the last week of February and continuing through the middle of May, approximately fourteen (14) weekly monitoring observations shall be completed during the first and second growing seasons. During the third, fourth, and fifth years hydrology monitoring shall be completed once at the end of March and once in the middle of May. • Vegetation and Hydrology Monitoring Sequencing MONITORING YEAR PLANT COMMUNITY MONITORING HYDROLOGY MONITORING SUBMITTAL OF MONITORING REPORT YEAR -1 On or about April 15, 200x +1 Once a week February 25 through May 15, 200x +1 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +1 Report due -_ Oct. 7, 200x +1 YEAR -2 On or about April 15, 200x +2 Once a week February 25 through May 15, 200x +2 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +2 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +2 YEAR -3 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +3 Once on or about March 30, 200x +3 Once on or about May 15, 200x +3 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +3 YEAR -4 ' On or about Sept. 15, 200x +4 Once on or about March 30, 200x +4 Once on or about May 15, 200x +4 Report due Oct. 7, 200x +4 YEAR -5 On or about Sept. 15, 200x +5 Once on or about March 30, 200x +5 Once on or about May 15, 200x +5 • Report due Oct. 7, 200x +5 VEGETATION MAINTENANCE PLAN Maintenance of the created wetland and buffer plant communities may be required to assure the long -term health and welfare of the wetland's and buffer's environmental functions. Such maintenance shall be identified during the monitoring period and undertaken only following discussion and coordination with the City of Tukwila. The overall objective is to establish undisturbed plant communities that do not require maintenance. Activities may include, but are not limited to, the removal of invasive non- native vegetation and the irrigation of selected areas. Established maintenance activities include the removal of any trash within the wetland or buffer.: - 14 5- Rivers 01248 REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NON - NATIVE VEGETATION As a contingency, should the removal of invasive non - native vegetation become necessary, the project proponent would contact City of Tukwila to establish and define specific actions to be taken. Resultant contingency plan activities shall be implemented when the ongoing vegetation monitoring program indicates that plants listed in the Washington State Noxious Weed List, blackberries, reed canarygrass, or Scot's broom are becoming dominant in the community or exceed 15% of the aerial coverage of the planting areas. r, SEEDING FOR EXPOSED AREAS Seeding for all exposed surfaces within the created wetland and restored adjacent buffer shall be completed within two weeks following the completion of debris removal and placement of clean, highly organic topsoil. Wetland Area Soil Moisture Conditions Uplar common name scientific name percent by weight Redtop Agrostis alba. 50% Water foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 50% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) common name scientific name percent by weight Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 15% Tall fescue Festuca arundinacea 40% Perennial ryegrass „ Lolium perenne 30% Creeping red fescue Festuca rubra 15% (apply at the rate of 120 pounds per acre) • CONTINGENCY PLAN As a contingency, should the proposed compensatory mitigation program fail to meet the performance criteria, the project 'proponent shall undertake required, remedial actions. Where plant survival is the failing component, the project proponent shall replant and ensure the success of this second planting which shall be held to the same standard of success as measured by threshold criteria and monitoring processes. Where hydrology within the created wetland fails to meet the criteria established within the 1987 Manual and the Wash. Manual the project proponent shall meet with City of Tukwila staff to outline measures to be ensure adequate hydrology patterns. Such measures may include the lowering of the mitigation area through additional excavation to increase the likelihood of additional hydrology. Information obtained through the 15 5- Rivers 01248 annual hydrology monitoring program shall be used to assist in outlining contingency measures. Where non - native, invasive vegetation exceeds 15% aerial coverage the project proponent shall undertake removal actions. Such removal actions shall be completed using hand tools or pulling the plants by hand to remove the invasive vegetation without disrupting the soil profile. All cut or pulled vegetation shall be removed from the mitigation area and disposed in an approved location. Herbicides shall only be used following approval by the City of Tukwila. All herbicide application shall be completed by a licensed professional. Should additional remedial actions be required, the project proponent shall meet with the City of Tukwila to establish and define actions to be taken to meet the desired goal of this mitigation program. TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The project proponent shall ensure that a minimum of one (1) inch of water is supplied each week to the compensatory mitigation area between June 1 and October 15 for a least the first two years following initial planting. The calculated amount of required water shall include both natural rainfall and temporary irrigation. The need for additional years of irrigation shall be determined based on site conditions and overall plant survival. The amount of water supplied to the compensatory mitigation area shall be increased at the direction of the City of Tukwila or if onsite monitoring defines such a need. PLANTING NOTES With the exception of the identified grass seed mixtures, all plant materials utilized within the created wetland, the restore /enhanced buffer, and the replanted construction corridor shall be native to the southern Puget Sound Region. The onsite biologist shall inspect plant materials to assure the appropriate plant schedule and plant, characteristics are met. The project proponent shall warrant that all plants would remain alive and healthy for. a period of one year following completion of planting activities. The project proponent shall replace all dead and unhealthy plants with plants of the same specifications. FINANCIAL GUARANTEE Financial guarantee would be provided for this project and shall be defined in two parts. Part One (Implementation Guarantee) shall be associated with the initial onsite compensation elements of the proposed plan. Part Two (Performance Guarantee) shall be associated with the monitoring and reporting elements of the proposed compensation plan. These guarantees shall be held by the City of Tukwila and be equal .to 125% of the actual estimated costs for identified activities. This increased 16 5- Rivers 01248 percentage shall allow for adequate funds to be available as a contingency should actions be required to meet the goals of these plans. The Implementation Guarantee shall be deemed to be released by the City of Tukwila upon the successful completion of the initial onsite compensation elements and the acceptance by the City of Tukwila. The Performance Guarantee shall be deemed to be released upon meeting the established threshold criteria and acceptance by the City of Tukwila of the required reporting documents. The amount of each guarantee shall be determined as a part of the final compensatory mitigation program document. The final compensatory mitigation program document shall be prepared following approval of the conceptual mitigation plan by the City of Tukwila. The final compensatory mitigation program document shall include a detailed construction plan of the written specifications and descriptions of the mitigation techniques. This final compensatory mitigation program document shall also provide a planting detail of species and installation locations. Following your review of this conceptual mitigation program document please contact me at 253 - 845 -5119 with any questions, suggestions, or wish to meet with the City of Tukwila. Sincerely, Thomas D. Deming 17 5- Rivers 01248 REFERENCE LIST Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET); Volume II: Methodology, Operational Draft Technical Report Y -87, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United. States. Office of Biological Services, U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, FWS /OBS- 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y -87 -1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for _Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. _Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. `Cooperative technical publication: 76 pp. plus appendices. Hitchcock, C.L., A. Cronquist. 1977. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. Seattle, Washington. Reppert, R.T., W. Sigleo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, and C. Meyers. 1979: Wetland Values - Concepts and Methods for Wetland Evaluation. Research Report 79 -R1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service. Soils Survey of King County Area Washington, June 1973. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization, Volume 1., 1975. 18 5- Rivers 01248 APPENDIX A Beneficial Uses of Plants Proposed for Planting in the Wetland and Buffer 19 5- Rivers 01248 BENEFICIAL USES OF PLANTS USED IN WETLAND AND BUFFER RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITIES TREE STRATA BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU buffer Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. 'Excellent insect habitat which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Western red cedar Thuja plicate FAC wetland and buffer Provides . escape /refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good along riparian areas. Good soil stability value. Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla FACU buffer Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as-a snag. Good along riparian areas. - Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis FAC wetland and buffer' . Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and food for wildlife. Seed cones drop in tall. Also habitat for insects which are prey for wildlife. Important structural habitat component, alive or as a snag. Good soil stability value. big leaf maple Acer macrophyl/um FACU buffer , • Important structural habitat component alive or as a snag. Stumps produce dense mass of sprout stems. Seed eaten by many wildlife species. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Good soil stability value. Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia FACW wetland and buffer edge Female trees produce seeds that are eaten by many species of wildlife. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations`, and insect habitat. Western paper birch Betula papyrivera FAC wetland edge Hardy, fast growing. Seeds especially valued by goldfinches, siskins, and juncos: Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat cascara Rhamnus purshiana FAC- buffer edge Good soil- binding characteristics and grows well in disturbed sites. Provides escape/refuge cover, . nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. ' bitter cherry Prunus emarglnata FACU buffer Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and:insect habitat. Fruit eaten by-wildlife. Good soil stability value. , ".. . Western crabapple . Pyrus fusca '" • FACW wetland and ' buffer edge Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. . black hawthome. • Crataegus douglasii FAC wetland and buffer edge Dense crown provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Fruit eaten by wildlife. Good soil stability value. . . Pacific willow Salix lasiandra FACW+ , wetland and • buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by . . wildlife. - SHRUB AND GROUND COVER STRATA BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME INDICATOR • STATUS PLANTING LOCATION - BENEFICIAL USES. . Sitka willow Salix sitchensis FACW wetland and buffer edge Fast growing. .Excellent soil - binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by wildlife. Scouler willow Salix scouleriana FAC `. c wetland and buffer edge - Fast growing. Excellent soil- binding characteristics and very effective erosion control. Provides escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and excellent insect habitat. Does not produce seed or fruit for use by Wildlife. red -osier dogwood Comus stolonifera FACW wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil - binding characteristics. Attractive multi -stem shrub with or.without stems. Excellent escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat White fruit eaten by wildlife. salmonberry Rubus spectabilis FAC+ wetland and buffer edge Good soil - binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. . Fruit has high .food -value for wildlife. Nootka rose Rosa nutkana FAC wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value • and are persistent well into winter. peafruit rose Rosa pisocarpa . FAC wetland and buffer edge . Excellent soil-binding characteristics.. Well adapted to disturbed areas. Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. wild rose Rosa gymnocarpa FACU buffer and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Well adapted to disturbed areas.' Fruit has high food value and are persistent well into winter. Pacific ninebark Physocarpus capitatus FACW- wetland and buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. . vine maple Acer circinatum FAC- buffer edge Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat Winged fruit eaten by wildlife. salal .•. Gaultherla shallon FACU buffer -, Good soil - binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. Oregon'grape Berber's nervosa UPL buffer Good soll-binding characteristics. Produces edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. snowbeny Symphoricarpus albus FACU buffer Excellent soll-binding characteristics. Produces edible berries used by wildlife. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. black twinberry Lonicera. involucrata • FAC+ buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat Pacific red elderberry Sambucus racernosa FACU buffer Good soil-binding characteristics. Produces edible fruit Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat prickly current Ribes lacustne . FAC+ wetiand.and buffer edge . Produces edible fruit Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat • BOTANICAL NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME. INDICATOR STATUS PLANTING LOCATION BENEFICIAL USES gooseberry, Ribes divarfcatum FAC wetland and buffer edge Produces edible fruit Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat flowering current Ribes sangulneum UPL buffer Produces edible fruit. Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat. hazelnut Corylus- comuta FACU buffer Excellent soil- binding characteristics. Multi-stem shrub. Excellent escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat. Nuts eaten by wildlife. Important small mammal winter stored food. kinnikinnick Arctostaphylos wa -ursi _ FACU- buffer Good soil- binding characteristics. Produces abundant; edible berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. thimbleberry Rubus parvifiorus FAC- buffer Produces edible fruit Flowers are attractive to hummingbirds. Provides escape and refuge cover, and insect habitat evergreen huckleberry Vaccinium ovatum UPL buffer Good soil- binding characteristics and tolerant to poor soils. Produces edible'berries used by some wildlife. Provides excellent ground cover for wildlife escape and refuge. =oceanspray - Holodiscus discolor - buffer Goodsoil- binding characteristics and does well on disturbed sites. Multi -stem shrub. Excellent escape/refuge cover, nesting locations, and insect habitat Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by wildlife. . slough sedge - Carex obnupta OBL wetland Good soil - binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Seeds persist through the winter and are eaten by wildlife. small fruited bulrush Scirpus microcarpus OBL wetland Good soil- binding characteristics. Seeds eaten by wildlife. common cattail Typha latifolia . OBL wetland ' Good soil - binding characteristics and does well in disturbed sites. Stems and seeds are eaten by wildlife. Provides escape and refuge cover, nesting sites, and insect habitat. 2 20' MIN. DIAMETER AT TOP STUMP NOTE: T TYPICAL VERTICAL LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) FOR PLACEMENIN V+ETLAND A D BUFFER AREAS. MINIMUM .20' LENGTH 0 li�ll li =lf 11 11 1l Il=11= 1111 =lI arEw -r1 li IlE= 1I�r�Aii =i tt, lip -nm11 11 la —mac a�n�oa- as —saw n_u�rean -i %- INIMUM 20' DIAMET>R LOG • . AT 10' ABM ROOT COLLAR • NOTE: TYPICAL.HORIZONTAL LARGE WOODY DEBRIS (LWD) FOR PLACEMENT IN ViETLAND AND BUFFER AREAS. (MAY USE ENTIRE. 05/13/2005 14:57 2538524955 eroN. Cramer Northwest, Inc. Surveyors *Planners •Engineers Minnie Dhaliwal City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #I00 Tukwila WA 98188 RE: Five Rivers, E01 -027 Minnie, CRAMER NW PAGE 01 May 12, 2005 Attached are the additional geotechnical items the City requested in the December 10, 2004 communication LSI, Adapt has reviewed and commented on the Dames & Moore and the GeoEngineers reports. They have also commented on the site stability regarding access and road placement. At this time we would request that the City review the geotechnical comments in preparation for the determination for the Special Permission decision. In response the change in the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance we will also be submitting a revised wetland mitigation plan and a short plat application. Based on the City's response to the geotecbm ical and wetland information, and feasibility review, we will pursue a abort plat application for this project. Thank you for your assistance. PIease contact us for any additional information that might be needed. Aleanna Kondelis Project Manager 945 N. Central. Suite 11104 Kent WA 98032 (253) 852 -4880 Fax (253) 852 -4955 www.cramemw.com E -mail: cniacramemw.com Page 1 of 1 LSI Adapt, Inc. for Additional Services (dated May 7, 2004). Written authorization for this work was provided by you via facsimile on September 30, 2003. This letter supplements the conclusions and recommendations presented in our previous geotechnical report and letter. This geotechnical engineering evaluation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of Five Rivers Development, and their agents, for specific application to the planned project and site. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. Adapt does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose whatever, known or unknown, to Adapt. Site and Project Description The subject site is located along the east side of 53rd Avenue South, across from 159th Street, in Tukwila, Washington. It is our understanding that the development will include several single - family residential dwellings on individual building lots. Our original geotechnical report was based on the Tukwila Sensitive Area maps identifying portions of the subject site as Class 3 Area (Area of Potential Geologic Instability; high landslide potential with general slopes between 20 and 40 percent and if certain adverse subsurface conditions exist). Specifically, the topographic survey for the site indicated that the site slopes generally ranged from 3H:1 V (33 percent) to 4H:1 V (25 percent). Subsequent information revealed during the City of Tukwila peer review process indicated that the site actually should have been identified as a Class 4 (Area of Potential Geologic Instability; very high landslide potential, including existing mappable landslide deposits). This classification was based on previous landsliding activity related to the construction of the nearby Tukwila Interchange (junction of 1 -5 & S.R. -518/1 -405). Given the new sensitive area classification, the City of Tukwila has required a comprehensive review of all relevant documents available in the WSDOT archives to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the subject site and adjacent area. Following our initial supplementary review, the City of Tukwila required that Adapt review documents related to the permit request for the adjacent "Valley View Estates" south of the subject site, which was denied in 1989 due to insufficient documentation that the hillside would remain stable during and after the proposed Valley View Estates development. The Valley Estates site was located below Slade Way within one of the first observed and documented major slide areas during the original freeway construction in the early 1960's. Review of Previous Records As a part of our second supplementary study, we reviewed the following additional documents made available after our previous supplementary study and pertaining to the previous landsliding activity in the vicinity of the site (listed in a chronological order): • Multiple Documents relating to the Valley View Estates permit application file (see items (a.) through (k.) on attached list provided by City of Tukwila) • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Report on Foundation Investigation — Existing Slide Area, Tukwila Interchange, PSH 1 (SRS); June 12, 1964. Five Rivers Development February 9, 2005 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01 -6475-0 Page 2 LSI Adapt, Inc. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Report on Foundation Investigation — North of Existing Slide Area, Tukwila Interchange, PSH 1 (SRS); July 12, 1964. Our conclusions and recommendations are based in part or wholly on the information contained in these documents. As such, our geotechnical recommendations are only as good as the accuracy of these previous documents. Adapt assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions resulting from possible inaccuracies on these documents prepared by others. We recommend that Adapt be retained to perform supplementary engineering evaluations and field observations during construction, in order to address any deviations that may become evident during the construction phase of this project. Subsurface Conditions Generally, our test pits across the subject site reveled the presence of varying amounts of uncontrolled fill soils overlying interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense sand, medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, all underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depths ranging from 8 to 11 feet. The deeper boring logs (by others) that we reviewed for this study indicates that these surface soils are underlain by stiff to hard laminated silts, clayey silts, fine to medium sands, and gravel lenses of glacial origin. Confined, water - bearing (artesian groundwater) was encountered at depth in some of these previous borings. General and deeper subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the subject site are depicted on the attached previous soil profiles by others; Soil Profile No. 1 (representative of the Five River site conditions) and Soil Profile No. 2 (representative of the Valley View Estates site, previous Slade Way landslide area). The location of these previous soil profiles are depicted on the attached previous Site Investigation Plan by Shannon & Wilson (May 1968). In addition, we have attached previous boring logs by others relevant to the deeper soil and groundwater conditions at the subject site; Boring 1 (Fig. A -6) by Dames & Moore (D &M) and Boring Logs No. DH -7A, DH -9A, and DH -15A by Shannon & Wilson. Review of Valley View Estates Permitting File After reviewing the recently provided documents relating to the denied permit application for the previously proposed Valley View Estates development (1989), we conclude that the slope stability analyses and ultimate conclusions regarding the stability of the Slade Way hillside and feasibility of the proposed development are not directly relevant to the proposed Five Rivers development at the subject property, for the reasons stated below: • The previous Valley View Estates site is generally located at a much higher elevation and within very different geological subsurface conditions that the Five Rivers site. The difference is demonstrated by the previous Boring 1 (D &M) and Log DH -7A (S &W) in the vicinity of the Valley View site, which shows the underlying silt layers to be much softer (even with a clearly defined landslide shear zone) that the S &W borings within the Five Rivers site, Logs DH -9A and DH -15A which disclosed the underlying massive silt layers to be stiff to hard and without any indication of any previous soil shear zones. • The topography within the Previous Valley 'View site is generally steeper than that of the Five Rivers site. In addition, the overall topographic relief of the Valley view site is much greater Five Rivers Development February 9, 2005 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01 -6475 -0 Page 3 LSI Adapt, Inc. (from about elevation 80 -ft to 250 -ft) than that of the Five Rivers site (from roughly elevation 100 -ft to 170 -ft). Generally speaking, a steeper slope with greater topographic relief will be less stable that a less steep slope with less topographical relief, given similar subsurface conditions. • Significant amounts of borrow source material was excavated from the bottom of the hill below the Valley View site, which created a steeper terrain and ultimately contributed to the reactivation of the previous landslide mass below Slade Way during the freeway construction in the early 1960's (see attached Profile No. 2 by S &W). Based on our review of available documents, no significant amounts of borrow material excavation took place below the Five Rivers site. • The "Slade Way" landslide was documented and monitored by WSDOT and its geotechnical consultants, whereas no such movement was apparent at the time of the freeway construction within the Five Rivers site (based on available inclinometer data). Past and Current Groundwater Well Readings Our review of WSDOT file documents indicates that subsequent monitoring of the slope indicator wells and piezometer wells through January 1970 confirmed that slope movement had ceased and that the deeper (drained) water levels remained stable. Given the importance of maintaining low groundwater levels on the stability of the whole Tukwila interchange landslide area, especially within the deeper, confined, saturated sand layers (artesian groundwater) we remeasured groundwater levels as a part of this study where previous piezometer wells and deep pump wells are still accessible and intact (we obtained a WSDOT ROW permit to accomplish this). Generally, most of these well readings confirmed that groundwater levels have been maintained very close to or even below the last groundwater levels recorded by WSDOT during the original monitoring period (ended in 1970). The current groundwater levels are noted where applicable on the attached boring logs and cross sections. Copies of relevant original groundwater monitoring data sheets are also enclosed. Site Slope Stability Evaluation In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed construction of a new entry road embankment (up to 15 -feet high) on the site stability, we developed a representative Geologic Cross - Section A-A based on available topographic information, available geologic maps, previous subsurface profiles by others, the subsurface conditions encountered in our explorations, and our recent well readings of current groundwater levels. We then used a computer program (Slope/W) to perform slope stability analyses of the existing slope conditions both with and without the proposed embankment fill, to determine if the placement of the embankment would have any impact on the general slope stability within the site and adjacent WSDOT ROW areas. The results of the stability analyses are expressed as a factor of safety, which is computed as the ratio of the forces resisting slope failure to the gravitational forces tending to cause a slope failure. For the static case, using soil strength values similar to those assumed by S &W in their original stability analyses (see attached Fig. 7), our analyses indicate a safety factor of about 1.7, against potential, deep - seated, global slope failure for the most critical potential failure circle extending through the base of the cylinder pile wall along the A -ramp and exiting on the uphill side of the W -Ramp. This most critical failure circle is not affected at all by the construction of a new roadway embankment at the Five Rivers site. For a Five Rivers Development February 9, 2005 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01 -6475-0 Page 4 LSI Adapt, Inc. less critical potential failure circle extending all the way up to the proposed location of the new embankment, our analyses indicate a safety factor of about 2.0. This estimated safety factor is less than 0.1 lower than the safety factor computed for the same potential failure circle without the embankment in place; this relatively small difference in safety factor may be considered to be insignificant, since it is well within the expected analysis error. We also performed a pseudo - static analysis to evaluate a potential seismic loading case for the same potential failure planes with the new embankment in place, assuming an average horizontal ground acceleration of 0.15 g, which is about half of the anticipated peak horizontal ground acceleration. The factor of safety against slope failure under the seismic loading condition is estimated to be 1.1, or greater. A minimum static safety factor of 1.5 and a minimum seismic safety factor of 1.1 are generally considered by the geotechnical engineering community to provide an adequate safety margin against slope instability. Representative printouts from our Slope/W computer analyses are enclosed with this report, including the assumed soil profile and estimated failure circles for the minimum (critical) safety factor in both the static and seismic cases. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the supplementary review described herein, we come to the same conclusion as we did in our first supplementary review letter. It remains our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the hillside or surrounding areas, provided that the recommendations of our original geotechnical engineering report and our supplemental letters are implemented into the final design. This includes all of the construction limitations outlined in our first supplemental letter, with the exception of the construction of the proposed new entryway fill embankment analyzed and discussed in this letter. Closure The conclusions and recommendations provided in this letter are based, in part, on our limited review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if any changes to the existing site conditions are observed at a later time, Adapt should be contacted to review those changes and modify our geotechnical evaluation, if needed. Five Rivers Development February 9, 2005 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 5 LSI Adapt, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206 - 654 -7045. Respectfully submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. Rolf B. Hy lseth, P.E Senior Geotechnical Engineer EXPIRES 6,05/) $ Enclosures: Revised Five Rivers Site Plan (Jaeger Engineering, dated Nov. 22, 2004) Previous Fig. 1 - Site Investigation Plan ( S &W June & July 1964 Reports) Previous Boring 1 (D &M, April 1961) Previous Logs 7A, 9A, and 15A (S &W, June 1964) Previous Fig. — Deep Well Pumps (S &W March 1966 Report) Previous WSDOT Piezometer and Well Data Logs (1965 & 1970) Slope/W Analysis Sections (7 pgs): • Geologic Cross Section A-A: Definition w /assumed soil parameters; • Geologic Cross Section A-A: Static analysis, 2 Potential Failure Locations, with and without Entryway Embankment Fill; • Geologic Cross Section A -A: Seismic analysis, 2 Potential Failure Locations, with Entryway Embankment Fill. Previous Fig. 7 — Stability Analysis Sta. 12 +50, A -Ramp (S &W July 1964 Report) City of Tukwila List of Valley View Estates Permitting File Documents Distribution: Five Rivers Development (1) Attn: Mr. Hakam Grewal Kramer Northwest (3) Attn: Ms. Aleanna Kondelis Five Rivers Development February 9, 2005 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01 -6475-0 Page 6 A PORTION of the S.W. 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M. 4 1 FLOW RESTRICTOR RISER AND 12. OUTLET L�l A, DRA1 DETENTION V T/V TVAULT 0 1 V DESIGN WATER LEVEL ELEV+ 1265' TOP WETPONO ELEV: 121.5 80T WETP1310D: ELEVn 118.3 WETPOND Vatnc: 5998 CF DETENTION VOLUKE 9996 cr Es. Ser, Seer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr•. 136.81 Ex. SAN SEVER EX. WATER RAIN 9.L — se- go TR DR 32 K-CT B INAGE `SF 8t .306.0• ' SETBACK FOR BASEMENTS FDR FOUNDATIONS GREATER THAN 36» BEEP. E. Sanitary Seer Man:role Rim: 128.58 IE12'OCtr. 118.75 REV1S0N5: Z w 117 W 0 0 Ch tri Z a� I O O 01 m Z N —.. C 2 O W 2 of Y c k W 2 t2 001 0. NEV 5' SIDEWALK NEW VERT. CURB /GUTTER Sanitary Seer Mantra Rim: 185.32 15 Cl' . 158.00 OlF _ S. 159 ST.__ ELI 5' SIDEWALK VERT. CURB/GUTTER ell VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 ESTABLISHED BY: WSDOT ID: HCT7 -6 Located in the CRy of Tuk.io east of the Saulhecenter Moll on the K6ckitat Ori.e/I -5 undercress5Bg. The mark a o %SOOT !roes ask set in the cantor of the side.o0, in the southeast comer of the bridge It is 129.0 feel west of the centerline of the Southcenter Parkway and 28.0 feet south of the centerline of Klekit01 Drive. �hiANrzYN „rT „ NrPy �, e1 JtL 4t. L3 r r ev ar.«vhrv.' DRYCO Z,� _ @ / I '1 I' \ �\ — ` I -Y YC.fA��ZSwI -� w I \__ N / \ \\ i° 1S1 NA T A - //, >1 / \�a \ \ SEN L Ss \ / TLA 1 �` I = mot/ 4 0'S d / I u-/� \ \ >--- - - __ ..___ 7 I. . tAc-- Y, I \ \ \\cY�rAkL( TER VIN L \N Nas \\ \ s r ' Surveying, Incorporated 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WA 98390 253- 826 -0300 FAX 253 - 826 -9703 2000202 OAR MATER 1/23/7001 .10 LY H IA. I j11H1 \ \ IIII IIo, � ��� E. Sanitary Sewer Manhole\ RJ,: 127.00 A1AN00NE0 E. Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 2'OCtr: 1 Ea Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125:29 ABANDOMD CONCEP T. DRAINAGE, ROAD & UTILITY PLAN k GRAPHIC SCALE 15 30 60 A A t___.} Qaoto41c X-aetr,,(sLotN srfr8iuti "fl+$ 6- DATE: sis� t 120 ( IN FRET ) 1 inch w 30 R. OR1f. 8y: APP. 8r: SKEET or / ( • • • r / t .:.: \ — ■ , Cylinder pile woll DESM \i". • • \fits(.19E I) 2ZO" \\-\ • lotion of prehistoric scarp 'sr \_ N, \ IRevise • Oct .I566 LEGEND PIEZOMETEF SLOPE INDICATOR OBSERVATION WELL (2°TORSIONAL VANE SHEAR TEST INCLINOMETER DRILL HOLE (From previous ropoMo TEST PIT SLIDE MOVEMENT STAKE — HORIZONTAL DRAIN (Instolted prior to Jan. ISG3i A 235*-C INDiCATES INSTRUMENT DESTROYED 18* J '(.41L/RECENT SURE SCAPP ( «mess noted os being oid:r.r STATE RIGHT OF WAY LINE 100 200 300 400 SCALE: FEET TUKWILA INTERCHARGE AGREEMENT Y-713, SUPPL E NT .1 SITE INVESTIGATION, PL March 31;1966 SHANNON & WILSON SOIL MECHANICS A FOUNDATION ENCINEERt- Fe, i367 , Mcy ;968 • 350 - -.. 300 — -- C..),/÷10 CRAY r,R.AY•, ttCN:'EY`Ca ^E., ; 7 GROUND /51 IRFACE 5a. ?3 Side 4-3 LILAC_ _.. Sootli W Ramp 1. PROPOSED EXCAVATION z150 5ILTg5 ABOVE WITH INT B6fi. 'O F�LTLr. ID M�UWi7.,,Rost[T 7 I,_[ 100 J 50 0 WELL (I� • LYzSE'TG?:?Y GL &YlrY 510 WITi1. FDINT !! P05510LE FyME. Y� �SF�f RYA FJiAT-12B' "GRAYFTWETO RTCD10'M BROWN FINE SAND FILL W WOOD d plaint S — M LIB- —__ tr .;;, - .2y ! V ;fit ,JI n c ' 74;V∎T L)i '. GPAY SLtG#TW Co, ..2 i t46711 ..441.3401111.7 6 .,.SAND t 5ILTY;9AM . ' ^- 51LTO:;#. 11iL' ? GRAY,SILTY,FINE TD MEDLaJ1i5ANr'4LLl. H PE`$B 2'ZONE OF POSSIBLE FINE TO MEDIUM LOOSE WET,WATER BEARING SAND ZONE OF MEASUREMENT LEGEND P!EZOMETER WATER LEVEL LOCATION OF PIE ZOMETER TIP ®A DRILL HOLE LOCATION t DESIGNATION GRAY, INTERBEDDED* GRA_1R' I FINE tJJL f Mi_ 50IL5 LEGEND 11 F-1 LAO5E TO MEDIUM,FINE TO VERY FINE,GRAY Ta BROWN SAND (2) ;�- I rej DENSE TO VERY DENSE,MEDIUM TO FINE GRAY SAND WITH OCCASIONAL PEBBLES l STIFF TO VERY 5TFF,CLAYEY TO NON- CLAYEY,GRAY SILT WITN LAYERS PARTINGS OF FIN E 10 MEDIUM SANDY 5ILT00FINE TO MEDIUM SAND 4.4 STIFF TO VERY STIFF, CLAYEY TO NON - CLAYEY GRAY SILT bkez.YERY STIFF TO HARD, Fl NE TO MEDIUM SAND T1 LLB SI LTY, GRAY, WITH SCATTERED PEBBLES — PROFILE `) SCALE.: I 50' 1747.-1 I � s SAN D'S E,4i1'LS - :. LICKENSIDED CLAY SEAN \VITF HAIRLIME RYIFiiiE SAND • w • FAILURE ZONE OBSERVED IN •\ DAMES 4 MOORE \BORING GRAY,SLIGH Tod W:L.A INTL,VFANGE. PS.HWY NO I • PROFILE) .Y,`E•i :51 JLILYI5'4A SHANNON & WILSOPI,INC. SOIL MECHANICS 4 FOUNDATION ENGINEEF 5 FIG.3 } a 0 1- DAME'S MOORS -' RAY S,L T v/ O` C GRAVEL SAND' _ GRAN. 'Oil Olt a; ORIGINAL GROUND, SS? .---GROUND SURFACE, A. 136 t -- GROUND SURFACE, JAN. 1962 2 Y SILT LEGEND PIEZOMETER WATER LEVEL A.. -DRILL HOLE LOCATION 4 / DESIGNATION GLICKENSIDED ZONE GRAY E SAND PROFILE SCALE : I . SO. ffer•Mard w, - PROPOSED EXCAVATION FOR W- RAMP `GROUND SURFACE, WT.. 1962 \--PROPOSED HIGHWAY EMBANKMENT •••••:',":": • • •: • SLIDE MOVEMENT DATA DEFLECTION IN INCHES • • 4-27.6 I 'AT Go is.. et • 4- 64% AT 14004m. ' • .' • - • . 1. • • , / • I , 7 . :!•:• t • ••■••• . • — ' -._ 4.25-6 I 8:00 •.A. •. . .SHEAR 20NE-- WEST--EAST AXIS -2 LEST ELEVATION IN FEET 175 - DEPTH IN FEET .2 • 0 • 170 4.17:01 AA..81:. 5- 165- I341.- to 1,4 26 155• 24$ 20 - 150 - u 25- 24U 30- 140-- 13a A ...1.- 35 20 CI 01:00i-iwbic*Iiw*As f0i74.1.0 . IMITTAI,NeEPENCE READINGS ' 7 • 4214Cikii.EC*LOW Elf:4SIMG 'SWAP 120 R flDT1C1AlUtG OF;;ANN- FA00100 READINGS'. -' • - TUE .1818 -BEARING -OF THE NORTH- SOLT. If- AXIS- 15'11-S0t:E. - NOTE: _ • ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON U.S.C. ANO G.S. DATUM OF 1929", P1.3.1.. .• Et EVAT ION 0.0. 1. 130 45 _3_1554 125- -‘7 50- ,120 24g .4 I . ILOWS•RESUIRES TO tit 1 vE -0000LE0 ONE FOOT .1 18411118--.4 300"-LBS., STROKE 4. 24 "INCHES I INVICATES.mssco .sAMPLE , is • 00040trit•- *Fri AT irms0,41111108114111118 ' • siavts NM, 00fRAPIPP • ., • LOG OF BORINGS 55 415 AP 60 - 325 (10 - -Tr t2 0 65 _ 105 - ELEVATION 171.0 BROWN SANDY LOAM RUTH GRAVEL MOTTLED DROWN AND BRAY SILTY CLAY LOAM 'WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL GRADES TO.BLLUSH GRAY IN COLOR PO GRAVEL GRAY 5 IL TY CLAY ' OCCASIONAL LAYERS OF GRAY FINE TO MFJ)11514 SAND GRAY FINE TO MED ISM SAND WITH OCCASIOtAL GRAVEL (WATER BEAR I NG ) GRAY SANZO CLAY LOAM 13ITH Esi4YEL AND 'LAYERS OF WATER BEARING GRAY FINE TO N3D1UM SAND am -ERAVEL 4i124ECIEAO.P‘oli 0OTE0 AFTER MOLE 000 3060 01E9010PT VITEN cat1oo NT 45 FEET DECREAS I NG • SANO LAVERS GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM 54 (40 e GRA YEA. (WATER SEARING UNDER ARTESIAN PRESSukE: GRAY sAY CLAY LOAM :Wm..GRAVEL (PARTIALLY CEMENTED) cootoo LEFT 000•t00 vo a DEPTH or STi FEET FOCI 148VOLLATIOM OF °LOPE INOICC7CE,• AFTEOIAO FLOC OF UATER COoT,NUED. / e _ i 1 PiEZO- MIE:_TERS • 75.0 5E-2, 501 OE:SCRIP11o:4 BROWN SLIGHTLY CLAY FINE. SAND (FILI..-) aR.o\N DAM? SL\CTL-Y LY C LAY EY SI LT STANDARD PENETRATION! PIE ZOMETER VVAT ER • -FST 1 LEVELS BLOWS/FOOT 3uLy so 1001 27 1 5 S 13 17 2) 25 z. GRI\■! sLAGI-VTLY CLAY tL MTH oc.C.ASStoriAL SAW) LEASE.S. AtiD • TLJKWILA INITERC:LANGE (AGREEMarr t•19. Y711) L 0 G 7 W-G,4-151 ji.j\!7--- OC • wiLsoN CS IL EtHAt'C5 2s IC .,IFOLINDATO■i FIG. IA 1• 1 0 a DEP T I P PI E70- T STANDARD PENETRATION P PIEZOMETER W WATER y ^t E'`J, j BLO\AIS /FOOT T i 'a G .7 1 1 S Si! Ti W4; ' l 1. 7 1-0 MEN, 1 1 1 \ L fi 2 2 • T j 1 1 ° y- S Sr I ica TO t �� • f IN'rERl,HA G 110.-4- : , ,, EL�j E b^,, (/ til TO G', t t i SILTS C.,R :y, F R,Nki LOCALLY ' . I 84.9 1 • S SiL-T AS AZO S i 57.o 1 71.4- / / 1 } F iRM) Ti Gt1T) PRY To SL1Gt-1T L.Y Pd 4S - 82.0 S S: tb.\1Eti'.Y F1 NZ,WA4:c _ TUKWILA I _ ^ „r. r” g F_�.0 A(ri T SILT WET S0F VERY � �- .� I = = OG DH--1A 1 i G`RAYi=IRN1,TIGHT WITK 25. 9 200' 3 150 100 4 5c 0 -50 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Static) File Name: Cross Section A -A with Fill (static).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop (with Ordinary & Janbu) Seismic Coefficient: (none) 53rd Avenue escription: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight: 125 Cohe ion Ph 27 I T / ■ Description: M. Dense Sand (Rd. Embankment Fill) I Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 7Phi: 35 ' 28 29 Proposed Entry Road TP-4 DH -9A TP -5 W-Ramp Piezo 4B /C DH -15A Group 2 Wells 19 18 A -Ramp Description: M. Stiff- Hard Silt/Clayey Unit Weight 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 28 10 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 0 11 122 118 24 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 0 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Static) File Name: Cross Section A -A with Fill (static).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: (none) Description: M. Dense Sand (Rd. Embankment Fill) Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 35 53rd Proposed Avenue Entry Road escription: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight 125 TP-4 DH -9A TP -5 Piezo 4B /C • • • / /,. • r •6' •I • % ?` / / P \• • i /• • r • / / /• • 1- N • N N W I • •r 1 • • N • � / .1.74.4 L • Nc:)• 1II11! // 1 • • • I W -Ramp DH -15A Group 2 Wells • • • • • A -Ramp Description: M. Stiff - Hard Silt/Clayey Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 28 Description: Dense - V. Dense Sand Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 -50 1 1 1 0 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 700 150 Io 100 1v IW 200 0 -50 0 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Static) File Name: Cross Section A -A without Fill (static).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: (none) 53rd Avenue Description: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight: 125 TP -4 Proposed Entry Road DH -9A TP -5 W -Ramp Piezo 4B /C DH -15A Group 2 Wells • A -Ramp Description: M. Stiff - Hard Silt/Clayey Unit Weight 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 28 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 200 150 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Static) File Name: Cross Section A -A with Fill (static).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: (none) Description: M. Dense Sand (Rd. Embankment Fill) Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 35 53rd Proposed Avenue Entry Road escnption: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight: 125 TP-4 DH -9A TP -5 Piezo 4B /C • • N • N W N • \ • • • • W-Ramp DH -15A Group 2 Wells • •• 2.026 • • • •• •• •• • • • • • • • • A -Ramp Descn�ption M yStiff teHardoSSi1 Ciayeeyy ,it 1Neight a25�n 100 — •:Cohesion: Phi? 28`►` 50 0 -50 0 wr, Description Dense - V Dense Sand Cohesion Phi: 33 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 -50 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Static) File Name: Cross Section A -A without Fill (static).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: (none) 53rd Avenue Description: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight: 125 Proposed Entry Road TP-4 DH -9A Piezo 4B /C W -Ramp DH -15A Group 2 Wells A -Ramp 0 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 200 150 100 50 -50 0 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Seismic, 0.15g) File Name: Cross Section A -A with Fill (seismic).slp Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis ' ethod: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: Horizontal • • • •I• • •••• /•• • • •\ • Description: M. Dense Sand (Rd. Embankment Fill) - Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 • Phi: 35 53rd Proposed • • Avenue Entry Road escription: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt W-Ramp eight: 125 TP-4 DH -9A TP -5 Piezo 4B /C DH -15A v Group 2 Wells N • • • • A -Ramp Description: Dense - V. Dense Sand • - 0 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0 Description: Five Rivers Development Comments: Geologic Cross Section A -A (Seismic, 0.15g) File Name: Cross Section A -A with Fill (seismic).sip Last Saved Date: 2/9/2005 Analysis Method: Bishop Seismic Coefficient: Horizontal 53rd Avenue escription: Loose - M. Dense Sand/ M. Stiff Silt eight: 125 TP -4 Description: M. Dense Sand (Rd. Embankment Fill) - Unit Weight: 125 Cohesion: 0 Phi: 35 Proposed Entry Road DH -9A TP -5 • • • 1\ • 1.181 • . • • • ti • ` •I • • • • • • • 1 ) • • 1 • • • I• • 1• /• •I • • • • • •\ • • W-Ramp Piezo 48 /C DH -15A Group 2 Wells • • • • • A -Ramp Cohesion: 0 Phi: 33 100 200 300 400 Distance (ft) 500 600 700 200 150 bi z 100 0 141 0 CALCULATIONS CIRCLE I F.S. = N twn _ 3.49(.46) = Lit (4)-- 25°) F.S. Nt4, 3.49 (.577) ( err_ 30`) () W R 1 CAlLCULAT)0N5 FOR CROSSHATCHED wE6E B viATER TABLE. AT D-D v Pki or 3 ": 5 WI-,eye i<A" SIP1 4) -.4os itsti14) (Forctii2sn Phi =. .405 Q 25)(411)a = 42500 *At Phi= .405 ()2'5X35)4= 1,55 Eor, Irct p, AH1 a = .40.5(12.5)(40 = 2080 4V.Pt2- PAa p... Ha :L7.• (2080)(35) PA;roiiiL Pkt Plka PAN 3 = 1307 70° SY wi C (For 0=25d) W Rap 76(%4-1)(17) G98, 000 Vir-t wHao+.= a 503X 62•5) - 791S00 */ft a Wson;i-- WHof GIS, zoo F.S. (0.../so,L— v1/444,0) Tay, 4 PA -rurAt. 6191°°(°46(') z 2.20 0)=2E9 tIoiloo 200 ES& = G1537 a°C)( 4511) 2..74 (43 3 oe;) 1 3 0) 00 v..egr Th- A Rawl:. SuloarcArk 7G1 c PAz_ 47, CRITICAL C RC LE.. 73. 74j. SLIDING V■11:)GE iANALY SIS CALCULATIONS ARTEs)kw PRESSURE C-c- 3e(74112s) =iis,800%t a E I T 1..46 IN2 WSC)i W4a0 -0. UNSTABLE_ FOR SHADED WEDGE A WPNTER TABLE D-D. = 2Q05° S1o.eL = = 2455000% 2. F—C1 R CU LAR ARC EC-PUS \NISOIL 11:\/1-1 0 T‘ierl F.S. TUKWiLA 'INTERCHANGE P.5 • HWY Mc- C.. AGREEMENT Y-713 SUM? AGREEMENT 2. SHANNON & WILSON SOIL MECHANICS & FOUNDATION ENGINEERS n►�y i itamvJ gt,or) Re tbriv y lq jS (f9 h 120 ' Gray, clo Bey, sandy ± . - SIT PRESENT GROUND SURFACE Y 209 '+- ii iI I� I 1 Itl�,�I iiiIIlullIIIlIIl!!u!IIi 1111�1l11l111 ___ . ,`lay ,SIL M1 profile Lam 3--- SILT 9 CLAY . 90 80 70 I�IIII�I�i11111111PIPIIIII 1 iii-r., ■ 2. Z_`_' �•S - ' iUIii'.1!li•• • : il111I Gray. Uayey,SILT G ayT r ' —__- _ — -`� ��a $ 1 Y re - —� iii i_ii 1 1!! _fog Effl M-�� gum OE3111r ..4 ~4 r� �'� a' - - - � 50 40 - Gray, cl0yey, sandy, SILT v Q � Ps _ �;:a1116e_,4 f F —� �I N=- ,- ..I • ` �_ � m al in 2 - -N = O of CD a) N �° a a N N N o os m r- to In In Cl aYe/ to Sandy SILT 20 ,,, - N Gray, silty fine SANG m M 10- Q N CO • Q II 10 .. 1 s06 237 Ii 8 -� ►9 1` 202 SECS -10N A - A ►� [35 7 11' 234 J •15 �.�c� X14 13 12 to o u ,,g 26 t6 I5; o o ° 6' 230A n 0 0. 14 1° Wi0$ • �a2� /" • 2308 _; — / 22 a° �" 2a ° 21 ►12 Ao" 3 � .. 206 . / O y - 29 0 / 06 roe 33. 3 °3030 00A-5/1. Gt °' 9 37 3a 30 34 �B 4A / 4Cbi 4039 0 ° 0 444340 04° VIA \0 .209 45 0 0 208 49 48 46:504 0 /� `i` `oe 8251 O00 47 67 — 58 57 55 54 0 ° 50 Aq ° ° ° o� 60 000 0.0 ° ° 053 / 66 64 62 59 56 �� ^ . 20480204A 2058» 205A • X24 • 25 ►2I 6C` .•5A zo o 202341A . 2318 ° 0 0 2 1 a0 3A 38$" 2r• PLAN 4 Ce Vi 233? / .N- "MO �;q 4%32 MR I6 / 2B 2A 3 � S3 AI IM • G o3 in �0 19 4 / A of m / o1) 03 Y / H -7A ' Gray, clo Bey, sandy ± . - SIT iI I� ! 1 \ c_Aporo>< W Line profile Lam noted SAND SILT 9 CLAY . r ' —__- _ + -ice $ 1 Y re III Gr°y.IISANO I S4 • 2°oI S2. 1 V IA 2 °B lII OH-3A L1 5I Q �3p0o 02 LEGEND • Slope Indicator location • Piezometer location 6 Boring location o Deep well pump Level of pump turn on switch Level of pump turn off switch Bottom of well tip Bottom of 5 foot shaft 0 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE: FEET TUKWILA. INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y -713, SUPPLEMENT 6 DEEP — WELL PUMPS I /ARCH 31,1966 W -64 -4688 SHANNON & WILSON 160 150 140 130 120 . 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 11.4/ CQ.W.:1DATE:../- 9-- 9 SUBjECT /4 Xi e.reklai/4 e SHEET NO. ...... OF 42 6.? .0 lip )'/r r JOB NO.. Z • / 4.67 C33 ZEIKD. BY DATE -I 51.7 5.2.-4 17.715`2 , .: 2 ; __ 5'24. 4.0..1 ...____ .5.2.1 52.1-i- • .56.-7 56.5. 1.40.1 "4 .56,... 1 - _39.7 39../ 31 5/.3 -55.0 45.71i45.- 550 15,5% 0 ' 0o . 3P- S.4,4?.. • a.5./ . 3 5 I 7.. , 376-.3 i • .4 . 38a. 40.0 • .,.a.5____• 53'0. 55.O 54A --,"f;4tH 1 . 36 4 6,9 ; 0 .. 7 .. 1.7..0.. 47.0 44 5 1=1-6 - .. - . . 4 6.3. Li. Location tGroup 2 A 'W° 100+55- 1301lt. 'w' 100+55- 130'1t. Group 32 A 'W° 103 +90- 8581t. .Piezoaeter Data Group 14 B °w' 103 +90- 85'lt. A . °W' . 108+00W50'lt. ° TAT 8 10 8 +00 -50' lt.. . C °W° 108 +00- 50'it. contract 7c4u1 December 1, 1965 R.D. Alexander, Res. Eng. Ground Elevation WC‘4- r . Tip Elevation . etas 414,3 • 330.0 1i4:, 130.0 ) 13,3. 100.0 ... . . 13.3 . 129.0 03;3 61.0 Group 6 A 'W' 113 +90.115'1t. B ..8W8 114#00.115'lt.' • C 'W' 111 +10-115'11. 'W° 96+75 50' right 'W° 97+00 310' left 'W° 99 +00 Centerline 'W° 99 +90 260.' left °h'° .103 +50. . 858 left. 'W' 113 +70 908 left 'A' •10+00 Centerline : 'A' 12+00 Centerline . • 'A' 14 +00 Centerline 'A' 16+00 20' left 'A' 18 +00 Centerline 'Ls, 191 +00 . Centerline. 'Ls' 196+00 Centerline 'L' 198 +00 30' left 'Ls' 191 +01 21' right 'Ls' 192 +87 21'.right 128.0 ►o ,,� 100.0 .. 132.0. . , . ► 2o, 6 --. 53.0 132.0 e+::S;S' 100.0 132.0 .1 14.S 80.0 167.0 12.', . 4 76.0 167.0. . 141,E 100.0 167.0 1:5-54.6, 130.0. 108.1 44,4 62.0 176.5 Ar4 : -;;:. t 50.0 120.2 85.2 70.0 151.3 A #--4-c ,,,, #1 50.0 131.3 9e, O.. • -15.0 161.4 114. ? 00.0 1114.0 7 8 141.0 100.3 .3-'6, 8 35.0 88.7 . ►.s 33.0 80.5 x1:_7 . 36.0 97.1 .. 74,6 113.0 98.5 71.0 21. 704.1 8 7.7 ° 61.0 88.2 4.., 52.0 'CS'. 91.0 < s.,.-. , ; . 77.3 , 94.o 89 4 85.0 . 4;4 is: • t 34,0 Date: April 9, 2004 SU i,.,IECT: Five Rivers — 8 Lot Short Plat 53rd Ave. South & South 158th Street Short Plat L01 -064 Geotechnical Reports & Letters a. Joel E. Haggard letter to WSDOT District Administrator ref. WSDOT drainage system dtd. 1/27/89. b. Attorney General of Washington letter to Joel E. Haggard ref. Valley View Estates landslide area and storm drainage system dtd. 2/7/89. c. Dames & Moore report of Engineering Consultation — review of plans for proposed Valley View Estates for City of Tukwila dtd. 3/6/89. d. WSDOT letter to GeoEngineers, Inc. ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 3/23/89. e. GeoEngineers, Inc. letter to WSDOT ref. slope stability and factor of safety dtd. 4 /10/89. f. WSDOT Materials Lab letter to WSDOT District 1, ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. g. WSDOT Dist. #1 to City of Tukwila, ref. Valley View Estates slope stability dtd. 4/19/89. h. Instrumentation plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 7 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila - dtd. 1/27/89. i. Instrumentation monitoring action plan — slope stability and ground water levels — City of Tukwila building permit conditions 5 and 8 — Valley View Estates, Tukwila — dtd 1/27/89. j. Attorney General of Washington letter to Joel E. Haggard ref. Valley View Estates landslide area and storm drainage system dtd. 8/23/85. k. City of Tukwila letter to Dames & Moore, request for final geotechnical report, dtd. 4/12/89. FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT c/o CRAMER NORTHWEST, INC. 945 N. Central, Suite 104 Kent, WA 98032 Prepared by TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2223 - 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Telephone - (425) 455 -5320 Fax - (425) 453 -5759 http: / /www.tranplaneng.com April 30, 2004 Dear Mr. Sekhon: 2223 - 112'" AVENUE N.E., SUITE 101 - BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 -2952 TELEPHONE (425) 455 -5320 FACSIMILE (425) 453 -5759 April 30, 2004 At the request of Ms. Aleanna Kondelis, we are pleased to submit this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed Five Rivers Development consisting of eight single family residential lots. The project site is located on the east side of 53rd Ave. S. across from S. 159th St. in the City of Tukwila. This analysis was prepared based on the City's concurrency standards, which require analysis of all City intersections impacted by five or more net new vehicle trips. This analysis is also based on our phone conversations with Ms. Cyndy Knighton, Traffic Engineer for the City of Tukwila, and the data she provided. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a plan of the project site. The project would consist of eight single - family Tots. The site plan shows the location of these proposed Tots, the proposed cul -de -sac street with pedestrian sidewalks and the site access street onto 53rd Ave. S., which is located approximately 120 feet north of S159th Street. Full development and occupancy of this project is expected to occur by the end of 2005 pending timely permit approval. However, to ensure a conservative analysis 2006 is used as the horizon year for this study. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Project Site The project site presently is undeveloped. C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwila.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 2 Street Facilities �pE Figure 3 shows existing traffic control, number of street lanes, number of approach lanes at the analysis intersections, and other pertinent information. The primary streets and King County's classifications within the study area are as follows: Klickitat Dr. 53rd Ave. S. /Slade Way S. 159Lh St. Collector Arterial Local Access Street Local Access Street Fifty Third Ave. S. is a two -lane street with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. It has a grade of approximately 8% adjacent to the project site. South 159th St. is a "dead -end" street that provides access to the adjacent Crystal Springs Park and about three single- family residences. Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity Sidewalks, curb and gutter exist on the west side of 53rd Ave. S. adjacent to the project site, and on at least one side of the other streets near the project site. Some pedestrian and bicycle activity was observed on the streets near the site during our field visit. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing peak hour traffic volumes at the 53rd Ave. S. /S. 159th St. and 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersections. We conducted the manual turning movement count on Thursday April 1, 2004 for the 53rd Ave. S. /S. 159th St. intersection. The traffic volume count data for the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection was provided by City staff. The existing traffic volume count data sheets are attached. I evel of Service Analysis Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate, and LOS E and F are low. The level of service (LOS) was calculated for existing conditions at the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. analysis intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. The Signal 2000 C:IWORK DOCUMENTS\- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1TO8 Fiver Rivers - Tukwila.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 3 software was used for the signalized intersection analyses. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF INTERSECTION A B C D E F Signalized <_ 10 > 10 and <_ 20 >20 and <_ 35 > 35 and <_ 55 > 55 and _< 80 >80 Stop Sign Control < 10 > 10 and <_ 15 >15 and <_ 25 > 25 and <_ 35 > 35 and 50 >50 The 53rd Ave. S. /Kickitat Dr. intersection is currently operating at LOS A overall during the analyzed PM peak hour. The LOS calculation sheets are attached. Accident Data The City staff provided accident summary data for the 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. intersection for the three -year period from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003. A copy of the accident data is attached. The following table summarizes the accident data provided. This table also shows the average accident rate per million entering vehicles. Intersection No. of Accidents Total Accidents (2001 -2003) Accidents Per Mev* 2001 2002 2003 53rd Ave. S. /Klickitat Dr. 6 4 4 14 0.76 Notes: * Accidents per million entering vehicles. King County's Accident Rates for Arterial Roadways does not contain data on average accident rates per million entering vehicles at intersections. However, based on our experience, an accident rate of Tess than one is generally considered to indicate that an intersection is operating satisfactorily, one to two is typical, and over two requires further review. Based on the accident rate calculated and our field review, no apparent accident problem exists at the analysis intersection. Sight Distances Per the City's request we conducted a sight distance analysis at the proposed site access onto 53rd Ave. South. Our sight distance measurements were taken on Friday, April 2, 2004. Results of the available stopping sight distance (SSD) and entering sight distance (ESD) C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTS \TO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwila.doc TpE Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 4 measurements at the proposed street access onto 53rd Ave. S. are shown in the following table: Proposed Site Access To /From the South To /From the North AASHTO Design Criteria Stopping Sight Distance (ft.) --300 To Klickitat Dr. intersection 260 (300 *) Entering Sight Distance (ft.) —625 To Klickitat Dr. intersection 480 Notes: * Adjusted for the northbound SSD (for vehicles approaching from the south) to account for the approx. 8% downgrade. This table also shows the City's SSD and ESD criteria per the American Association of - .11 • •1�.. .1 ••1. •• • - -•n- D - • • • • ! I A . . I • Streets. Figure IX -40 "Intersection Sight Distance at At -Grade Intersection" (attached). According to Figure IX -40, an SSD of 260 feet is recommended and an ESD of 480 feet is recommended based on a design speed of 35 MPH. Typically the design speed used is the posted speed limit (25 MPH on 53rd Ave. S.) plus 10 MPH. This provides a more conservative approach when estimating safe sight distances. Furthermore, the northbound SSD recommendation, for vehicles approaching from the south, was adjusted to account for the approx. 8% downgrade on 53rd Ave. S. and the increased breaking distance required. Our field measurements show that the County's SSD criteria of 260 (300 *) feet would be met to both the north and south at the site access intersection. The County's ESD criteria of 480 feet would also be met for both directions at the site access intersection. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes and Background Growth Figure 5 shows the projected year 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. A growth rate of 2% per year was applied to the existing traffic volumes to calculate the background growth. Ms. Knighton, the City's Traffic Engineer, indicated that 2% per year is likely a conservative rate of growth but is acceptable for study purposes. Level of Service Table 1 shows the calculated 2006 PM peak hour LOS for the without project conditions at the analysis intersection. The analysis intersection is expected to continue to operate at LOS A overall in 2006. C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwila.doc TPF Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 5 TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Trip Generation The proposed project is expected to generate the new vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic AM and PM peak hours as shown in the table below: Time Period Trip Generation Rates Trips Entering Trips Exiting Total Trips Weekday T = 9.57(X) 38 (50 %) 38 (50 %) 76 AM Peak Hour T = 0.75(X) 2 (25 %) 4 (75 %) 6 PM Peak Hour T = 1.01(X) 5 (63 %) 3 (37 %) 8 Where T = Trips Generated X = Number of Dwelling Units (X = 8) A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. The trip generation is calculated using the average rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition, 2003 for Single Family Detached Dwelling (ITE Land Use Code 210). Trip Distribution Figure 6 shows the projected trip distribution and the calculated site- generated traffic volumes. The trip distribution is based on the characteristics of the road network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and expected travel times. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH THE PROJECT Traffic Volumes Figure 7 shows the projected 2006 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the project. The site - generated PM peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 6 were added to the projected background traffic volumes shown on Figure 5 to obtain the Figure 7 traffic volumes. C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSIT08 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers- Tukwila.doc TpF 1. Construct the site access street to City of Tukwila criteria. 2. Construct the proposed project in accordance with the required City of Tukwila C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers.Tukwila.doc Mr. Jas Sekhon FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT April 30, 2004 Page 7 standards. TpE No further traffic mitigation is anticipated. If you have any questions, please contact Mikhail (Mike) Ekshtut, E.I.T., Transportation Engineer or me at 425 - 455 -5320. We can also be contacted via e -mail at Sgteks©tran laneng.com. Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. David H. Enger, P.E., P.T.O.E. ME:me Vice President C:IWORK DOCUMENTSI- PROJECTSITO8 Tukwila1T08 Fiver Rivers•TukwBa.doc 140TH a N SI U110,; UIV�,� =� „art r 0 146TH sxr� S 1 TH ST 5900 S 144i_ $ ILIIELMIT Si mli PARK �' . • �,:t� LIB. !i .. FS ST S., 4G °0 S 14911 N S .1 , ro„. Sip 11W ` • \-- "slum ..: ,,,:.,.■,,„x,.13.7, f. "-V S w .'n 23 < 151�T ST v' \ S 152ND ST — e I sIs' rt yy I rd 1 1 y S 152ND PL 1It D m` , S 153RD �SCUCFN� .. CHID p►�405 FR Imo.; ssM ST M r12el1-1r41 SOUTNCENT swrrs PLAZA 26 ', • °0 S 172ND PL °RD ^15 ST MINKLER COLIRTK BY H4RRIO CORPORAT DR N CORPORATk DRS I "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS ®. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS e. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any port thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved." VICINITY MAP FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS N` ld 311S D < Catch Bei cim: 145.01 -8'W: 142.65 ever Manhole 70 6.81 SIDEVALK ". CURB /GUTTER EVER T MAIN 111 . 111 I \114 EELOCA FR (TD BE RTED \BCN1NO 'NEV VALK) — 6a- ROV RESTRICTOR RISER AND 12' OUTLET DRAINA0 DETENTION V T/VETVAULT It 1' 1.. DESIGN VATER LEVEL. ELEV. 126.5' TOP VETP0ND• ELEVI 121.5 ROT VETPOND ELEV. 117.5 VETPOND VOLUME. 11294 CF DETENTION VOLUQ: 14105 CF See 18E 80681• Y1 31.0 DRA1NG VAULT E: Sanitary Savo Manhole Raw 12838 1012 0C1, 118.78 CL PA LIMIT OS, Oyu Y SIIIEVK 4 3 \�\ //� n: /G1Rm I � Isp 1 �\ �8� SA SEVER � ■ \. 2a. CBS ■ ■ ■■ WETLAND C ,, : , .0,„. 3503 SF F \L T \H \, 'PORTION TO BE F.. FILLED) I \ \ \ \\ �r� '...."% E \� tf . CLASS ��\ � WcTNA r7 663 SF \-- \ . (T0 8E • .ar�`� N. ' - 0) Ds.— y, i �� \91 'rte \ \\ I 'A \1 N •_ ' --- 1 'ro\�\ m FACT B;. LLI--. VALK -URB /GUTTER r[I- 193.9' \ \.. Nos \ \ \\ \\ NN 9( pp /• �_ •; \ \ \ \\ \� •Pit/ •P�.... - - \\ p / iP 9'1 f 09, 1117(1Q1"k 5' E: Sanitary Sever Manhole 80.,: 127.00 ABANDONED Ea Sanitary SF■r Manhole Rim: 134.97 N not to scale 51st Ave. S. Strander Blvd LEGEND O Traffic Control Signal el Stop Sign XX mph Posted Speed Limit Approach Lane & Direction XL Number of Roadway Lanes EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS N not to scale 518 a) 1 0 L7-) 53rd I I I ter% ���' i, I I I I L O TUkwllo pkwy 0A41,1 U o,„ 014 Wednesday 4/17/02 J1 4—e Thursday 4/01/04 LEGEND X PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction Strander Blvd EXISTING 2004 PM PEAK HOUR (1630 -1730) TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT — TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IFIGUREs 4 I LEGEND X-0- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ui a» 10 N not to scale vN Og �,S rid Project— Generated PM Peak Hour Trips: Enter 5 (64 %) Exit 3 (36 %) Total 8 LEGEND xx% Trip Distribution Percentage X—► PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction T a CD -, c t) a L 0 Strander Blvd PROJECT- GENERATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS r IFIGURE-\ 6 LEGEND X—+- PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction 2006 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT - TUKWILA TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERING TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM 4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM Klickitat Drive INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUME IN 1,672 OUT 1,672 w 1 197 19 80 99 286 Klickitat Drive 756 117 873 700 ti N HV PH F SE #N /A #N /A NB 4% 0.80 WO 1% 0.89 EB 1% 0.93 INTRS. 1% 0.92 Klickitat Drive @ 53rd Avenue S Tukwila, WA COUNTED BY: BW REDUCED BY: CN DATE OF REDUCTION: Mon. 5/13/02 HV = HEAVY VEHICLES PHF g PEAK HOUR FACTOR DATE OF COUNT: Wed. 4/17/02 TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER: Sunny P'd Md /GJG tflIM>1f11 WdEb:90 b0. TE NdW TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 112TH AVE NE, SUITE 110, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 455 -5320 VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME COUNT JURISDICTION: DATE : 4/1/04 LOCATION: 159th St./ 53rd Ave. S. DAY : Thursday ID N( T08504 TIME : 1630 -1730 WEATHER : Clear & Sunny PK HR: 1630 -1730 SURFACE : Dry MINUTES COUNTED PER INTERVAL : 15 TECHNICI, ME TURNING INTERVAL START TIME COUNT PK HR PK HR MOVEMENT 1615 1630 1645 1700 1715 1730 1745 1800 TOTAL VOL ADJ TRUCK 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 RIGHT 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 7 7 7 THRU 0 50 39 34 38 0 0 0 161 161 161 LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 51 41 37 39 0 0 0 168 168 168 TRUCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRUCK 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 5 5 5 RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THRU 0 23 28 30 21 0 0 0 102 102 102 LEFT 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 TOTAL 0 23 29 32 22 0 0 0 106 106 106 TRUCK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIGHT 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 THRU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 4 4 TOTAL 0 2 0 4 2 0 0 0 8 8 8 INTERVAL TOTAL: TRUCKS 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 9 9 9 VEHICLES 0 76 70 73 63 0 0 0 282 282 282 NB SB EB W13 %HV 5 2.38095 0 # # # # ## PHF 0.65 0.71 0.38 1411141414# PED T08504.xls TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 112TH AVE NE, SUITE 110, BELLEVUE, WA 98004 455 -5320 JURISDICTION: LOCATION: ID NO: WEATHER: SURFACE : VEHICULAR TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUME COUNT 159th St./ 53rd Ave. S. T08504 Clear & Sunny Dry DATE: DAY : PK HR: TECHNICIAN LANE CONFIGURATION DIAGRAM NORTH 19 11 TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAM NORTH 274 168 R T L 7 161 0 106 1/28/2003 Thursday 1630 -1730 ME 0 R 0 T 0 L L 8 T R 4 0 4 165 T08504.xls 271 4 102 0 L T R 106 0 g ng 01:25 PM 02 -3816 Rear End 12:57 PM 02 -5587 Rear End 07:52 PM 02 -7555 Rear End e IY E - >W Prk E - >W -> E - >W 0 Prk 0 E - >W 0 4 Totals: 0 0 P P 4 0 10 2 3 3 ime • ase Collision Number Type of Collision U4:3S PM 03 -159'1 Rear Ea 09:40 AM 03.02404 Backing 06:20 PM 03 -2743 Rear End 08:40 PM 03 -8410 Head On irec on ' um um - i o Veh 1 Veh 2 Fat Inj PAO Run Veh Bck E - >W S - >W E - >W 0 B ' 0 1 E - >W 0 W->E 0 1 Y P 2 2 2 2 Number of Collisions: 4 Grand Totals: Number of Collisions: Number of Vehicles Involved: Number of Fatalities: Number of Injuries: Number of PDOs: Collision Rate: 0.00 E•d 14 31 0 (0.00 %) 5/7 (35.71 %) 9 (64.29 %) Pagel Totals: 0 2 2 0 8 Md'QDQ HfIM>if1.L Wd6t':90 170. TE ?JW Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 0 - 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 620 12.0 1 80 0.0 0 \ 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 \ 04/09/04 18:39:19 Area Location Type: NONCBD Key: VOLUMES -- > WIDTHS v LANES \ 0 0.0 0 756 12.0 1 + / 117 12.0 1 \ 19 0.0 0 0 12.0 1 80 0.0 0 / North Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 PERMSV N Y N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 Phase 3 I Phase 4 I Phase 5 I Phase 6 I / North < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * * * * *> * * ** v C= 60" G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet 04/09/04 18:39:19 Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 756 117 80 0 19 80 620 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 840 130 89 0 21 89 689 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj LG flow, v 840 130 110 778 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .191 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .809 .114 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .607 .991 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .891 .985 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj Satflow, s 1863 1131 1644 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet 04/09/04 18:39:19 Capacity N E S W Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 840 130 110 778 Satflow, s 1863 1770 1644 1834 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 44.2 6.1 7.8 34.1 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .102 .130 .568 LG capacity, c 1372 180 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .612 .722 .514 .747 Flow ratio, v/s .451 .073 .067 .424 Crit lane group * * * Permitted Phases of Compound Left Turns Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 1131 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 38.1 Grn ratio, g/C .635 LG capacity, c 718 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v /s,Yc 0.565 Crit v /c, Xc .706 Total lost, L 12.0 Delay N E S W and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 840 130 110 778 LG capacity, c 1372 898 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .612 .145 .514 .747 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .736 .130 .568 Unif delay, dl 3.8 4.1 24.3 9.7 Incr calib, k .20 .11 .12 .30 Incr delay, d2 .8 .1 2.1 3.0 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 4.6 4.2 26.5 12.7 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.5 26.5 12.7 Approach LOS A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 970 110 778 Intersection: Delay 9.3 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2004 PM Peak Hour SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/09/04 18:39:19 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.63 Vehicle Delay 9.3 Level of Service A Sq 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 /I\ North *> * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 G/C =0.102 G= 7.8" G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF =19.7% G/C =0.568 G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1 Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) QE 'Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S Model 11 S Approach 26.5 C+ IRT +TH +LT1 12/1 10.102 10.130 1 151 209 110 10.514 1 26.5 ( *C +I 86 ftl E Approach 4.5 A TH 1 12/1 10.473 10.736 1 1372 1 1372 1 840 10.612 1 4.6 1 A 1 327 ft1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.102 1 873 1 898 1 130 10.145 1 4.2 I *A 1 89 ftl W Approach 12.7 B+ IRT +TH 1 12/1 10.449 10.568 1 1019 1 1042 1 778 10.747 1 12.7 I *B +1 465 ftl Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet Intersection # 0 - 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 04/09/04 18:37:46 Area Location Type: NONCBD Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ / 787 12.0 1 0 0.0 0 + / 122 12.0 1 North 645 12.0 1 83 0.0 0 \ 20 I 0 0.0 12.0 0 1 83 0.0 0 Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 PERMSV N Y N N OVERLP N N N N LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs, Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 ( Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 1 * * / ** \ North < + + ++ * * ** v * * * *> * * ** v C= 60" G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" G= 0.0" G= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet 04/09/04 18:37:46 Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 787 122 83 0 20 83 645 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 874 136 92 0 22 92 717 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj LG flow, v 874 136 114 809 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .193 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .807 .114 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .608 .990 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .891 .985 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj satflow, s 1863 1132 1644 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila 04/09/04 Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 18:37:46 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet Capacity N E S W Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 136 114 809 Satflow, s 1863 1770 1644 1834 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 44.2 6.1 7.8 34.1 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .102 .130 .568 LG capacity, c 1372 180 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .756 .533 .776 Flow ratio, v/s .469 .077 .069 .441 Crit lane group * * * Permitted Phases of Compound Left Turns Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 1132 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 38.1 Grn ratio, g/C .635 LG capacity, c 718 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v /s,Yc 0.587 Crit v /c, Xc .734 Total lost, L 12.0 Delay N E S W and LOS RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 136 114 809 LG capacity, c 1372 898 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .151 .533 .776 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .736 .130 .568 Unif delay, dl 3.9 4.2 24.4 10.0 Incr calib, k .22 .11 .14 .33 Incr delay, d2 1.0 .1 2.6 3.8 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 4.9 4.3 27.0 13.8 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.8 27.0 13.8 Approach LOS A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 1010 114 809 Intersection: Delay 9.9 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour without Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary 04/09/04 18:37:46 Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.66 Vehicle Delay 9.9 Level of Service A Sq 12 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 /i\ North < + + ++ * * ** v * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 G= 7.8" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% G/C =0.102 G= 6.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =19.7% G/C =0.568 G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% 1 Lane Width /1 g/C 1 Service Rate) Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1 Group 1 Lanes Reqd Used 1 QC (vph) @E Volumed v/c 1 Delay 1 S Model 11 S Approach 27.0 C+ IRT +TH +LT1 12/1 10.105 10.130 1 151 209 1 114 10.533 1 27.0 I *C +I 90 ftl E Approach 4.8 A TH 1 12/1 10.490 10.736 1 1372 1 1372 1 874 10.637 1 4.9 1 A 1 352 ft1 LT 1 12/1 10.000 10.102 1 872 1 898 1 136 10.151 1 4.3 *A 1 93 ftl W Approach 13.8 B+ 1RT +TH 1 12/1 10.465 10.568 1 1019 1 1042 1 809 10.776 1 13.8 *B +1 500 ft1 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Input Worksheet 04/09/04 18:33:31 Intersection # 0 - Area Location Type: NONCBD i I 1 1 1 Key: VOLUMES -- > I 0 1 0 I 0 1 1 I WIDTHS I 0.0 I 0.0 i 0.0 ii 1 v LANES 1 01 0 0 I 11 \ 0 0.0 0 / 1 \ /I\ 787 12.0 1 1 i 0 0.0 0 / + / 124 12.0 1 North 645 12.0 1 85 0.0 0 \ \ I / i 21 I 0 I 85 i Phasing: SEQUENCE 12 0 . 0 i 12.0 I 0 . 0 i PERMSV N Y N N 0 1 1 I 0 I OVERLP N N N N 1 I LEADLAG LD LD N E S W RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Heavy veh, %HV 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Pretimed or Act A A A A A A A A A A A A Strtup lost, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext eff grn, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival typ, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Ped vol, vped 0 0 0 0 Bike vol, vbic 0 0 0 0 Parking locatns NO NO NO NO Park mnvrs,.Nm 0 0 0 0 Bus stops, NB 0 0 0 0 Grade, %G .0 .0 .0 .0 Sq 12 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 I Phase 4 I Phase 5 I Phase 6 I North < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * * * * *> * * ** v C= 60 " G= 7.8" G= 6.1" G= 34.1" I G= 0.0" I G= 0.0" I G= 0.0" Y +R= 4.0" I Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 0.0" 1 Y +R= 0.0" 1 Y +R= 0.0" Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Volume Adjust & Satflow Worksheet 04/09/04 18:33:31 Volume N E S W Adjustment RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Volume, V 0 0 0 0 787 124 85 0 21 85 645 0 Pk -hr fact, PHF .00 .00 .00 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 .90 Adj my flow, vp 0 0 0 0 874 138 94 0 23 94 717 0 Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH. Adj LG flow, v 874 138 117 811 Prop LT, PLT .000 1.00 .197 .000 Prop RT, PRT .000 .000 .803 .116 Saturation N E S W Flow Rate RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Base satflo, so 1900 1900 1900 1900 Number lanes, N 1 1 1 1 Lane width, fW 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Heavy veh, fHV .980 .980 .980 .980 Grade, fg 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Parking, fp 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Bus block, fbb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Area type, fa 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Lane util, fLU 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Left -turn, fLT 1.000 .608 .990 1.000 Right -turn, fRT 1.000 1.00 .892 .984 PedBike LT,fLpb 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 PedBike RT,fRpb 1.000 1.00 1.000. ' 1.000 Local adjustmnt 1.000 1.00 1.000 1.000 Adj Satflow, s 1863 1132 1645 1834 Prot LT fLT .000 .950 Prot LT Satflo 0 1770 Five Rivers Development - Tukwila Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - HCM Capacity and LOS Worksheet 04/09/04 18:33:31 Capacity N E S W Analysis RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 138 117 811 Satflow, s 1863 1770 1645 1834 Lost time, tL 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Effect green, g 44.2 6.1 7.8 34.1 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .102 ..130 .568 LG capacity, c 1372 180 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .767 .547 .778 Flow ratio, v/s .469 .078 .071 .442 Crit lane group * * * Permitted Phases of Compound Left Turns Adj Flow, v 0 Satflow, s 1132 Lost time, tL .0 Effect green, g 38.1 Grn ratio, g/C .635 LG capacity, c 719 v/c ratio, X .000 Flow ratio, v/s .000 Crit lane group Sum crit v /s,Yc 0.591 Crit v /c, Xc .739 Total lost, L 12.0 Delay N E S W and LOS RT TH: LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Lane group, LG TH LT RT +TH +LT RT +TH Adj Flow, v 874 138 117 811 LG capacity, c 1372 899 214 1042 v/c ratio, X .637 .154 .547 .778 Grn ratio, g/C .736 .736 .130 .568 Unif delay, dl 3.9 4.2 24.4. 10.0 Incr calib, k .22 .11 .15 .33 Incr delay, d2 1.0 .1 2.9 3.8 Queue Delay, d3 .0 .0 .0 .0 Unif delay, dl* .0 .0 .0 .0 Prog factor, PF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Contrl delay, d 4.9 4.3 27.4 13.9 Lane group LOS A A C+ B+ Final Queue,Qbi 0 0 0 0 Appr delay, dA 4.8 27.4 13.9 Approach LOS . A C+ B+ Appr flow, vA 1012 117 811 Intersection: Delay 10.0 LOS A Five Rivers Development - Tukwila 04/09/04 Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. S. 18:33:31 2006 PM Peak Hour with Project SIGNAL2000 /TEAPAC[Ver 1.00.02] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v /c) 0.66 Vehicle Delay 10.0 Level of Service A Sq 12 I Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 * * / ** < + + ++ * * ** v <* *> * * * * * * * *> * * ** v G/C =0.130 G/C =0.102 G/C =0.568 G= 7.8" 1 G= 6.1" G= 34.1" Y +R= 4.0" 1 Y +R= 4.0" Y +R= 4.0" OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF =19.7% 1 OFF =36.5% C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.0% Y =12.0 sec = 20.0% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0% Lane Width /I g/C Service Rate Adj I I HCM I L I Queue Group I Lanes Reqd Used @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay I S Model 11 S Approach 27.4 C+ IRT +TH +LTI 12/1 10.107 10.130 1 151 1 209 117 10.547 I 27.4 l*C +1 93 ftl E Approach 4.8 A TH , I 12/1 10.490 10.736 I 1372 I 1372 I 874 10.637 I 4.9 I A I 352 ftl LT I 12/1 10.000 10.102 I 873 I . 899 I 138 10.154 I 4.3 *A I 95 ftl W Approach 13.9 B+ IRT +TH I 12/1 10.465 10.568 I 1019 I 1042 I 811 10.778 I 13.9 I *B +1 503 ftl 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 30 25 20 f1UE R1VEK DEV[LOF ENI i - Lt JILq 6'3 1' a A'i` , , , i`i Q C- t. S S 0 2001 2G SSD 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 SIGHT DISTANCE (FEET) A- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE CROSSING 2-LANE HIGHWAY FROM STOP. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -1- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY ACCROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8- I- 4Lane +medlan SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 4 -LANE HIGHWA ACCROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN 85Z OF DESIGN SPEED, WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT REDUCING SPEED FROM DESIGN SPEED TO- 85Z OF DESIGN SPEED. (SEE DIAGRA).4) - Cb- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN 85X OF DESIGN SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT AND REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO 85% OF DESIGN SPEED. Figure IX-40. Intersection sight distance at at -grade intersection (Case IIIB and Case IIIC). O enN • r'. 9' Iif I "I/r 0 FE-, Ir .:7 o ..s 4747 .ii ,T d c /a /.:, A .r 0 2001 2G SSD 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 SIGHT DISTANCE (FEET) A- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE CROSSING 2-LANE HIGHWAY FROM STOP. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8 -1- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 2-LANE HIGHWAY ACCROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) 8- I- 4Lane +medlan SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TURNING LEFT INTO 4 -LANE HIGHWA ACCROSS P VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM LEFT. (SEE DIAGRAM) SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN LEFT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN 85Z OF DESIGN SPEED, WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE RIGHT REDUCING SPEED FROM DESIGN SPEED TO- 85Z OF DESIGN SPEED. (SEE DIAGRA).4) - Cb- SIGHT DISTANCE FOR P VEHICLE TO TURN RIGHT INTO 2 -LANE HIGHWAY AND ATTAIN 85X OF DESIGN SPEED WITHOUT BEING OVERTAKEN BY A VEHICLE APPROACHING FROM THE LEFT AND REDUCING FROM DESIGN SPEED TO 85% OF DESIGN SPEED. Figure IX-40. Intersection sight distance at at -grade intersection (Case IIIB and Case IIIC). O enN • r'. 9' ATTLE ®11' SHANNON 6WILSON INC. SE ATTLE PORTLAND 7 SE FAIRBANKS GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS Ai•1GHOP.AGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS September 22, 2003 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RECEIvED SEP 2 S 2003 PUBLIICVWORKS RE: FOLLOW -UP GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT, SOUTH 15917 STREET, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: We have reviewed the letter provided by LSI Adapt, Inc. (ADAPT) dated September 4, 2003, in which they provide a response to our comments regarding their geotechnical report for the subject project. Our review comments were presented in a letter to you dated April 30, 2003. Our issue with the ADAPT report was that it did not address previous slope instability on and adjacent to the property during construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1966. In our opinion, ADAPT has provided adequate review and analysis regarding this issue, and their recommendations to enhance stability of the property during and after development are appropriate. The geotechnical report and letter dated September 4, 2003, may be accepted as meeting the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080 E. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E., C.E.G. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp 21 -1- 09892 -002- LI/wpllkd 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -1- 09892 -002 • September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 AIA International Development 306 North 151 Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Saraj Khan LSI Adapt, Inc. 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 RECEIVED CITY or -runin PEriTAI-r ;_- Ii Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1— Slope Stability Review Five Rivers Development 53rd Avenue South and South 159`'' Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Saraj: Tel (206) 654 -7045 Fax (206) 654-7048 www.lsiadapt.com At your request, LSI Adapt, Inc. (Adapt) is pleased to submit this letter providing a summary of our supplementary geotechnical review for the above - referenced project. The purpose of our limited geotechnical study was to perform a comprehensive review of available records in the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) archives relating to previous landslide activity in the vicinity of the subject site (Tukwila Interchange along the I -5 highway), and to evaluate whether the proposed development would adversely affect the stability of this previous landslide area. These additional studies were required by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S &W), the City of Tukwila peer review consultant, in their letter dated April 30, 2003. Our limited engineering review was based on our previous Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subject project (dated August 6, 2001), general subsurface conditions obtained from a review of published geologic maps, and information available in the WSDOT archives. Our work was performed in general accordance with the scope of work identified in our Proposal for Additional Services (dated June 23,2003). Written authorization for this work was provided by facsimile on June 23, 2003. This letter supplements the conclusions and recommendations presented in our previous geotechnical report. This geotechnical engineering evaluation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of AIA Internatio0nal Development, and their agents, for specific application to the planned project and site. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. Adapt does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose whatever, known or unknown, to Adapt. LSI Adapt, Inc. Site and Project Description The subject site is located along the east side of 53rd Avenue South, across from 159th Street, in Tukwila, Washington. It is our understanding that the development will include several single - family residential dwellings on individual building lots. Our original geotechnical report was based . on the Tukwila Sensitive Area maps identifying portions of the subject site as Class 3 Area (Area of Potential Geologic Instability; high landslide potential with general slopes between 20 and 40 percent and if certain adverse subsurface conditions exist). Specifically, the topographic survey for the site indicated that the site slopes generally ranged from 3H:1V (33 percent) to 4H:1V (25 percent). Subsequent information revealed during the City of Tukwila peer review process indicated that the site actually should have been identified as a Class 4 (Area of Potential Geologic Instability; very high landslide potential, including existing mappable landslide deposits). This classification was based on previous landsliding activity related to the construction of the nearby Tukwila Interchange (junction of 1 -5 & S.R. -518/I -405). Given the new sensitive area classification, the City of Tukwila has required a comprehensive review of all relevant documents available in the WSDOT archives to evaluate the impact of the proposed development on the subject site and adjacent area. Review of Previous Records As a part of our study, we reviewed the following documents within the WSDOT archives which pertain to the previous landsliding activity in the vicinity of the site (listed in a chronological order): • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; C.S. 1727, 1758 PSH (SR 5) — S.O. 184' St. to So. 144th St. — Contract No. 7401; May 8, 1964. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Slide — Agreement No. Y -713; May 19, 1964. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Agreement No. Y -713; July 2, 1964. • Ralph B. Peck; Tukwila Interchange - Stability of Slopes; January 18, 1965. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Proposed Industrial Excavation, Vicinity of South 178" Street, January 26, 1965. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Tukwila Interchange; August 13, 1965. • Washington State Highway Department — District No. 1; Slope Indicator Report, December 1, 1965. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Extensometer Data — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup 6 & 10; December 9, 1966. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Field Observations and Supplemental Recommendations — Jan. 11 thru Feb. 19, 1967 — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup. 6 & 10; February 23, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Contract 7401 PSH 1 (SRS) — South 184`h St. to South 144th St. - Tukwila Interchange Slide Correction , April 13, 1967. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Landslide Investigation — Sta. A- 14 +00, 100'Rt. — Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Sup 6, 10 & 11; May 5, 1967. AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 2 LSI Adapt, Inc. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Contract 7401 — Agreement Y -713 — Shannon & Wilson, Inc. - Sup. 6, 10 & 11, May 9, 1967. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Surveillance and Maintenance of the Tukwila Interchange Vicinity, January 2, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Internal Memorandum — Contract 7401, SR 5 So. 184th St. to So. 144th St. - Agreement Y -713, Supplement 6, 10, 11 and 13 — Shannon & Wilson Inc., May 31, 1968. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Summary Report — Soil Conditions and Earth Movements - Vicinity of the Tukwila Interchange; June 21, 1968. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Final Report of Field Observations - Tukwila Interchange — Agreement Y -713, Supp. 6, 10, 11 & 13; June 27, 1968. • Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Memorandum — Tukwila Interchange Data; July 15, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — SR 5 So. 184`h St. to So. 144`h St. — Agreement Y -713, Tukwila Slide Area, July 24, 1968. • Washington State Highway Commission — Department of Highways; Inter - departmental Communication — Instrumentation C -7401 Tukwila Interchange, May 2, 1969. • General File Document; Tukwila Interchange — Group 2 Well Data, January 21; 1970. • City of Tukwila Public Works Department; Storm Drainage in S. 158`h Street; July 21, 1981. • Washington State Department of Transportation; Intra - departmental Communication — SR 5 — Tukwila Interchange Drainage, August 6, 1981. Our conclusions and recommendations are based in part or wholly on the information contained in these documents. As such, our geotechnical recommendations are only as good as the accuracy of these previous documents. Adapt assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions resulting from possible inaccuracies on these documents prepared by others. We recommend that Adapt be retained to perform supplementary engineering evaluations and field observations during construction, in order to address any deviations that may become evident during the construction phase of this project. - Subsurface Conditions Generally, our test pits across the subject site reveled the presence of varying amounts of uncontrolled fill soils overlying interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense sand, medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, all underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depths ranging from 8 to 11 feet. The deeper boring logs (by others) that we reviewed for this study indicates that these surface soils are underlain by laminated silts, clayey silts, fine to medium sands, and gravel lenses of glacial origin. Artesian groundwater was encountered at depth in some of these previous borings. AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 3 LSI Adapt, Inc. Previous Landslide Activity and Stabilization Efforts Based on our review of the above - referenced documents, the subject site is located within the down slope area of an historic, regional landslide (occurring about 10,000 years ago), although not identified as such on available United States Geological Survey (USGS) maps. The scarp (upper limits) of this regional landslide was interpreted by S &W be located along the 300 -foot elevation contour line on the southwest side of the subject site (uphill). The estimated vertical displacement of this historic landslide was on the order of 25 to 35 feet. Based on our review of available WSDOT documents relevant to the area of the subject site, the recent landsliding activity along the hillside on the southwest side of the Tukwila Interchange started in late summer of 1960, as a result of soil borrow excavations along the toe of the slope down hill from Slade Way south of the subject site, as well as observed high artesian groundwater pressures some of the underlying laminated silts. Deep horizontal drains were installed to tap into these artesian groundwater zones and to stop these initial earth movements. Subsequently, a series of additional, localized, landslides occurred within the initial landslide area, as a result of progressive earth movements moving upslope. A series of deeper borings, slope inclinometer wells, and piezometer wells were installed within the observed landslide area and along the hill side to the north (subject site) and northwest, in order to monitor the landslide movement and to develop a stabilization program for the planned I -5 Tukwila Interchange construction, which included several additional cuts for retaining walls (R -1 and R -2) along the planned road alignments. The stabilization program consisted primarily of the installation of deep, 5 -foot diameter, vertical, dewatering wells (pumped) along the lower portion of the hill sides to the south and west of the planned interchange construction area. These vertical wells were later tapped into by a series of permanent, horizontal gravity drains. A second series of horizontal finger drains were also installed uphill of the deeper system to stabilize local cut slopes. Additional remedial measures included redesigning the planned 2.5H:1 V cut slopes to a flatter inclination (4H: 1 V). S &W reported in their Summary Report (June 1968) that these remedial measures successfully stabilized the central and southern portions of the construction area, although additional measures were required to stabilize several localized landslide areas near the northwest end of the construction area (more than 500 feet northwest of the subject site). The S &W report stated that "...under the present static conditions the entire project area is stable. The performance of other cut slopes in similar materials during the major Puget Sound are earthquake of April 29, 1965 indicate that these materials are unlikely to be significantly affected by seismic activity ". Our review of WSDOT file documents indicates that subsequent monitoring of the slope indicator wells and piezometer wells through January 1970 confirmed that slope movement had ceased and that the deeper (drained). water levels remained stable. Later correspondence by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department indicates that the deep well drainage system was still operational in July 1981. Based on the absence of groundwater seepage in our test pits along the eastern margin of the subject site (groundwater was observed in all of the other test pits within the subject site), we infer that the remedial finger drain system installed just east of the site (downhill) is still functioning. AM International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 4 LSI Adapt, Inc. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our file review, it appears that the previous landslide activity (1960's) in the vicinity of the subject site were initiated as a result of borrow excavations into the toe of the hillside and the upward pressure from underlying, artesian groundwater zones, and that the remedial measures undertaken during the construction of the I -5 Tukwila Interchange successfully stabilized the area. It should be noted that no active landslides were observed within the area of the subject site, nor was any movement observed within the slope indicator wells (S -5 and S -6) placed directly east of (downhill) the subject site. All the reported landslide activity occurred north or south of the subject site. Our file review also revealed that the subject site is essentially unchanged topographically from the site plans developed at the time the remedial measures were implemented. Based on these findings, and given the observed soil conditions and current slope inclinations across the site, we do not believe that a detailed slope stability analysis is warranted. It is our opinion that the proposed development will not adversely affect the stability of the hillside or surrounding areas, provided that the recommendations of our original geotechnical engineering report and the construction limitations subsequently outlined in this letter are implemented into the final design. Given the past history of slope instability in the vicinity of the site, we recommend that the following construction limitations be incorporated into the final design: 1. No surface water or roof runoff should be infiltrated on -site; instead we recommend that all runoff water be collected and tight lined to a suitable discharge point along the municipal sewer system. 2. If a retention/detention system is required to control the off -site runoff water flows, we recommend that a buried concrete /metal vault or tank be used to contain the surface water runoff. All pipe /tank joints should be sealed to prevent leaks into the site soils. 3. Any site grading should be limited to no more than 2 vertical feet and only in localized areas. 4. In order to protect the previously installed, remedial finger drain system, we recommend that any structure (basement, foundations, etc.) and utilities be set back at least 30 feet from the east property line in lots number 5, 6, and 7. Closure The conclusions and recommendations provided in this letter are based, in part, on our limited review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if any changes to the existing site conditions are observed at a later time, Adapt should be contacted to review those changes and modify our geotechnical evaluation, if needed. AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 5 1 LSI Adapt, Inc. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206 - 654 -7045. Respectfully submitted, LSI Adapt, Inc. Rolf B. jlseth, P. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Kurt ' Groesch, Senior Review EXPIRES 6/5/ 0` Enclosures: Figure 2 - Site & Exploration Plan (LSI Adapt Geotechnical Report, August 6, 2001) Fig. 1 - Site Investigation Plan (S &W Summary Report, June 21, 1968) Fig. 2 — Plan of Completed Remedial Measures ( S &W Summary Report, June 21, 1968) Distribution: AIA International Development (4) Attn: Mr. Saraj Khan AIA International Development September 4, 2003 LSI Adapt Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 Page 6 Catch Basin Rim: 145.01 1E8'W: 142.65 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 166.32 IE Ctr: 158.00 Catch Basin Rim: 13659 IE8'W: 132.14 • °,, s, \ �\ �\ p` \\ \\ \\ 4 -TP= 44\ \ ° TP-7 LOT 5 TP -3. \\ \\ ■ \ \\ \ Dg� 1 I 1 \ \\ \\\ \ \ 1\\---. I I \ I I 1 \I \ LOT ! II 1 0 1 I �- \�\ I I 1 \ \ \\ \rr� . °� 1� \ \ • \ - . ( etch Basin - Rim: 169.95 0Ll \E12'W: 167.7 LGI -� \1 I m T1-2' \ \ �A \ \I LqT 9 I V0T8 1 \ 1 ATP -11 ;� \ • Ott TP -1 LEGEND: -!`o- TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION NOTE: BASED ON LOT PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY JAEGER ENGINEERING (DATED 01/29/1999) Sonitory Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 1E12-OCtr: 118.76 \ \ \ \ \ \\ B' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ `\ 9 C \ \, ;:::\\\\\:\\\\\\\\ \ P -8 \\ ' \\ \�\ \ \ \\ \\ c\\ �� / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \' \ \\ ��, \\ \ \\ , \ \\ .. 1 \ \ \\ � \ \ \ \ \\ N / \ \ \ \\ 1 \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ • \ \\ \ \ \ \ . � 1 \\\\ \ \1 11\ � 1. 1. °\ \\\ \ I\ 1 1 - 111 1 \ � \ !1 III \ \ \ �9t`_ -- f`' I III 1 1 1\ \1 1 I 11,. I 1 11 II o 1 .11 1 1i LOT .6- T Al- LOT 7 • / TP -11 -� -= __( E �1 / / 1 11 '� Tl /. \\ \ \N-: - -\\ \ \ / .) \-� 11 1 \� I 1\ I 1 \ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ r \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ gr, \ �g D, _ �g D, 9, 0' 0 er. I 60 SCALE IN FEET 120 i / s/¢ / / i�a / /M1� / /- �TRA.CT A/ ( DRAJN GE \ -// TP -10 LI \ \ \ \ -1 ,�zt � Q•o Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 • IE12.00tr. 120.49 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED . LSI ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 8 5lorm' Manhole Rim: 98.79 IE24 ": ' 86.04 Storm Manhole 98.91 1E12 -S: 92.51 IE 16'S: 85.66 1E24-N: 85.71 1E24-NE Out: 85.11 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED FIGURE 2 - Site & Exploration Plan Project : Five Rivers Preliminary Plot Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Client : - Five Rivers Development, Inc. Date : 07/02/01 Job * :S- WA -01- 6475 -0 • - L • r1 N 4i \ , .. 204B1*? 205A ••, 0/ • lilt .24 *- 51 stMVe. • Cut -de? Sac • W -135•• '\: location of prehistoric de scarp • • 1 • " /'\ \ „� / f. .2' /': .. A •• 50 LEGEND PIEZOMETER SLOPE INDICATOR OBSERVATION WELL 12-TORSIONAL VANE SHEAR TEST INCLINOMETER DRILL HOLE (From previous reports) Q TEST PIT SLIDE MOVEMENT STAKE — HORIZONTAL DRAIN (Instolled prior to Jan. 1966) A235* t INDICATES INSTRUMENT DESTROYED • 18= J '<Cu/RECENT SUDE SCAPP ( unless noted os tieing older) STATE RIGHT OF WAY LINE 0 100 200 300 400 500 SCALE: FEET TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y -713, SUPPLEMENT 13 SITE INVESTIGATION PLAN March 31;1966 W- 0468 -2 SHANNON & WILSON. SOIL MECHANICS 6 FOUNDATION ENGINEERS Revised.Oct.19t6, Feb. :967, May ;968 FIG. 1 • • \:\A tg tr all -7 ox. location of listori c slide scarp_ • • 4:1 I00 LEGEND Horizontal Droing (existing) . Original test drains Recommended drain (Grade: 8 -10 %) Recommended droin (Grade: I- 3 %) Other Features Cylinder pile wall Rock buttress Proposed intercepter droin 8 ditch Existing or proposed Right of Way Additional vertical drains (6 to 9 in. die.) Large diameter (5'),deep well Final excavated slope ( horizontal:vertical) 200 300 400 500 SCALE :FEET TUKWILA INTERCHANGE AGREEMENT Y -713, SUPPLEMENT 13 • PLAN OF COMPLETED REMEDIAL REMEDIAL MEASURES M;orch 3!,1966 W -0468 -2 SHANNON & WILSON SOIL MECHANICS a FOUNDATION ENGINEERS Rimmed: May 1968 SHANNON iWILSONs INC. new April 30, 2003 Mr. David McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, FIVE RIVERS -12 LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: This letter presents the results of our review of a geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Five Rivers — 12 Lot Short Plat project. The project will be located in undeveloped land near the intersection of South 159th Street and 53rd Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work is to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report submitted with the permit application. SEATTLE RICH _a: _; FAIP,�A!; j DEN /EP SAINT The geotechnical report for this project was prepared by LSI ADAPT, Inc. (ADAPT) dated August 6, 2001. The report presents the results of eleven test pit explorations and geotechnical recommendations for site development. The test pit explorations extended to depths of 11.5 to 13.5 feet. They encountered medium stiff to stiff silt and loose to medium dense sand overlying very stiff to hard silt. Approximately 12 feet of loose fill was encountered in TP -1, located within proposed Lot 11. Ten feet of fill was encountered in TP -7, located within proposed Lot 5. Additional fill was encountered elsewhere on the site and is expected to vary significantly'. Groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits at relatively shallow depths. The report provided descriptions of the site geology and subsurface soil, groundwater, and seismic and environmentally critical area conditions. It provided opinions and recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation design, earth pressures, fill placement, drainage, and other geotechnical design issues. 00 NORTH 34•H S TREE . SUITE 100 PO. GO/ 300303 ,EA rTLE, 'v'IASHINt TON 'dd i J0 TOD, 1.3QG•333 U ; LA • 21 -1- 09892 -001 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department April 30, 2003 Page 2 Our services included review of : ► The ADAPT report SHANNON fiWILSON. INC. ► A preliminary grading and utility plan by Jaeger Engineering ► Various letters from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and GeoEngineers (1989) regarding stability of the adjacent property to the south ► Our observations of current site conditions ► Our files related to the Tukwila Interchange landslide study of 1966 In summary, the subject property was included in an extensive landslide study performed by our firm for WSDOT during construction of the Tukwila Interchange in 1966. Several subsurface explorations were performed near the subject property. While we did not see reports of active sliding on the subject property, based on a brief review of our files, it appears that older slides occurred on the property. Several horizontal drains were installed beneath the property during work on the Tukwila Interchange. Horizontal drains and vertical drains were also installed on the adjacent property to the south. The vertical drain well heads are still present on that property to the south. It is our opinion that, because of the reported older (pre- historic) slide on the property, the significant landslide problems on adjacent properties in 1966, and the potential for landslides given the geology in the project vicinity, this site should be considered a Class 4 landslide hazard in accordance with Tukwila Municipal Code section 18.45.020.E. A comprehensive review of slope stability issues on the subject property should therefore be performed. As a minimum, a comprehensive review should include review of all relevant documents related to the 1966 landslides and subsequent mitigation measures employed. Detailed slope stability analyses must be done for this Class 4 area. We recommend that the project geotechnical consultant perform the above - recommended studies and determine whether the proposed development can be designed so that any potential adverse impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, and slope stability is not decreased by either grade changes or groundwater or surface water alterations. 21 -1- 09892 - 001- L1 /WP /LKD 21 -1- 09892 -001 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department April 30, 2003 Page 3 SHANNON FJWILSON, INC. In our opinion, with the exception of the slope stability study discussed above, the geotechnical report prepared by ADAPT for this project meets the generally accepted standards of practice in this area and meets the minimum standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080 E. We recommend however, that the issue identified above be addressed by the geotechnical consultant prior to issuance of permits for this project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I EXPIRES 4/21/ o 4 1 Martin W. Page, P.E., L.E.G. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp 21-1-09892-00 I -L I /W P /LKD 21 -1- 09892 -001 Return Address: City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Above this line reserved for recording information. STORM WATER EASEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (L05 -040 / PW07 -xxx) Reference # (if applicable): N/A Additional on page: Grantor: 1) Five Rivers Development, Inc. 2) Additional on page: Grantee: City of Tukwila Legal Description/STR: Assessor's Tax Parcel ID #: Tract 9, Brookvale Garden Tracts, according to the plat thereof recorded in volume 10 of plats, page 47, in King County, Washington; EXCEPT (SW1 /4, 23- 23 -04) 115720 -0090 Additional on page: THIS EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT made and entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the City of Tukwila, a municipal corporation of King County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Five Rivers Depelopment, Inc., a Washington State corporation, located at 27010 — 115th Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98031, hereinafter referred to as "PROPERTY OWNER ". WHEREAS, PROPERTY OWNER has applied for certain permits with the CITY for the construction of facilities at 156xx — 53`d Ave. South, Tukwila, WA, which create impervious surface; and WHEREAS, the PROPERTY OWNER has completed a storm system; and Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 1 of 9 WHEREAS, the PROPERTY OWNER and the CITY desire that the storm system be maintained to provide adequate facilities for controlling both the quantity and quality of storm drainage; and WHEREAS, for maintenance of a storm system it is necessary to have appropriate right - of -way to bring in equipment to conduct maintenance functions; and WHEREAS, maintenance requirement is a covenant running with the land and binding upon all heirs, successors and assigns of both parties; and WHEREAS, the parties desire that this Agreement be recorded to advise heirs, successors and assigns of both parties as to the existence of this easement and agreement; and WHEREAS, an easement is needed to bring in maintenance equipment; and WHEREAS, the parties are both desirous of permitting inspection of the storm system to make certain that it is functioning properly and for purposes of determining the appropriate repairs. NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON MUTUAL COVENANTS TO BE DERIVED THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1, EASEMENT PROPERTY OWNER hereby provides an easement over, under and on that portion of the property as showing on the approved Record Drawings revised pursuant to construction records for the City of Tukwila under Permit No. PW07 -xxx, which Record Drawings are hereby incorporated by reference as if set out in full. This easement shall be a burden to that real estate which is legally described and attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, and shall be of benefit to the City storm utility system. Section 2, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties. Section 3, MAINTENANCE The PROPERTY OWNER agrees to maintain the storm system in accordance with the ordinances and all applicable codes of the CITY and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Maintenance and Operation Schedule attached as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference. The PROPERTY OWNER does hereby agree that the CITY may enter onto the Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 2 of 9 property of the PROPERTY OWNER via the easement described above to inspect and perform necessary maintenance if, after the PROPERTY OWNER is given notice to maintain, the PROPERTY OWNER fails to maintain. Further, the PROPERTY OWNER agrees the CITY may enter onto the property of PROPERTY OWNER via the easement described above to perform emergency maintenance in the event of the storm system's failure which might result in adverse impacts(s) on public facilities or private facilities of other property owners. In both events the PROPERTY OWNER agrees he /she /they /it shall reimburse the CITY for the costs incurred by the CITY in maintaining the storm system. Should the CITY incur attorney's fees and/or costs in enforcing the agreement and/or in maintaining or collecting maintenance fees, the PROPERTY OWNER agrees to pay reasonable attorney's fees and all costs incurred by the CITY. Section 4, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS PROPERTY OWNER acknowledges that there may be liability for violations of codes that could result in additional fines and/or the possibility of incarceration in addition to the fees for maintenance should violations occur. Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 3 of 9 DATED this day of , 2007. GRANTEE: CITY OF TUKWILA Mayor Attest/Authenticated: Approved As to Form: City Clerk City Attorney STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) On this day of , 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared , known to me to be the Mayor of CITY OF TUKWILA, the municipal corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and voluntary act of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute said instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year above written. print name Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at My appointment expires Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 4 of 9 Property Owner Date Property Owner Date STATE OF WASHINGTON) )ss. County of King ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he /she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he /she was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of , a corporation, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Dated Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at My appointment expires Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 5 of 9 Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Easement Area Tract `A' - Storm Drainage Vault Tract — Made part of City of Tukwila Short Plat No. L05 -040. Tract `C' — Private Street & Utilities Tract — Made part of City of Tukwila Short Plat No. L05 -040. Both Tracts located within the following described property. Storm Water Easement and Maintenance Agreement Page 6 of 9 Exhibit "B" Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for FIVE RIVERS — 7 LOT SHORT PLAT SHORT PLAT # L05 -040 PW07 -xxx Site Address The project is located in the SW1 /4, of the SW1 /4 of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., adjacent to 53rd Ave. South; and within a private street named , in the City of Tukwila. The site address is 157xx — 53rd Ave. South, Tukwila, WA 98188. The Tax Parcel Number is 115720 -0090. Introduction This project proposes to develop approximately x.xx acres of existing, tall grasses and a few small deciduous trees. The underlying soils vary from sand silt, sandy silt, and medium to dense sand. Catch basins and storm drainage pipes will be installed within the private street and adjacent areas to convey runoff to a Private Underground Detention/Water Quality Vault located in the eastern portion of the site. Roof downspouts will be individually tightlined to the catch basins, which is tightlined to a public storm conveyance system, located South of the Paved 53rd Ave. South end of road. The off -site area is not considered as part of the private detention vault sizing. After development, approximately x.xx acres of the site is impervious, with the remaining x.xx pervious acres consisting of lawns, landscaping, etc. Plan Goal The goal of the plan is to treat all on -site runoff for water quality by directing flows to a Detention / Water Quality facility. The detention vault is designed to retain runoff volumes up to the 2 year, and 10 -year storm events; with 7 inches of freeboard. Preventative BMP's The catch basins shall have stenciled next to them "DUMP NO WASTE- DRAINS TO STREAM ". Activity that involves pollutants shall be done under a covered area. The private street shall be cleaned and swept as necessary to remove debris. Page 7 of 9 Treatment BMP's Interceptor swales were constructed intercepting silt -laden runoff from the site during clearing and directed the runoff to temporary traps for treatment of water before releasing down stream from the site. These facilities were design for 2/3 of 2 -year storm event. Inspection Inspect the storm detention /water quality vault, at least twice a year, especially after periods of heavy runoff. Maintenance records must be kept for five (5) years and available for City Inspector review. Maintenance To ensure proper water quality treatment, the wet vault designed to allow for a minimum of 6 -inch sediment at the bottom of the vault, which will be removed at a regular schedule. In the addition for the bottom 6 -inch of sediment, the vault is designed with a minimum dead - storage of three feet to allow silt -laden runoff to settle at the bottom of the vault. Person of Responsibility Name Five Rivers Development, Inc. Address 27010 — 115th Ave. South, Kent, WA 98031 Emergency Contact, Phone # 253 - 653 -6491 Person of Responsibility, Date: Mr. Hakam Grewal. May 24, 2007. Engineer Preparing Plan Name Jaeger Engineering Address 9419 South 204th Place, Kent, WA 98031 Plan and /or Information Updates The City of Tukwila, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, Storm Drainage Section; is to review and approve any changes to this Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prior to changes in its implementation. Additionally, any changes in ownership or person of responsibility are to be reported to the City of Tukwila, Public Works. Page 8 of 9 INSPECTION / MAINTENANCE CHECKLIST Structure Date of Inspection / Maintenance CB # 1 Type 2 Insp. Results Maint. Done CB # 2 Type 1 Insp. Results Maint. Done CB # 3 Type 1 Insp. Results Maint. Done CB # 4 Type 1 Insp. Results Maint. Done CB # 5 Type 1 Insp. Results Maint. Done Storm Vault Insp. Results Page 9 of 9 ADaPT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FIVE RIVERS PRELIMINARY PLAT 53rd AVENUE S. and S. 159th. Street Tukwila, Washington Submitted To: AIA International Development 306 North 1St Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 WA01- 6475 -0 August 2001 ro • August ', 2001 WA01- 6267 -0 ADaPT AIA International Development 306 North 151 Avenue Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Saraj Khan Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Five Rivers Preliminary Plat 53rd Avenue South and South 159t Street Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Khan: LSI ADAPT (ADAPT) is pleased to submit this report summarizing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above - referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, excavations, foundations, floors, drainage, retaining walls, and structural fill. As outlined in our proposal letter dated May 31, 2001, our scope of work comprised a field exploration, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on June 6, 2001. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of AIA International Development, and their agents, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice and for the specific application to this project. Use or reliance upon this report by a third party is at their own risk. ADAPT does not make any representation or warranty, express or implied, to such other parties as to the accuracy or completeness of this report or the suitability of its use by such other parties for any purpose, whether known or unknown to ADAPT. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or need further assistance, please contact us at (206) 654 -7045. Respectfully Submitted, LSI ADAPT // Rolf B. •/ llseth, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: AIA International Development (3) Attn: Mr. Saraj Khan Jaeger Engineering (1) Attn: Mr. Jinn Jaeger 800 Maynard Avenue South Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Tel (206) -654 -7045 Fax (206) 654 -7048 www.adaptengr.com LSI ADAPT, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS WA01- 6475 -0 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 3 3.1 Test Pit Excavation Procedures 4 3.2 Laboratory Testing Procedures 4 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4 4.1 Surface Conditions 4 4.2 Soil Conditions 5 4.3 Groundwater Conditions 5 4.4 Seismic Conditions 6 4.5 Environmentally Critical Area Conditions 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 5.1 Site Preparation 7 5.2 Spread Footings 9 5.3 Deep Foundation Options 11 5.4 Slab -on -Grade Floors 12 5.5 Backfilled Walls 13 5.6 Drainage Systems 16 5.7 Structural Fill 16 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES 19 7.0 CLOSURE 20 Figure 1 Location/Topographic Map Figure 2 Site & Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs TP -1 through TP -11 Grain Size Analysis Report (1 pg) AIA International; Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Table of Contents LSI ADAPT, Inc. 1.0 SUMMARY Based on our field explorations, research and analyses, the proposed construction appears feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, contingent on the implementation of the recommendations presented in this report. The following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • • Project Description: Development plans call for constructing residential houses on up to 12 lots at the subject site. The specific type, size and location of these houses were not available at the time of this report. Exploratory Methods: We explored subsurface conditions by means of eleven test pits advanced at strategic locations within driveway and building lot areas across the site, to depths ranging from about 11.5 to 13.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil Conditions: The native soils underlying the site generally consist of interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, partially underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depth. Extensive amounts of uncontrolled fill material were disclosed within the upper 1.5 to 12.0 feet bgs in our explorations within two areas of the site: the southwest corner and the level bench areas along the north and east property lines. The site soils are mantled by approximately 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, grass, sod and topsoil. Groundwater Conditions: At the time of exploration (June 2001), groundwater seepage was disclosed at depths of up to about 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The observed groundwater seepage is interpreted to be perched atop the underlying, relatively impermeable, stiff silt or sandy silt. Environmentally Critical Area Considerations: Portions of the proposed site is located within an Area of Potential Geologic Instability identified on City of Tukwila Sensitive Area maps, with a high landslide potential and general slopes between 20 and 40 percent (Class 3 Area). Provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the project is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. Shallow Spread Foundations: In our opinion, the proposed houses can be supported by conventional spread footings that bear on the native, medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand. Any uncontrolled fill material will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, to minimize foundation settlements. For properly prepared footing sub�grades, these spread footings may be designed for an AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA0I- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 1 LSI ADAPT, Inc. • allowable, static bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) and a seismic bearing pressure of 2,660 psf. Deep Foundation Options: Where the uncontrolled fill material is too deep to allow for a cost - effective overexcavation and structural fill replacement, we are providing general design recommendations for alternative pin pile or helical pier foundations to support the houses. The deep foundations would be designed to bear within the native soils below the fill soils. Floors: Typical soil - supported, slab -on -grade floors are feasible at this site, contingent on proper subgrade preparation. Any uncontrolled fill material will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, to minimize floor slab settlements. For the deep foundation option, the house floors should be structurally supported. Subsurface Walls: In our opinion, conventional backfilled, cast -in -place concrete walls will adequately support the proposed basement and site perimeter retaining wall system. These walls should be designed to withstand appropriate lateral pressures, as discussed in this report. Seismic Considerations: Based on our literature review and subsurface interpretations, we recommend that the project structural engineer use the following seismic parameters for design of buildings, retaining walls, and other site structures, as appropriate. Design Parameter Value Acceleration Coefficient 0.30 Risk Zone (1997 UBC) 3 Soil Profile Type (1997 UBC) SD Temporary Excavation Considerations: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the loose to medium dense silty sand and medium stiff sandy silt that will likely be encountered within the anticipated excavation depths, we tentatively recommend maximum, temporary cut slope inclinations of 1 %AH: l V and 1 H:1 V, respectively. If groundwater seepage is encountered within the excavation slopes, the cut slope inclination should not exceed 1'1H:1 V. 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject site is located along the east side of 53r1 Avenue South, across from 159t Street, in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location /Topographic Map (Figure 1). This parcel measures about 330 by 400 feet and comprises 12 residential building lots located around the perimeter of a AIA International Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 2 LSI ADAPT, Inc. proposed dead -end street extension with a cul -de -sac. Site boundaries are generally delineated by 53rd Avenue South on the west, by an adjacent wooded area on the north, by a relatively steep slope downwards to Klickitat Drive on the east, and by a City of Seattle Right -of -Way (ROW) area on the south. The site is presently undeveloped and slopes moderately to steeply downwards to the east - northeast, with an overall topographical relief of about 50 feet. The enclosed Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 2) illustrates these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. It is our understanding that the lots will be developed for single- family residential dwellings. The type, size, and location of the planned houses were unknown at the time of this study; however, we anticipate that foundation support will consist of a system of shallow spread footings and basement retaining walls. We anticipate that the building walls and columns will impose relatively light foundation loads. A detention pond is planned near the southeast corner of the site (Tract A Drainage area on the site plans). We understand that the material excavated as a part of grading activities in this area may be used to raise grades at the west end of the proposed access roadway to match street elevations along 53rd Avenue South along the western property line. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from layout drawings, written information, and verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on June 15, 2001. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: • • • • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; 11 test pits (designated TP -1 through TP -11) advanced at strategic locations across the proposed building lot and driveway areas; 1 grain size analysis; A review of published geologic and seismologic maps and literature. The following text sections describe our procedures used for performing the test pits and the laboratory testing. Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. We estimated the relative location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us. Then we estimated their elevations by interpolating between elevation contour lines shown on this same plan. Consequently, the locations depicted on Figure 2 should be ALA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 3 LSI ADAPT, Inc. considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have commenced. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 3.1 Test Pit Excavation Procedures Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to ADAPT. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After we logged each test pit, the hoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in -situ soils by means of the observed excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Procedures As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of grain size analyses and moisture content determinations. A grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM:D -422. Moisture content determinations were made in general accordance with ASTM:D -2216. The results of these laboratory tests are presented on the enclosed grain size analysis reports and on the exploration logs. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding surface, soil, groundwater, and seismic conditions at the project site. 4.1 Surface Conditions The subject site is vegetated by second - growth trees and a relatively dense understory growth. Topography at the site slopes from the southwest comer downwards toward the northeast at a moderately AIA International Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 4 LSI ADAPT, Inc. steep inclination, with intermediate, relatively level bench areas midway along the west property line and along the majority of the north and east property lines. The moderately steep slope separating the two bench areas traverse diagonally across the central portion of the site from the northwest corner to the midpoint of the south property line. We did not observe surface water seepage or ponding at the site during our site visit. 4.2 Soil Conditions According to published geological maps, the general soil conditions at the site location consist of Vashon Drift material, comprised of lacustrine silts and clays, overlain by recessional sand and pebble outwash. Our on -site explorations generally confirmed the mapped native soil conditions, as modified by the placement of extensive amounts of uncontrolled fill soils overlying these native soil within two areas of the site: the southwest corner and the level bench areas along the north and east property lines. The site soils are mantled by approximately 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, grass, sod and topsoil. The native soils underlying the fill material in the southwest corner and most of the moderately steep slope crossing the central area of the site generally consist of interlayered medium stiff to stiff silt/sandy silt and medium dense sand, partially underlain by a medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand at depth of 5 to 6 feet. Within the eastern one -third of the site, the native soils underlying the fill material and along the gently sloping area in the southeast corner of the site consisted of medium dense to dense gravelly, silty sand, underlain by a very stiff to hard, massive silt at depths ranging from 8 to 11 feet. This underlying hard soil unit, which is interpreted to be glacially overridden and overconsolidated, was also disclosed at depth in test pit TP -4 near the top of the slope in the northwestern corner of the site. Uncontrolled fill material was disclosed to a depth of 12.0 and 1.5 feet in test pits TP -1 and TP -3, respectively, within the southwest corner of the site (Lots No. 11, 12, and westernmost 100 feet of proposed road), which corresponds with a contact elevation of approximately 148 feet in both test pits. The fill material is interpreted to make up most of the small hill in this corner of the site and we anticipate that the area southwest of the 148 -foot surface contour line is underlain by varying amounts of fill material. The majority of the level bench area in the northeast one -third of the site (Lots No. 2 through 8) is also interpreted to be underlain by uncontrolled fill. Specifically, uncontrolled fill was disclosed to a depth of about 3.0 feet in test pits TP -8 and TP -11 (Lots No. 6 through 8), whereas the fill depth was 6.5 and 10.0 feet in test pits TP -5 and TP -7, respectively (Lots No. 2 through 5). The depth of the fill material may vary significantly in unexplored areas of the is lower bench area. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (June 2001), groundwater seepage was disclosed at depths generally ranging from about 5 to 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The observed groundwater seepage is interpreted to be perched atop the underlying, relatively impermeable, stiff silt or sandy silt. Within the upper bench area along the western property line, the perched groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of approximately 1.5 feet (test pit TP -3). Because our explorations were performed during an extended period of generally dry weather, these observed groundwater conditions may closely AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 5 LSI ADAPT, Inc. represent the yearly low levels; somewhat higher levels probably occur during the winter and early spring months. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. 4.4 Seismic Conditions Based on our analysis of subsurface exploration logs and our review of published geologic maps, we interpret the on -site soil conditions to correspond to seismic soil profile type SD, as defined by Table 16 -J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and Table 1615.1.1 of the 2000 International Building Code. This soil profile type is characterized by stiff soils with an average blowcount ranging from 15 to 50 within the upper 100 feet bgs. Current (1996) National Seismic Hazard Maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that a peak bedrock site acceleration coefficient of about 0.30 is appropriate for an earthquake having a 10- percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to a return interval of 475 years). According to Figure 16 -2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the site lies within seismic risk zone 3. 4.5 Environmentally Critical Area Conditions Portions of the proposed site is located within an Area of Potential Geologic Instability identified on City of Tukwila Sensitive Area maps, with a high landslide potential and general slopes between 20 and 40 percent (Class 3 Area). Specifically, the topographic survey for the site indicates that the south portions of Lots No. 11 and 12 slopes at an inclination ranging from 3 /4H:1 V (133 percent) to 3H:1V (33 percent) downward towards the north - northeast, while the northwest and central portions of the site contain slopes with inclinations on the order of 4H:1 V (25 percent) or less downward towards the northeast. The recommendations and conclusions of this geotechnical engineering report address the concerns related to the steep slope designation, in general accordance with the Sensitive Areas Overlay of the City of Tukwila building code. Provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented, the project is considered feasible and is not anticipated to adversely affect the stability of the subject site or adjacent properties. ' 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Development plans call for the construction of new residential houses at the site. Based on our findings and the results of our analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this report are implemented. The type, size, and location of the planned houses were unknown at the time of this study; however, we anticipate that foundation support will consist of a system of shallow spread footings and basement retaining walls. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, spread footings, slab -on grade floors, backfilled walls, drainage systems, and structural fill. WSDOT Standard Specifications and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications M41 -10, 2000 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and M21 -01, 2000 Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, respectively. AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 6 LSI ADAPT, Inc. • As discussed in the subsequent sections, overexcavation of uncontrolled fill material and replacement with structural fill will be required in all structural development areas, such as below foundations, slabs and roadways. If at all possible, we recommend that the planned houses be situated on those portions of the lots where the least amount of uncontrolled fill is expected, so as to minimize the anticipated overexcavation and associated construction costs. if other site constraints limit the siting of the houses to the deeper fill areas, we recommend that the cost of removal and replacement with structural fill be compared with the cost of supporting the house on deep foundations embedded within suitable native bearing soils below the uncontrolled fill, as discussed in the sections below. Alternatively, the affected house could be designed with a basement to limit the cost of structural fill placement. For street access, we anticipate that the houses on Lots No. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 will be situated on the moderately steep slopes within the central and the northwest portions of the site. To minimize grading and potential erosion on the slope areas, we recommend that the spread foundations of these houses be designed to follow the natural topography by stair - stepping down the slope face. We do not recommend that any house or structure be situated within the slope areas on Lots No.' 11 and 12 which are underlain by uncontrolled fill, unless the houses are designed with daylight basements supported on native soils or site grades are modified by removal and replacement of the uncontrolled fill material. 5.1 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should- involve temporary drainage, clearing, stripping, cutting, filling, excavations, dewatering, and subgrade compaction. The paragraphs below discuss our geotechnical comments and recommendations concerning site preparation. Temporary Drainaee: We recommend intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near - surface water within the construction zones before stripping begins. Because the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that curbs, berms, or ditches placed along the uphill side of the work areas will adequately intercept surface water runoff. Clearing and Stripping: After surface and near - surface water sources have been controlled, the construction areas should be cleared and stripped of all trees, bushes, sod, topsoil, debris, asphalt, and concrete. Our explorations indicate that an average thickness of about 6 to 12 inches of forest duff, sod, duff, and topsoil will be encountered across the site, but significant variations could exist, especially where tree root balls are encountered. Furthermore, it should be realized that if the stripping operation proceeds during wet weather, a generally greater stripping depth might be necessary to remove disturbed, surficial, moisture- sensitive soils; therefore, stripping is best performed during a period of dry weather. Demolition: As a part of the initial site preparation, any existing structures present within the construction areas should be demolished. Any associated underground stnlctural elements or utilities, such as old footings, stemwalls, and drainpipes, should be exhumed as part of this demolition operation. AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 7 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Excavations: Site excavations ranging up to about 10 feet deep may be required to accommodate the proposed house construction and potential removal of uncontrolled fill. Based on our explorations, we anticipate that these excavations will encounter loose fill soils, medium stiff to stiff sandy silts, or loose to medium dense silty/gravelly sands within the anticipated site excavations. Some perched groundwater seepage zones will likely be encountered at various depths within the site soils. These soils can likely be cut with conventional earth working equipment such as small dozers and trackhoes. Temporary Cut Slopes: All temporary soil cuts associated with site regrading or excavations should be adequately sloped back to prevent sloughing and collapse. For the various soil layers that will likely be encountered in the excavation, we tentatively recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations: Soil Type Maximum Inclination Loose Fill Soils 1''H: l V Loose to Medium Dense Silty/Gravelly Sand 1' /�H:1 V Medium Stiff to Stiff Sandy Silt 1 H:1 V If groundwater seepage is encountered within the excavation slopes, the cut slope inclination should not exceed 1'AH:1 V. However, appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection, in accordance with OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and ravelling. Dewatering: Our site surface and subsurface exploration reveled the presence of perched groundwater seepage at depths generally ranging up to about 10 feet within the central and western portion of the site. The proposed site excavations might encounter perched groundwater seepage, depending on the actual excavation depth and time of year. If groundwater is encountered, we anticipate that an internal system of ditches, sump holes, and pumps will be adequate to temporarily dewater the excavations. Subgrade Compaction: Exposed subgrades for footings, floors, pavements, and other structures should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state, if warranted by soil moisture conditions. Any localized zones of loose granular soils observed within a subgrade should be compacted to a density commensurate with the surrounding soils. In contrast, any uncontrolled fill material or organic, soft, or pumping soils observed within a subgrade should be overexcavated and replaced with a suitable structural fill material. Permanent Slopes: All permanent cut slopes and fill slopes should be adequately inclined and revegetated to minimize long -term ravelling, sloughing, and erosion. We generally recommend that no permanent slopes be steeper than 2H:1 V. For all soil types, the use of flatter slopes (such as 2.5H:1 V) would further AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 8 LSI ADAPT, Inc. reduce long -term erosion and facilitate revegetation. It should be noted that a portion of the existing fill slope between Lots No. 11 and 12 appeared to be oversteepened (3 /4H:1 V) and should be regraded to a more stable inclination, as discussed above. Slope Protection: We recommend that a permanent berm, swale, or curb be constructed along the top edge of all permanent slopes to intercept surface flow. Also, a hardy vegetative groundcover should be established as soon as feasible, to further protect the slopes from runoff water erosion. Alternatively, if slopes are too steep for vegetation to take hold, permanent slopes could be armored with quarry spalls or a geosynthetic erosion mat. 5.2 Spread Footings In our opinion, conventional spread footings will provide adequate support for the proposed houses if the subgrades are properly prepared. This will involve overexcavating any existing, unsuitable fill material and replacing with properly compacted structural fill. Alternativ deep foundation options are discussed in the subsequent section of this report. We offer the following comments and recommendations for purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Depths and Widths: For frost and erosion protection, the bottoms of all exterior footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent outside grades, whereas the bottoms of interior footings need penetrate only 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should bear within the native, medium dense silty /gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt. Continuous (wall) and isolated (column) footings should be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively, to act as a true footing element providing the specified bearing capacity. Footing Overexcavation: To limit settlements, we recommend that any uncontrolled fill soils below the footing subgrade elevation be overexcavated and replaced with a structural fill pad. Any locally deeper zones of organics or soft soils encountered at the base of the overexcavation should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Because foundation stresses are transferred outward as well as downward into the bearing soils, all footing overexcavations also should extend horizontally outward from the footing edge a distance equal to the overexcavation depth for structural backfill. Therefore, an overexcavation that extends 5 feet below the footing base should extend 5 feet outward from the footing edges (a 1 H:1 V projected line from the bottom of the footing to the bottom of the fill prism). Soil Replacement: After the footing overexcavations have been completed, the overexcavated soil should be replaced with either a controlled density fill (CDF) or a properly compacted, approved granular structural fill material, as specified in the structural fill section of this report. If subgrade soils at the base of overexcavations are in a wet condition, a drainage layer of washed rock, crushed rock, or quarry spalls may be required to stabilize the base and allow placement and compaction of structural fill. Slope Dcsian Considerations: For the houses that may be located on the moderately steep slopes within the central portion of the site, the spread foundation elements should be designed to follow the natural AIA International Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA0-1- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 9 LSI ADAPT, Inc. contour lines in a stair -step manner. Generally, we recommend that the base of an upper footing be placed below a 1 H:1 V plane extending upwards from the heel of any lower footing, in order to reduce the risk for surcharging any backfilled footing stem walls or footing- supported retaining wall. The outside edge of the base of any footing placed on a slope should be embedded at least 18 inches below the downhill slope surface. Bearing Subgrades: The native, medium dense silty/gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt underlying the proposed house lots appear well- suited for supporting the proposed shallow spread footing system. Alternatively, the footings may be founded on a structural fill prism placed directly onto these native soils. Before concrete is placed, any localized zones of loose soils encountered in the footing subgrades should be compacted to a firm, unyielding condition, if warranted by soil moisture conditions. Any uncontrolled fill material within the house footprint area will need to be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, as previously discussed. Subgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should consist of firm, unyielding, dense, undisturbed, native soils. Footings should never be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an ADAPT representative before any concrete is placed. Bearine Capacities: Based on the bearing subgrade conditions described above, we recommend that all footings be designed for the following allowable bearing capacities for static and seismic loadings: Design Parameter Allowable Value Static Bearing Capacity Seismic Bearing Capacity 2,000 psf 2,660 psf Footine Settlements: We estimate that total post - construction settlements of properly designed footings bearing on properly prepared subgrades will not exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements could approach one -half of the actual total settlement between adjacent foundation elements. Footing and Stemwall Backfill: To provide erosion protection and lateral load resistance, we recommend that all footing excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footings and stemwalls after the concrete has cured. Either imported structural fill or non - organic on -site soils can be used for this purpose, contingent on a suitable moisture content at the time of placement. Regardless of soil type, all footing backfill soil should be compacted to a density of at least 90 percent (based on ASTM:D - 1557). Lateral Resistance: Footings and stemwalls that have been properly backfilled as described above will resist lateral movements by means of passive earth pressure and base friction. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neelecting the upper 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination. For site - specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 10 LSI ADAPT, Inc. passive pressure values for level and 4H:1V foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing depth. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: Allowable Design Values Design Parameter Level Foreslope (4H:1V) Foreslope Static Passive Pressure 250 pcf 180 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 330 pcf 240 pcf Base Friction Coefficient 0.30 0.30 5.3 Deep Foundation Options Given the depth and extent of uncontrolled fill within the northeast portion and southwest comer of the site, overexcavation and replacement with structural fill may be prohibitively expensive. If a basement design is not an option, the house could be founded on deep foundations extended to bear within suitable native soils below the uncontrolled fill material. Generally, cost - effective deep foundation systems for single- family residences consist of either small- diameter steel pipe (needle) piles or Chance helical piers. For planning and cost comparison purposes, we have provided general recommendations for these two deep foundation options below. We recommend that ADAPT be retained to review final soil parameters and geotechnical design values appropriate for each specific house location where a deep foundation option is selected. Depending upon the specific location and house plan, it may be necessary to perform additional explorations to evaluate depth of unsuitable fill material and suitability of the underlying native soils. For either deep foundation option, we have provided estimated or typical compressive vertical capacities. For properly installed deep foundations, we anticipate that settlement would be less than %s inch, with differential settlement between pile- supported elements approaching approximately half of the total settlement. Lateral capacities are limited due to the small diameter of the needle piles/helical shafts and the unknown quality of the surficial fill soils; instead, we recommend that lateral resistance be provided by buried grade beams and stem walls fixed to the top of the deep foundation members. For either option, we recommend that the design incorporate an allowance for pile relocation, in the event that obstructions in the fill are encountered during installation. Steel Pipe Piles: Small diameter (needle) piles typically range from 2 to 4 inches in diameter and are installed with hand -held hydraulic hammer or mechanical hammers mounted on a small pile driving rig. The 2- inch - diameter piles are typically driven to a refusal penetration rate of 1 inch/minute, while the refusal rate for the larger diameter (3 or 4 inches) piles depends on the type of hammer used. The piles should be driven a minimum of 5 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils below the unsuitable fill to provide adequate vertical compressive capacities. The table below presents typical, static, vertical, AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA0I- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 11 LSI ADAPT, Inc. compressive capacities for needle piles of varying diameter driven to refusal within granular native soils, based on the specified refusal criteria for the hammer used. These typical, allowable values incorporate a safety factor of about 2 and are typically increased by one -third for seismic design capacities. The specific location, size, and configuration of the pipe piles should be designed by a structural engineer based on the expected loading conditions for the house. We recommend that a load test be performed on at least one of the piles installed into the native soils underlying the existing fill material. Typical Allowable Compressive Capacities Pipe Pile Diameter (inches) Static Capacity (kips) 2 3 4 4 10 15 Chance Helical Piers: A helical pier consists of single or multiple helical steel plates of varying diameter welded onto an axial rod that is `screwed' into the soils using standard augering equipment. The helical piers should penetrate at least 5 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils underlying the unsuitable fill material to develop adequate design capacities. The table below presents typical, static, vertical compressive capacities for single -helix piers of varying diameter installed to adequate embedment into the native dense soils (minimum 10 feet bgs). Increased capacities may be achieved with deeper embedment or with the use of multiple -helix piers within the bearing soil layer. These typical, allowable values incorporate a safety factor of about 2 and are typically increased by one -third for seismic design capacities. The specific location, size, and configuration of the helical piers should be designed by a structural engineer based on the expected loading conditions for the house. The helical piers should be installed and the estimated capacities should be verified in the field by monitoring the installation torque in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Typical Allowable Compressive Capacities Helix Diameter (inches) Static Capacity (kips) 8 4 10 6 12 8 5.4 Slab -on -Grade Floors In our opinion, soil- supported slab -on -grade floors can be used for the proposed houses if the subgrades are properly prepared. This will involve overexcavating any existing, unsuitable fill material and replacing with properly compacted structural fill. If one of the deep foundation option discussed above is selected to support the house foundations, we recommend that the floors be structurally supported on the AlA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 12 LSI ADAPT, Inc. house foundation grade beams. A crawl space should be provided for moisture protection of interior floors with the structural floor option. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning slab -on -grade floors. Capillary Break: To retard the upward wicking of groundwater beneath the floor slab, we recommend that a capillary break be placed over the subgrade. Ideally, this capillary break would consist of a 4 -inch- thick layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform, well- rounded gravel, such as "Gravel Backfill for Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9- 03.12(4). Vapor Barrier: We recommend that a layer of plastic sheeting (such as Crosstuff, Visqueen or Moistop) be placed directly between the capillary break and the floor slab to prevent ground moisture vapors from migrating upward through the slab. During subsequent casting of the concrete slab, the contractor should exercise care to avoid puncturing this vapor barrier., Vertical Deflections: Soil- supported slab -on -grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade reaction modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used to estimate such deflections upon a native soil or structural fill subgrade. Suberade Verification: All slab -on -grade floors should bear on firm, unyielding native soils or on suitable structural fill soils. We recommend that the conditions of all subgrades and overlying layers be verified by an ADAPT representative before any concrete is placed. 5.5 Backfilled Walls In our opinion, backfilled concrete retaining walls can be used around the below -grade portions and to support interior shear walls of the houses. Our wall design recommendations and comments are presented below. Footing Depths: For frost and erosion protection, all perimeter and basement retaining wall footings should penetrate at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface, whereas the bottoms of interior wall footings need only penetrate 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. All footings should bear within the native, medium dense silty /gravelly sand or medium stiff to stiff sandy silt. Curtain Drains: To preclude hydrostatic pressure development behind the perimeter retaining walls, we recommend that a curtain drain be placed behind the entire wall along the perimeter of the houses. This curtain drain should consist of pea gravel, washed rock, or some other clean, uniform, well- rounded gravel, extending outward a minimum of 2 feet from the wall and extending from the footing drain upward to within about 12 inches of the ground surface. The fines content of the drainage material should be 5 percent or less, based on the 3h -inch soil fraction. We also recommend that a 4- inch - diameter AIA International Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 13 LSI ADAPT, Inc. perforated drain pipe be installed behind the heel of the wall, as described for Perimeter Drains in the Drainage Systems section of this report. Backfill Soil: The on -site granular soils could be used as backfill placed behind the curtain drain, if they are near the optimum moisture content. Alternatively, the wall backfill would consist of clean, free - draining, granular material, such as "Gravel Backfill for Walls" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9- 03.12(2). Backfill Compaction: Because soil compactors may induce significant lateral pressures on retaining walls, we recommend that only small, hand- operated compaction equipment be used within 3 feet of a completed wall. Also, all backfill should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density (based on ASTM:D- 1557); a greater degree of compaction closely behind the wall would increase the lateral earth pressure, whereas a lesser degree of compaction might lead to excessive post - construction settlements. Grading and Capping: To retard the infiltration of surface water into the backfill soils, the backfill surface of exterior walls should be adequately sloped to drain away from the wall. We also recommend that the backfill surface directly behind the wall be capped with asphalt, concrete, or 12 inches of low - permeability (silty) soils. Applied Loads: Overturning and sliding loads applied to retaining walls can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. We offer the following specific values for design purposes. Static Pressures: Yielding (cantilever) retaining walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate active lateral earth pressure, whereas non - yielding (restrained) walls should be designed to withstand an appropriate at -rest lateral earth pressure. The criteria for yielding walls may be applied where the top of the wall is allowed to translate or rotate a distance equal to 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination. For the anticipated range of backslope angles for this site, we recommend using the following active and at- rest pressures (given as equivalent fluid unit weights): Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 35 pcf 55 pcf 4H:1V 44 pcf 62 pcf • Surcharge Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 14 LSI ADAPT, Inc. material stockpiles, or structures. We have assumed that the retaining walls supporting the proposed basement and perimeter walls will be placed far enough apart so as not to exert surcharge pressure on the lower walls. This requires that the base of an upper wall footing is placed below a 1 H:1 V plane extending upwards from the heel of any lower wall. Seismic Pressures: Static lateral earth pressures acting on a retaining wall should be increased to account for seismic loadings. These pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. Based on a design acceleration coefficient of 0.25 to 0.30 and a wall height of "H" feet, we recommend that these seismic loadings be modeled as the following uniform horizontal pressures for various backslope angles: Backslope Active At -Rest Angle Pressure Pressure Level 4H psf 12H psf 3H:1 V 6H psf 18H psf 4H:1 V 8H psf 24H psf Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the backfill soils, hydrostatic pressures will act against a retaining wall. If an adequate drainage and discharge system is installed behind the retaining wall, we do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. Resisting Forces: Static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures are resisted by a combination of passive lateral earth pressure, base friction, and subgrade bearing capacity. Passive pressure acts over the embedded front of the footing (neglecting the upper 1 foot for soil foreslopes) and varies with the foreslope inclination, whereas the base friction and bearing capacity act along the bottom of the footings. For site - specific design purposes, we are providing recommended allowable passive pressure values for level foreslopes. The level foreslope condition may be assumed if the ground surface is level within a horizontal distance equal to two times the footing width. We recommend using the following design values, which incorporate a static safety factor of at least 1.5: AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA0I- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 15 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Level Foreslope (4H:1 V) Foreslope Static Passive Pressure 250 pcf 180 pcf Seismic Passive Pressure 330 pcf 240 pcf Base Friction Coefficient 0.30 0.30 Static Bearing Capacity 2,000 2,000 Seismic Bearing Capacity 2,660 2,660 5.6 Drainage Systems In our opinion, the houses should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of future moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and construction purposes. Perimeter Drains: We recommend that the houses be encircled with a perimeter drain system to collect seepage water. This drain should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. The drain invert should be installed no more than 8 inches above or belovi% the base of the perimeter footings. All perimeter drains should discharge to a municipal storm drain, sewer system, or other suitable location by gravity flow. Runoff Water: Roof - runoff and surface -runoff water should not discharge into the perimeter drain system. Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tight line pipes and be routed away from the house to a storm drain or other appropriate location. Grading and Capping: Final site grades should slope downward away from the house so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the house. Ideally, the area surrounding the house would be capped with concrete, asphalt, or low- permeability (silty) soils to reduce surface -water infiltration. 5.7 Structural Fill The term "structural fill" refers to any placed under foundations, retaining walls, slab -on -grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other such features. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs. Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, granulithic gravel, pea gravel, washed rock, crushed rock, quarry spalls, controlled - density fill (CDF), lean -mix concrete, well - graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit- run "), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 16 LSI ADAPT, Inc. sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. Fill Placement: Generally, pea gravel, washed rock, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean -mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. On -Site Soils: Because relatively large cuts are planned for the project, we expect that large quantities of on -site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. We anticipate that fill will be needed to backfill footings and retaining walls at the site. We performed a laboratory grain size analysis and a moisture content determination on a representative portion of the site soils within the proposed detention pond excavation area (proposed on -site fill material) to evaluate their suitability for use as structural fill. The results of these tests indicate a relatively high silt content (45 percent) and moisture content (20 percent), as shown on the enclosed laboratory test report and noted on the attached exploration logs. Given that the site soils are predominantly fine- grained and, as such highly moisture - sensitive, we recommend that the construction planning includes a contingency for importing "clean ", granular fill, in the event that adequate soil aeration is not feasible within the construction time -frame due to unfavorable site and weather conditions. As such, we offer the following evaluation of these on -site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill. Surfrcial Organic Soils: The sod, duff, topsoil, and organic -rich soils mantling most of the site are not suitable for use as structural fill under any circumstances, due to their high organic content. Consequently, these materials can be used only for non - structural purposes, such as in landscaping areas. Silty (Gravelly) Sand / Sandy Silt: The silty sand, silty gravelly sand, and sandy silt units underlying the surficial organic and uncontrolled fill soils appeared to be significantly above their optimum moisture condition. We anticipate that these sandy soils may be reworked and recompacted, given favorable weather conditions when they can be aerated to reduce their moisture content. However, these soils would be difficult to reuse during wet weather, due to their high silt content. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D -1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on -site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 17 LSI ADAPT, Inc. Minimum Fill Application Compaction Footing subgrade or bearing pad 90 percent Footing and retaining wall backfill 90 percent Slab -on -grade floor subgrade and subbase 90 percent Roadway embankment (upper 2 feet) 95 percent Roadway embankment (below 2 feet) 90 percent Concrete sidewalk subgrade 90 percent It should be noted that many municipal compaction standards for construction work within right -of -way areas requires 95 percent density, based on the Standard Proctor test (ASTM:D -698). This requirement is generally equivalent to about 90 percent compaction using the more stringent Modified Proctor criteria (ASTM:D - 1557). Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by an ADAPT representative before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in -place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain -size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet - weather site work, we recommend using "clean" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or less (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Considerations: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand - excavation. In general, CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand - excavation might be needed. AIA international Development LS1 ADAPT Project No. WA0I- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 18 LSI ADAPT, Inc. 6.0 RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL SERVICES Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that ADAPT be retained to provide the following post -report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing all review comments (if required by City of Tukwila); • Attend a pre - construction conference with the design team and contractor to discuss important geotechnically related construction issues; Observe all exposed subgrades after completion of stripping and overexcavation to confirm that suitable soil conditions have been reached and to determine appropriate subgrade compaction methods; • Monitor the placement of all structural fill and test the compaction of structural fill soils to verify their conformance with the construction specifications; • Check all completed subgrades for footings and slab -on -grade floors before concrete is poured, in order to verify their bearing. capacity; • Observe the installation of all perimeter drains, wall drains, and capillary break layers to verify their conformance with the construction plans; • Prepare a post - construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections, and test results (if required by City of Tukwila). Upon request, we could submit a proposal for providing some or all of these construction monitoring, inspection, and testing services. Such a proposal is best prepared after the project plans and specifications have been approved for construction. ALA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 19 LSI ADAPT, Inc. 7.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, LSI ADAPT, Inc. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer cv Senior roesch, P.E. eotechnical Review AIA International Development LSI ADAPT Project No. WA01- 6475 -0 August 6, 2001 Page 20 LSI ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue S. Seattle, Washington Ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : , Suite 403 98134 206.654.7048 FIGURE 1 - Location /Topographic Map ProJect : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158.th Street Tukwila, Washington Client : Five Rivers Development, Inc. Date : 07/02/01 Job # :S— WA - -01- 6475 -0 Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 1E8 'W: 132.14 Catch Basin Rm: 145.01 1EBw: 142.65 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 146.70 IE Ctr. 136.81 Sanitary Sewer Mannote Rim: 166.32 IE Ctr. 155.00 09, vet uT get l \-\ \ / •Or, \ / 1 l l1 / ire \\ \\ \\ \\ \ 1 1 I (� ,� v v \ r \\ - \ ° \\ \ 1 96615.16 - 306.x4 Li / /J — - .. \ \\ 1 \ \\ \ I 1 I / /� / /. „\ \ \ 1 1 TP5 l / 0, \ \ \ \ \ ;� \•\ 7 i / , / ,TP7 1 �) —9( \\\ \' \ \\ \\ I \„ / /� %' / "� . \�4 2�,� N. \\ l / / , (`_LOT\ \ \\�\ \ � \LOT 3 LdT f�; o LOT 5 i ; °I \�'` \� \� \\ \� �� ATP 6 1� \ '\\ \\ \,,,, \ \ I N -____\__ � \ \ \_\ �r \ \ --- m -- \ \ � TP -3 Y \ \\ \\ � LOT 7 / i \\ °`, \ \\ of / 1 \ \ \ \ \ TP -1 LEGEND: TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION NOTE: BASED ON LOT PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY JAEGER ENGINEERING (DATED 01/29/1999) Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 128.58 1E12 -0Ctr: 118.76 LOT 6 TP -8 rr I \ \ I \1\ \ \ \ •\ c O 12 - -� I I I I \ \� \ i II LOT 111 I 1 I TP 2 \ �'�• / tis ,,ti Basin 169.95 02[ E12"W:157.7 \ eg '_—� I TRACT \�L9t� r9t� \ i (-- f LIJ� I y\ / I QRAPrAGE • 1 \ I I\ / I; 1 \ 1 \ l \\ rr� �� \ : \ I\ I I 1 /LOT 8 ) , I i ills I \\\\ _` \ \ I I \ I ,ATP -11\ \ i. 1 i "t-1 f \- `I \\\\\\-\---------\\-\\\. \ \ . — \ p,• \ `__ ( \ - -- f I tee% '� / I � ) \ \ \� \ \ \ \ 9r„ \ \azl:7-11---7—\\ i Irk \ \ \\ \ \ \ 1 I\ 1 1 ; I I \\_:::: \\ \\ \\ 1 0 1 \ \ \ \; \ ) 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 566171914669•\ \ /• \ \ i/ \\ \ `\ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \r 09 �'!�` ! 1 �' / \ \ \ \ \ \\�,��, 1.. f� \\ \\ \ \\ \\ °��Byi \ \ \ \ r!i \ \ \\ \\A 944•2 C, ZL1 -- of Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 134.97 1E12.00tr. 120.49 Sanitary Sewer Manhole J Rim: 127.00 ABANDONED Storm nMoneole R, : 95..9 E24 : 56.24 Storm Manhole FGrrt 98.91 E12-5: 92.51 !El 8-S: 55.66 ,E24-N: 55.7' l(24-9( Oct: 85.11 Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 125.29 ABANDONED 0 60 120 SCALE IN FEET LSI ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue S., Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 ph : 206.654.7045 Fax : 206.654.7048 FIGURE 2 - Site & Exploration Plan Project : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Location : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development. Inc. 07/02/01 Job * :S— WA -01- 6475 -0 Client : Date : FIN Name : Test Flt LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG BOO Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 1 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 161 it Elevation Reference : WA Page 01 of 01 _0 POCKET PENETROMETER lei a "2 b MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TESTPIG 1 2 3 — - — — _ _ _ _ — — — - _ — — — _ v Surface weeds over loose, moist, medium brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel and small rootlets (Fill) Loose, moist, tan to tan -gray with oxidation, silty, fine to medium SAND — (Fill) 1000 D +DOb toD —5— — _ — Loose, moist to saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND with some silt -rich zones and asphalt (Fill) — _ Loose, moist to saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND, some gravel, with roots and Togs (Fill) -10 - i4 interbedded, silty, fine SAND and PEAT (Relict topsoil ?) _ — — Medium dense, saturated, gray, silty, fine SAND 1000 g Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. _ Slow seepage observed at 8.5 to 9.0 feet. Excessive caving observed throughout. — — -15- -20- LEGEND L Static DaiE S.ric Watt, !love! a! DrIfl.Q Wage lad Grcurdrat.r n ,�� -.., i �g„pd i &YUt.1 Swnd- Ell!/. Wider Booing %�/L MC - XX Morton Cansn, t%) .._.1 If' O to 1 t coo D J gag SampM ,, u�i. Blain S¢. ArWya's S..paD• °11 Perched II oat., (% fines .loon) tart Date : 06/15/01 ompletion Date : 06/15/01 LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 96134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7046 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 2 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 141 It Elevation Reference : N/A Page . 01 of 01 DEPTH I moo PI 1 i P jt it <g m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TESTING —0 4- 1 — 2 3 — — — — — — _ — — — — — — — — Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) Loose, moist to wet, oxidized gray, silty, fine SAND and rootlets Becomes medium dense, slow to moderate seepage Dense, saturated, oxidized gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND, some silt, cobbles (up to 12 -inch diameter) . Stiff to very stiff, wet, SILT, some fine sand and gravel "" 1001e 1000 g — — tee 7/ A- —5— _10_ _ — — — ,...„ :coo:, 0 ` — — Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet. Slow to moderate seepage observed at 4.0 feet. — Severe caving observed in upper 10.0 feet. — - -15- -, `20- ---- LEGEND j%/// Water Bearing "^ MC - XX Moisture Cmaanl (%) 7 Static Water level at Drilling DATE .� Steep Wow is el S Bucket Grcundwa,er Bucket Sand. ....2. 1 DO to ,000 p Bp Samy. / Grain She Anays's Seepage Indtalor di, WW.r t% arcs sham) %X tart Date : 06/15/01 ompleuon Date : Lopged By . C.C. . LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South. Suite 403 Seattle. Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 3 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 149 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 of VE V POCKET I PENETROMETER (tonne) V WATER BEARING ZONE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY -0 1 2 - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - - - - - — .. - - - - - - Soft, wet, black, organic -rich, fine, sandy SILT with fill debris (concrete) roots and wood (Fill) - -=- 41 1 i - _ - - _ _ - - wet, gray, silty, fine SAND locally varying to fine, sandy SILT — . - - Becomes medium dense Dense, damp to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with some gravel, cobbles (up - to 6- inches diameter), and silt -rich zones -5- ,00e 1000g - _ . D0 11 1000 D , -10- - _ Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 1.5 feet. No caving observed. — '-15- 20- LEGEND Static Sl.lic xir water Le.wl et Dmp Wear LD I ti Grouraa a sr ^ . — S �.] BurJet and a1 S°^pI° W.r (%) MMoisture j stBearing Me. >« 100 to 1 lo00 pi a 4 Ws coin Size MNy.i ` Parch II , Water Seepage ktdctWr — (% fines stem) Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 ogg y: G. G. TEST PIT LOG psi ADAPT B00 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 4 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 146 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of 01 El POCKET PENETROMETER (IOrWfin I. WATER BEARING ZONE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY 0 1 _ _ — — — 1 — _ _ _ — — — — — — — — — — — — _ — _ — — Soft, brown, fine, sandy SILT (Topsoil) Soft to medium stiff, moist, brown and gray, fine sandy SILT, root zone to 2.0 feet Becomes stiff — — Becomes very stiff Becomes gray and generally massive, with some finely laminated oxidized zones ........ 100E 1000 g —5— — -10- Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. -15- -20- LEGEND Static D��A77TE Silk Water Lever ei Marc Wily La"a GrwMnatr Bucket Serra* v/ Water Beating MC - 70C Moisture Content (%) B00 Sam* I' I Grain Size Matra' /14 Water Seepage h6:Noce I (% fines shown) ^ )==f, 100 to 1000 g —SL D� Perched Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date 06/15/01 Logged By : C.C.C. TEST PIT LOG psi ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 5 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 124 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of 01 ET 11 ; CKET PENETPOROMETER 0«rtan*1 i1 �+ a m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABOROCIDRY TESTING -0 _ _ - _ _ - - - - _ - - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - _ - - d1 V 4- inches - Loose, - Grades - _ Organic _ Medium - black, organic -rich, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) moist, tan -gray with oxidized inclusions, fine SAND, some silt (Fill) to medium dense, silty SAND -rich, fine, sandy SILT with PEAT and wood to 6 -inch diameter dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND wet, strongly oxidized 1 - - - wow lox g - _ _ - - -5- -10- _ _ - - - - _ - - Becomes Test pit terminated Slow seepage No caving at 12.5 feet. observed at 8.0 to 9.0 feet. observed. -15- -20- LEGEND Sean DATE C'7 Static Wsto• LA.-.1 M Mihirp Water laved Greenbraa ..GA -�, S 9udrsl Budtet Sample fad IOC to tap° p Water eaartrc MC - )CC Moisture Comm (%) Bag Sat* (I 11 Water 5 �' r% shown) 111 Seepage Indicator (% Grain Mee �� —Z Perched Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By : C.C.C. eoo Maynard Avenue South, sore 403 TEST PIT LOG psi ADAPT Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 6 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 129 It Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 DEPTH Pte) ii n W a gMATERIAL m DESCRIPTION TESTING -0 1 2 3 - 10010 1000 p _ — - - - - — _ - - - - - - _ - V Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) -Loose, moist to damp, silty, gravelly, fine SAND, some cobbles (up to 6- inches diameter) Becoming medium dense - - ,trod 1000 0 - - —— 10010 1000 0 -5- Stiff, damp to wet, gray, SILT, with some fine sand with sand -rich interbeds Grading to wet, silty, fine SAND -10- — — - - - - _ - - Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 10.0 to 10.5 feet. No caving observed. -15- =20- LEGEND DATE Static Water Lseel at Drilling �L Stalk Weer Level Budiat Sample 100 to 1000 p M.4 Water Bearing L MC - IOC Moisture Content (X) �0 Sample e r Orin Site Analysis /� Water Seepage trick= co D_ Perched Groundwater Budtd Id (•, fines Ostrom) • Start Date : 06/15/01 ompletion Date : 06/1 9ed By : C.C.C. LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 7 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 130 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 a W WATER BEARINO ZONE og Vwi. d� MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY _0 Brown, silty, fine SAND (Forest Topsoil _ _ _ — — Loose, moist, tan -brown with dark brown interbeds, silty, fine SAND with silt -rich zones (Fill) — Loose, moist, medium brown, silty, fine SAND with rootlets — — — _ — —5— _ _ 0 Loose /Soft, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND with interbedded wood pieces and 1 di4 PEAT, intermixed with topsoil and decayed wood (Fill) 100 b 1000 g -10 — Loose, wet, gray, silty fine SAND, with silt -rich and sand -rich zones Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet. _ _ — — _ Slow seepage observed at 6.0 to 7.0 feet. Minor caving observed in upper 6.0 feet. -15- — — — — — - — — — — 20- LEGEND r wai.,..,,np __Y__ Swrie Wa, r. l.e+W at DArfrp MC - XX Moisture Content (%) 1001D, DATE �L_ Stage Water lead 5 DaL Dixie Sangre 1000 g RV Sartpk Ala Grain Sf:. DATE Bucket di' Wow Seepage Indmtm °O (% fines swam) Perela0 Grouro.wor 4 XX Start Date : 06/15/01 ompleuon ua : Logged ey . c.c.c. O • TEST PIT LOG psi ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue South. Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7046 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WAO1- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 8 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. - Ground Surface Elevation : 130 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 oIF 6 of W � d F. wv WN g a b MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY 0 1 2 3 - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - ` - 3- inches Topsoil - Loose, oxidized brown, silty, gravelly, fine SAND with rootlets; 3- inches silt -rich zone at base (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown, silty, fine SAND (Relic Topsoil) _ Loose, moist, tan - brown, silty, fine SAND, with some gravel and cobbles (up to 6- inches diameter) - Becoming medium dense - With more abundant cobbles and gravels, and gravelly, fine to coarse SAND zones - "'" 100°0 ' 100b 10000 -5- T - ;1oo0 oe 0 -10- - - - - - - - - - Very stiff, moist, blue -gray SILT, massive Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. -15- -20- LEGEND -- Static Warr. Laval s DAAInO DATE D� Stags WIM Level 5 OLL Perched GrourMwrar Budta &Oat Sample • Water Beating �'2 W MC - XX Moisture Content (X) 1�blllI 1000 pJ BaP Sa^da I Green Stu Analysis l ill Water Seepage 4ditator (% area shown) tan Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06 /15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. e ru LSI ADAPT TEST PIT LOG 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 9 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. _ Ground Surface Elevation : 1301t Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 of 01 o W 0 m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY _0 Black, silty, fine SAND (Topsoil) — — Loose /medium dense, moist, gray -tran with oxidation, finely bedded silty, fine SAND, some rootlets and minor small organic inclusions — 4. — — — Medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet, medium brown with oxidation, fine, —5 _ _ — _ _ V _ sandy SILT, some rootlets; varying to loose /medium dense, silty, fine — — — Irl 1 SAND Becomes gray -10- — — — — — — — _ _ _ Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Slow seepage observed at 5.5 to 6.0 feet on North side of test pit. No caving observed. -15- — — — — — - - - — — 20 -. LEGEND W.„, Beefing j MC. XX Moisten Content Static Water Level e! Dinka) > =._.. (%) D�f.7TE static , 100 to Water Loral 5 Bucket San* 1000 g BA; Saner 1, Size Analysis _x.— Perched Groundwater BuGeel �i� Water Seepage Indicate (% Gnu shown) ioi tart Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. .• • b • TEST PIT LOG LSI ADAPT B00 Maynard Avenue South, Suhe 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 10 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 126 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page : 01 01 of 01 o POCKET PENETROMETER iI i m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LOORATDRY —0 1 — - — _ — 1 — — - — — — _ — — — — _ — — 3- inches Topsoil Medium stiff to stiff, moist, gray- tan - brown, fine, sandy SILT with some — gravel and cobbles — —5— Medium dense, moist, oxidized brown, silty, fine SAND, with some gravel and cobbles — MC =20 100 to MD — — 4- Dense, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND with silt -rich interbeds Grades to wet, gray, fine SAND, with some silt -10- Very stiff to hard, damp to wet, gray with oxidation, finely laminated SILT Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. No seepage observed. No caving observed. -15- -20- LEGEND Static Water Level m Dolling Wrier feral � r--1 �? 1.5 g„d,M I Btdut Satrtple r Water Bearing MC - XX Moisture Content (X) .rte 100to 1000 p $Brt I i Gain Sirs Anelys� Seepage DATE D� Stalk '�— « III Water Irdcmor (X Mee Yuma) I Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 gea t3y : G.G.L. yt e 1 • TEST PIT LOG psi ADAPT 800 Maynard Avenue South, Suite 403 Seattle, Washington 98134 TEL: 206.654.7045 FAX: 206.654.7048 PROJECT : Five Rivers Preliminary Plat Job Number : WA01- 6475 -0 Test Pit No.: TP- 11 LOCATION : 53rd Avenue South & South 158th Street Tukwila, Washington Five Rivers Development, Inc. Ground Surface Elevation : 132 ft Elevation Reference : N/A Page 01 of 01 I cl E k U WATER BEARING ZONE LABORATOFff og arl i d MATERIAL DESCRIPTION _0 2- inches Topsoil _ _ _ Loose, moist -dry, oxidized orange- brown -gray, silty, gravelly, fine to _ medium SAND (Fill) _ _ _ Soft, damp to wet, medium brown, fine to medium, sandy SILT, some — gravel (Relic Topsoil) — Stiff, moist, oxidized gray, fine to medium, sandy SILT Medium dense, moist to damp, oxidized gray, gravelly, silty, fine SAND —5— — — — — — _ —- _ _ 1 With gravel /cobble - rich zones and silty, fine SAND interbeds — — — — — -10- Medium stiff to stiff, gray SILT, finely laminated to massive — Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet. Slow to moderate seepage observed at 5.5 to 6.0 feet on — — _ _ — East side of test pit. Caving observed below 6.0 feet depth. -15- — — — — — — —_ - - -20- LEGEND / /// Water Beauty uc - xx Moisture Content (%) IT i . Static Water Larol et Drilli,p } C�-77 Stalk Water i.a 6u*at Sample 100 to 1000 0 BIG Sertple 11 .C_ DATE /1 Grae six* Mwyaa _Z Perched anarroasaer eucwet Water Ssepapa IrtCiumr 111 l+c tuns shown) Start Date : 06/15/01 Completion Date : 06/15/01 Logged By: C.C.C. Grain Size Analysis Report nn 1 -1/2 in 3/4 in . 3/8 in # 4 # 10 # 20 # 40 # 60 # 100 # 200 ; 1 1:. , :,1`, ; ; : 0.001 ing b) ,, c D C I I I ,l • . „ , , , , .I. , - 0 Project Name: Five Rivers Development Project Number: WA01- 6475 -0 Date: 7/26/01 Test Standard: ASTM:D -422 : : : : ; : 'I' : : : ; ;I; • ; ; : ' : : : • . • : ; 'I' ,:I: : • • Silty SAND w /gravel (TP- 10/S -1) I I l i 1 T t T 1 I i T T-T T I 1 I 1 1 100 10 1 1 I I I I f 1 1 I I I T 1 1 I 11 1 I I I I 1 I 0.1 0.01 Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Coarse Fine Coarse Medium [inc LSI ADAPT, Inc. CITY OF TUKWILA Department ojComnarnity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplannci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY RECEIVED 'JUN .1 d 2005 CO;v t,n! J ;�, ; ., DEVELOt�,tir , STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner ofthe property which is the subject ofthis 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. located .5 ,3 I58 amts., engineers, contractors or other representatives the Ax l lta / QQOgp enter upon Owner's real prolnerty, 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 refimd of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. EXECUTED at t?z li y ke/ (aty), iv NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON TERRANCE R. WILSON *Appointment Expires May 1, 2006 ss (state), on J L("./E /(' .20 0 I S ) /Al &? S' S�k/rda (PrmiName)Q 41r/ le/ 743 416 () I <C T W 4 (Phone Mather) 2(- S5(- / ,C51 (Sigma) On this day personally appeared before me 3-113V✓A NeriQ $ € Kc t-kv40 to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and aclmowledged that he/she signed the same as his/her vohmtary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. q \ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS t DAY OF c ,20 oS NOTTYPUB in and for the State ofWashington residing at c:b' My Commission expires on M fl I l 2 -C'7 (O CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I HA iC..�'I m CIR'el AL (PRINT NAME) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on - ' '- Zl , 20°5 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and the other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 53 t-L.7)11e, S so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number 4.0c— 040 . I herewith authorize the City of Tukwila or its representative to remove and immediately dispose of the sign at the property owner's expense, if not removed in a timely manner or within fourteen (14) days of a Notice letter. N • Yel (2—Q Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me \4'c'\ UQL 1N'A L 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. a SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this L - day of 'S \-)NI L 20 05 NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON TERRANCE R. WILSON My 'Appointment Expires May 1, 2006 SEPA_IPP -VU 1/23/03 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires NV\ `1 \ 2.A.70 L :City of Tukwila Depaitment of Community Development File Number Los -0 t_t 0 L 0 S-_oo- LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: ❑ Building ❑ Planning ❑ Public Works ❑ Fire Dept_ ❑ Police Dept. Project n . J E Parks/Rec. Address: S S' c �,-- S , Dare J '2.0) transmitted: Staff coordinator: Response requested by: Date response received: • COMMENTS P1s ;-�- `pro 1 12 l- S- v-td.`, VI fsf STk•. . GO-e- �9 rY �c ti 2.� -�-� c-Q — LA-c Q onti\AD M4-t-( Va. MI/A-A-) rprfels-4 Sir p ❑ DRC review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested E Plan approved Plan check date: Comments prepared by: Five Rivers Access Road Location - Justification The proposed short plat road will necessitate the filling of a portion of wetland C, a class 2 wetland. The City may allow this wetland to be filled if there are no other reasonable alternatives for the location of this road. The road cannot be moved to the south, as this would place it within the body of wetland C and would require a greater amount of the wetland to be filled. The location of the road was chosen partly to minimize the impact on the wetland and because this is the highest elevation of the interior property slope along 53rd Ave. S. There is an existing retaining wall behind the existing roadway along 53rd Ave. S., south of the proposed road location. To the north of the proposed road location, there is an existing 10' high steep slope down from the edge of 53rd Ave. S., into the property. Even more significant, there is a depression along the north property line where the cul -de -sac bulb would be if the road were placed in this location. This depression is 8' lower than the elevation of the cul -de- sac bulb, if placed in its proposed location. The elevation of the bulb is dictated by the internal road having a maximum grade of 15 %. This would create a grade transition problem with the property to the north of the site. Page 1 of 1 300ft CityGIS N Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. http: // maps. digitalmapcentral .com /production/CityGIS /v07_01 _034 /indexA.html 07/18/2007 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplannn ci.tukwila.wa.us SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL RECE1V VIEW CITY OF TU JUN 1 7 2005 PERMIT CENTER APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: RI v Rs SHolfT PIAT 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. • 5 311-4 /51 +-M) sT. Tax Parcel : H57200016 Quarter: S VV Section: '2 3 Township: 2 3 Range: 01 (This information may be found on your tax statement) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, an • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: A-L -0-1R XCh-IDEZ/S (AGL�) Ci2ci-173E/Z /JW,INC. Address: q46 C 7R11-L #JOL/ KeM.T WA 98 032 Phone: (253 1*52 - 1/bF D FAX: (Z53)652- 11955 E -mail: G(/C e e- ra.mefl1 w. CO/M- Signature: c_ -_ (/, i /ZQ.�I� //YIda, / Date: SAo/Cc G: WPPHANU.ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 09/11/03 FOR STAFF USE ONLY SIERRA TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: D s' 008' Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: RI v Rs SHolfT PIAT 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. • 5 311-4 /51 +-M) sT. Tax Parcel : H57200016 Quarter: S VV Section: '2 3 Township: 2 3 Range: 01 (This information may be found on your tax statement) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, an • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: A-L -0-1R XCh-IDEZ/S (AGL�) Ci2ci-173E/Z /JW,INC. Address: q46 C 7R11-L #JOL/ KeM.T WA 98 032 Phone: (253 1*52 - 1/bF D FAX: (Z53)652- 11955 E -mail: G(/C e e- ra.mefl1 w. CO/M- Signature: c_ -_ (/, i /ZQ.�I� //YIda, / Date: SAo/Cc G: WPPHANU.ANDUSE.APP\SEPAAPP.DOC, 09/11/03 Ctty or l ukzmla LSA Screening Checklist Date: City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist fil.E7)MUN4 LON0 ±2 /S Applicant Name: J9 -5A/114°6N SFIci otil C/o eit i iEK /JVV, lti /&, Street Address: Sys e 1J71' 1_ #��y City, State, Zip: Kei•I T W / + el 8 032 - Telephone: (2 3) 8 5 2 ' VbbO T Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of chinook salmon, coho salmon, or cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No;" and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer . to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 25, 2001 ii Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and 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, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (see Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.06, Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). Please circle appropriate response. 0 1 • ntinue to Question 2 -0 ontinue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3). 2 -0 • , ill the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (see Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -8). Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -0 YES - Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Wil e project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4 -0 Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -11). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site r _ construction. Please circle appropriate response. 0 - , ontinue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 and 18.45.080E.4, or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt under TMC 18.45.080A, should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. - c-A1Q., Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 city of 1 ukwzla tSA Screening checklist 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. N9 Checklist Complete Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes 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 any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and /or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and /or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -3 - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Tukwila Zoning Code, Page 18 -12). Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development. Please circle • L'zty of '1 ukwila LSA Screening Checklist appropriate response. ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) ontinue to Question 1 -4 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on`site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 0 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a - rcourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) `Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 `" tthe project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter- breast - height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. e circle appropriate response. O Continue to Question 2 -3 NC ,I''. Continue to Question 2 -3 - 2 3 e project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary P J g Y g rY high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 2 -4 S - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. O Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. Catty of 'l ukwzla LJSfi Screening Checklist ontinue to Question 3 -0 (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 Green /Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green /Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. •3i Continue to Question 3 -3 Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of a nids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue 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 Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right • . • , to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 Y S - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a Ctity of 1 ukUnla t SA Screening Checklist watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity Id answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. N — Continue to Question 3 -7 Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 "W he 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, jcularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 3 -8 - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non - project proposals: Complete this checklist for non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non - project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project', "applicant ", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal", "proposer", and "affected geographic area" respectively. RECEIVED CITY OF T1 { "9!..A MAR 0 8 2007 1 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Five Rivers Short Plat 2. Name of Applicant: Five Rivers Development, Inc. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Evaluation For Agency Use Only Owner & Applicant: Contact: Five Rivers Development, Inc. Aleanna "Ally" Kondelis Hakam Grewal Cramer Northwest Inc. 27010 115 Ave. SE 945 N Central #104 Kent, WA. 98031 Kent, WA. 98032 (253) 653 -6491 (253) 852 -4880 14u 3. Date checklist prepared: May 4, 2005, revised December 21, 2005 M 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila. Planning Dept. 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction in summer 2006, or as soon as possible after receiving all required approvals. Project will continue with most work being performed during Summer & Fall of 2006. , 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geotechnical analysis of fill and steep slopes has been performed. A traffic analysis has been performed. Storm drainage analysis and report, and a level 1 downstream drainage analysis has been prepared for the engineering submittal. 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 current applications are pending. 9 List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Applications and approvals will be required for the sanitary sewer connections from Val Vue Sewer and water connection from the City of Tukwila. The drainage system connection will require a permit from the WSDOT. The fire marshal will review and approve the fire hydrant location. The USPS will approve the mail box locations. 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask 2 you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposed project is a 7 lot residential subdivision consisting of single family, detached dwelling units. The property has a total area of 2.69 acres and is zoned LDR. There will be a drainage Tract for on -site stormwater control and treatment. Access to the Tots will be from a single cul-de -sac that is connected to 53nd Ave. S. Frontage improvements will be made to 53"d Ave. S. with new curb, gutter and sidewalk. All lots will be serviced with public water and sewer. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location: The property is located on the east side of 53`d Ave. S, at S. 159th St. There is no site address. It is located in Section 23, Township 23 N, Range 4 E., W. M. Legal Description: A portion of Tract 9, BOOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington.ding to the plat thereof, recorded in volume 12 of plats, page 60, records of King County, Washington. 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 (under line one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 40%, within future Lot 7 near the southwest comer of the property. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? if you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils investigation discovered that a portion of the site is covered with a fill material. The native soils are Alderwood sandy, gravelly loam (AgC). No agricultural or farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There have been landslides in the area historically, please see geotechnical report by LSI, Adapt. 3 e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Please refer to the civil engineering design. Exact quantities are not known at this time but will be addressed during civil construction phase. It is our understanding at this time that substantial grading in the form of fill has already occurred under a previous ownership not known at this time. Future grading of approx. 5000 CY is anticipated for drainage facility, utilities and for road construction. It is anticipated that the cut and fill will be balanced within the site. If possible, the needed fill material will be taken from the on -site cut material. However, the on -site material may not be suitable for roadway structural material. If that is the case, the excavated soil will need to be removed and structural fill imported. The source is not known at this time. At the time of construction any nearby projects that may be generating excess soil will be reviewed as a potential source of fill. The majority of the fill material for this site will be for the entrance "ramp" of the private road. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, during rainy construction periods erosion could occur on un- protected disturbed slopes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The impervious surfaces for the proposed project will include the new roads, houses, driveways, decks, walkways and other residential elements. The approx. percentage of area of impervious surface will be 35 %. Within the developable area, the percentage of impervious surfaces is approx. 55 %. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth include temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures as specified within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures include the installation of silt fence or hay bales, sedimentation ponds, interceptor ditches, seeding or mulching exposed surfaces that are expected to remain as such for long periods of time, the application of water to exposed surfaces during dry seasons for dust control. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures include seeding exposed pervious areas for vegetation. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust (suspended particulates) and construction exhaust emissions to the air will occur during the temporary construction period. Automobile emissions will result from the completed project from the resident traffic and wood smoke from fireplaces. No quantities are known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. In general, the adjacent freeway can be a source of off-site emissions and odors. These would be related to the vehicular traffic associated with a busy freeway. 4 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Contractors will be required to implement standard practices for dust suppression such as the application of water to exposed surfaces, during construction. Standard exhaust filters will be on the construction equipment. 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. None. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, there will be filling of wetlands and construction of an access road and homes within 200 feet. Please refer to civil and wetland mitigation plans. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. A portion of wetland C will be filled to construct the private road. Prior to the filling of this wetland, the existing wetland soils will be excavated (dredged) and removed from the site. This affects approx. 350 SF of the wetland area. The filled wetland and the associated buffer will be mitigated with enhancement of the remaining wetlands on the site. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. 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. The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. 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. There is a substantial amount of groundwater near the surface of this site. There is a small, shallow swale near the northwest comer of the site where groundwater frequently surfaces and flows to the east This groundwater flow will be captured by an interceptor trench system and piped to the outlet pipe from the drainage vault discharge. The groundwater will then be discharged near the same location where the shallow swale currently exits the site. Additionally, groundwater will be encountered during much of the construction activity. The excavations for the sewer trenches, drainage vault, some house foundations and any other cut may bring the groundwater to the surface or within the excavation. This can be remedied by using pumps to de- water the trench or excavation. The pumps would discharge into the sediment pond as part of the erosion control system. Shallower trenches or foundations can be de- watered by providing an outlet trench or ditch that will carry the groundwater to the sediment pond or the drainage vault. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, If any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, chemicals, agricultural: etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No septic systems. The City of Tukwila provides water service and Val Vue provides sewer service. c. Water Run-off (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of run -off (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 run-off from all impervious surfaces will be collected in road gutters, catch basins, roof drains, etc. and directed into a piping system. The pipes will direct the water to detention pond / wetpond and will be discharged to the existing drainage system within the west side of the I- 5 Freeway. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Waste materials, such as road oils/contaminants, could enter the surface water if they are introduced into the system and are not removed by water quality facilities. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and run -off water impacts, if any: Best Management Practices proposed for erosion/sedimentation control during construction. Facilities for drainage control including detention ponds will be used. Facilities for water quality enhancement such as wetponds, catch basin sumps, and oil/water separators will be used. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on site: deciduous tree: alder maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other - omamental shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other . other types of vegetation 6 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The site is covered with second growth trees and sparse grasses and shrubs. Clearing will be extensive because most of the site will be regraded due to the existing fill area. Most of the alder and evergreen trees will be removed for road and utility construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site None are known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Please refer to the landscaping and wetland mitigation plan provided by, Nature by Design. Much of the completed landscaping will be new residential type landscaping consisting of lawn, shrubs and maple trees. There will be a landscape screen of hemlocks' around the stormwater vault and the wetland area will be enhanced with maples, willows, spruce, ash and hemlock. 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: X Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other crows, robins X Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other squirrel. rodents. rabbits Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Eastem gray squirrel and songbirds are typical' of westem Washington forests and residential neighborhoods. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The Puget Sound area is part of the Pacific Flyway. Birds that inhabit the area vary seasonally due to migrations. However, the area is not part of a larger, permanently preserved migratory bird habitat. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No measures proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources 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. The energy needs for the project site will be met through services offered by Puget Sound Energy. Puget Sound Energy will be servicing the project site with natural gas and electricity. These services will be used for heating, appliances and general household uses. 7 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The contractors will comply with applicable City of Tukwila and other local energy conservation requirements, such as the UBC. 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. There are no known environmental heath hazards that would be of potential concern during construction of the proposed project. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. It is not anticipated that there will be any additional demand for special emergency services to serve the site as a result of the proposed project. Typical emergency services such as fire, police, medical may be required as is typical for any residential development. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Since there are no known environmental health hazards associated with the project, no measures are proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The adjacent freeway will produce noise that likely will affect the finished product. 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. The operation of construction vehicles on -site during clearing, grading, sitework and the construction of the proposed houses will cause a short -term increase in daytime noise levels in the project vicinity. Construction would take place during normal hours for construction as permitted by the City. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Contractors will be required to confine on -site construction activities to daytime hours, in accordance with County ordinances. Equipment will be equipped with mufflers. No mitigation proposed for the freeway noise. 8 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The existing site is undeveloped and vacant. It was previously graded and is now in a state of re- vegetating. The adjacent uses are typically moderately sized residential Tots, City street or State freeway. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? LDR — Low Density Residential. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Single family residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The site is not within a Shoreline Environment. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, there are two wetlands on the site. They are primarily located on the south side of the site. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Based on an estimated average of 3.5 people per house, there will be approx. 42 people residing in the completed development. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposal is consistent with site zoning and Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designations for the property. Building setbacks will be in accordance with the City of Tukwila requirements. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. 9 7 new housing units will be provided. It is anticipated that these units will be in the middle - income price range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low - income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas: what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tallest height of the typical proposed house structure is estimated to be 30 feet. The principal exterior building materials for the houses will be wood siding and comp shingle roofs. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No such measures will be needed since no such impacts are expected. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposed project will install street lighting as may be required by the City, or as is standard installation by Puget Sound Energy for residential developments. It is likely the Tight and glare will slightly increase during the night as the result of the proposed project. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? None that we are aware of. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Existing off -site sources of light and glare in the project vicinity would be from streetlights and motor vehicles operating on adjacent roadways. These sources or light and glare are not considered to significantly affect the proposed project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light or glare impacts, if any: Any street lights that are installed will be low - glare, directed down. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Designated recreational opportunities closest to the site include Crystal Springs Park, located directly west and across 53rd Ave. S. from the property. 10 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: There are no measures proposed at this time to control recreational impacts. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no known places or objects listed for, national, state or local preservation registers within or near the project. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. There are no known landmarks or evidence of historic; archaeological; scientific; or cultural importance located on or near the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None proposed. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed plat plan shows access from 53'd Ave.. A central on -site cul- de-sac is proposed to service all of the Tots. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site and its immediate surroundings are not served by public transit. The nearest public transit site is approx. 1/2 mile to the southeast at southcenter. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will provide 14 parking spaces based on 2 parking spaces per lot. Depending on the length of the driveways, there may be more. There is no existing parking on the site. 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). he site will require construction of the interior plat road as shown on the proposed plat plan. Frontage road improvements are also proposed for that portion of 53rd Ave. S. that fronts the property. The street inside the plat will be private. 11 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 peak volumes would occur. It is generally considered that one residential lot will generate 10 vehicle trips per day. With this ratio, the estimated new vehicular trips will be 120 per day. There will be approx. 1 peak AM and PM trip per day per lot. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Traffic mitigation fee will be paid as required by the City. 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. The project will result in a potential increased need for fire protection, medical and police protection services. It will also increase the demand on the school system. The need for these services are typical for a residential development. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The required impact fees will be paid. The finished lots will be added to the tax base to provide tax support for the public services. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Proposed utilities for the project include the extension of water, sewer, electricity, gas and telephone within the plat. These services are generally located within the future public right-of- -way. The services will be provided by: Sewer and water: City of Tukwila Telephone: Qwest Electricity & Gas: Puget Sound Energy C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on the make its : , isio Signature: Date Submitted: 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Govemmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or " does not apply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about govemmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the govemmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non - project proposals: Complete this checklist for non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply'. IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non - project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant ", and "property or site" should be read as "proposal ", "proposer", and "affected geographic area respectively. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, If applicable: Proposed Five Rivers Plat - 12 Lot residential subdivision 2. Name of Applicant: Five Rivers Development, Inc. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Owner & Applicant: Contact : Five Rivers Development, Inc. James Jaeger, P.E. Siraj Khan Jaeger Engineering 27010 115 Ave. SE 9419 S. 204 Place Kent, WA. 98031 Kent, WA. 98031 (253) 653 -6491 31850 -0934 3. Date checldist pre 1 Evaluation For Agency Use Only 4. Agency requesting checldist: City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 5. Proposed liming or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Begin construction in summer 2002, or as soon as possible after receiving all required approvals. Project will continue with most work being performed during Summer & Fall of 2002. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no plans for future additions, expansion or further activity related to or connected with this proposal. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geotechnical analysis of fill and steep slopes has been performed. A traffic analysis has been performed. Storm drainage analysis and report, and a level 1 downstream drainage analysis will be performed for the engineering submittal. 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 current applications are pending. A permit will be required by the WSDOT for the drainage system connection to the existing drainage system along the Interstate 5 ROW. 9 List any govemment approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Applications and approvals will be required for the sanitary sewer and water main from the City of Tukwila. The drainage system connection will require a permit from the WSDOT. The fire marshall will review and approve the fire hydrant location. The USPS will approve the mail box locations. 11. 10. ive brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposed project is a 12 lot residential subdivision consisting of single family, detached dwelling units. The property has a total area of 2.69 acres and is zoned LDR. There will be a drainage Tract for on -site stormwater control and treatment. Access to the lots will be from a single cul-de -sac that is connected to 53rd Ave. S. Frontage improvements will be made to 53rd Ave. S. with new curb, gutter and sidewalk. All Tots will be serviced with public water and sewer. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, Including a street address, If any, and section, township, and range, If known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the.site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Location: The property is located on the east side of 53rd Ave. S, at S. 159th St. There is no site address. It is located in Section 23, Township 23 N, Range 4 E., W.M. Legal Description: A portion of Tract 9, BOOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, Page 47, in King County, Washington.ding to the plat thereof, recorded in volume 12 of plats, page 60, records of King County, Washington. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (under line one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes mountainous, other. b. What Is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on the site is approximately 40 %, within future Lot 12 near the southwest comer of the property. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soils investigation discovered that a portion of the site is covered with a fill material. The native soils are Alderwood sandy, gravelly loam (AgC). No agricultural or farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantifies of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Substantial grading in the form of fill has already occurred under previous a previous ownership not known at this time. Future grading of approx. 5000 CY is anticipated for utilities and for road construction. It is anticipated that the cut and fill will be balanced within the site. If possible, the needed fill material will be taken from the on -site cut material. However, it is possible that existing fill will need to be removed and structural fill imported. The source is not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, during rainy construction periods erosion could occur on un- protected disturbed slopes. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The impervious surfaces for the proposed project will include the new roads, houses, driveways, decks, walkways and other residential elements. The approx. percentage of area of impervious surface will be 25 %. 4 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth include temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control measures as specified within the King County Surface Water Design Manual. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures include the installation of silt fence or hay bales, sedimentation ponds, interceptor ditches, seeding or mulching exposed surfaces that are expected to remain as such for long periods of time, the application of water to exposed surfaces during dry seasons for dust control. Permanent erosion and sediment control measures include seeding exposed pervious areas for vegetation. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (I.e. dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? 0 any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust (suspended particulates) and construction exhaust emissions to the air will occur during the temporary construction period. Automobile emissions will result from the completed project from the resident traffic and wood smoke from fireplaces. No quantities are known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. In general, the adjacent freeway can be a source of off-site emissions and odors. These would be related to the vehicular traffic associated with a busy freeway. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, ff any: Contractors will be required to implement standard practices for dust suppression such as the application of water to exposed surfaces, during construction. Standard exhaust filters will be on the construction equipment. 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. None. 5 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. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The site is not located within a 100 -year flood plain. 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. The proposal does not involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities ff known. No groundwater will be withdrawn and no water will be discharged to groundwater as part of this project. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, If any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, chemicals, agricultural: etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No septic systems. The City of Tukwila provides complete sewer service. •e RECEIVED, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL: CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. An electronic version of this form is available from the Department of Community Development. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: RiVI Rs ShONT PL- T - 2. Name of Applicant: _ '! J A.z, -Ani I i i DE-1 SE Kt-10K) 4 H i:\ ''T-f-CWA- 3. Date checklist prepared: KAA`I Li. )2C05 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila . Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable)'. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. a.;) List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. v!r TLA-K t DFLIKI5 itOt\1 /-Mt U'TICx>gTOF-I (-L T &GH -ki iCP ►— Re-FORT 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. FE EWED r JUI 1 i 2005 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Agency Comments 14 Oa- - SMt-14 .. (4Ms Tinoua.l Lots I, Z, 4 3 Wci .,,> CI LL PIPA o5,00' NE-kJ/ 0 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. j. f.1b USE f ,H-ORT Pi,14-7 pEfRM IT A.FfMJLT AtJD GADti.1Gr F>F1 IT Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. H 15 P O O L - ' ' A 5 t-ci T FLAT , DI 1 i )ct i Q j PAtRCE :1 _ 1NTO 7 Kiel- RBI PFT•lTiA -1_ LOTS PARC NT PARGr✓L 2. it' II 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you.should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist iI 720 - -oor (AA S. gb.TOF Ave. s) N0 i "TAE THPa�t -55 l+ Sim � Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environment?lly sensitive? Agency Comments tlpa W rt4. Q r;LL 0.44.1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Agency Comments a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Otr.vv rn-1 A F5vv OF 6-reape--7K L-.0 b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? A Pogn 0 "4 I Cok 1 .471 PeRe-D r---POL 407 OR 4-f097- c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you Icirow the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. 14-.1 ES (TILL: F F7r tAmci d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. S. A A KIA-'..q.c IS I-114-C BC-TE-1■i PTb JCL .0E-T) ltd -TH .$1O1" PLAT ApPiAcA-ToKi / Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 1\101.167 PcED 77T ni iv/ ee- -c7A(Cri&Ii_;-7.-,--E:7A1(7- Please respond to all questions_ Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: _ f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. _ oN / UL-1 ge(ra/ , /% /E/r)/'‘)/fi ?/ / 2 spa' ,9-//D Se Mii✓7,'7'97 /G'iJ jG /VT/COL PL l -)1.1 i.V)L t ,Be ,0 11'Ii)a Agency Comments About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ALL:- eV /USlic; ' C"Ti.ex kV/ LL r// TH //J APP'//'7 ,)�vkZP? %r /� 6Zy?ICftT /°VS Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: rEs - P iJ w /L-l. U E sil5 rn" TT 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. C (10 TPUi C7l ti's7 /)/J) sgevE Pw7-(2n2z)$ /� - oa (,�s DUR/&i '. Col.IST' te. -77 A/ 4/.1P 44-(7/n Or )oR %Y)/ -y l' CILIT //WE / iiMPL TF2) Pfl6J ZT b. Are there any off-'site "sources of emissions or odor-that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. /.16 •A.11C1N/ J Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: - - e Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: PIP r) S UAL C fffi °t t Z) . Agency Comments Water a. Surface: 1. Is th arerace 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. WOVE tJ 014/14 dT/—f 77-14-rj vi,'Tt4-'Vos C�/� C QED Gl�/7 GNU S /Tt P! f'S "C s R TG�T P/' &P, icEU Y //ft HAI1MC> /e5 2. Will the project require any work over, in, sor adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. ,b� t Pf3O POS F/ LL /9-k10 !U /TI 6-4 Tt ct f frA-kiS kJ D frEPGRT A T7/ TC JI ED op eV H/38 %T/Y 7 y Ci-t%.!OL-( 1E. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected Indicate the source of fill material. 17E— IS:: SE—C- t E R7 /9 T/fiTLH6-7) 5.772 .04......, (vHs t4rtovr.a Poi -Nctirf POA.Tto%. OF SITt L. errs I -3 s Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No/f PRoPosEn fi-r•m/(s Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. /V07-4. Agency Comments fklex.no 400AVSS ST11.4144,6., ,3Sv - W og v.1 s(4M. tri I 1.1/4 4E Neterss04-o.-1 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, Aik describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. /JCJ. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give • general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if 'mown. • /40--r fRli-FaSe-7-7 iS TiniC Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the. system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: /4 CT icti(vLjj (d- c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 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? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. PC RS E /1/967-e P1POK, Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. NOT , itIn (P R -/gD. 7'ir Lot*. iu, s 44pay.r Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: I • ��� / DI�M-i, // { e..GIJ r/PO L P�- tiD l��$h -/ / S.,p,� n.tv, Cw 0v17Lt B-E PRoviD f-7 Ea./4 i�1 D2ii. /4— Pf1/�5�. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A 04,1 a-r 'kap r, I 7i4--Af L-t- PA'el Nevcep, /9-7. E 4-IA1 -C---E2C1 Pi.M-S6:• c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NON' 164(1014,1ki Now — Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: • L40.— e4-.4.%) /4()A-/ PAOPOSA 77115 pint tre<.--aldgi, maple„)aspen, other 'Deciduous Vi Evergreen trecri,"‘ r-ed;3ine, other L---Pag6e _ Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other , Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? A 04,1 a-r 'kap r, I 7i4--Af L-t- PA'el Nevcep, /9-7. E 4-IA1 -C---E2C1 Pi.M-S6:• c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NON' 164(1014,1ki Now — Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: • L40.— e4-.4.%) /4()A-/ PAOPOSA 77115 pint Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 5. Animals Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: J Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eag1C;) other: e vb4 5 yb LorNS Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ve.61,■ t-4 Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfisg, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Iv'oT tc-klcitiud 4 44,04_ Is f At% c C41./b4 lhiro 1■14ibt14jU ni 'Aro -t.75 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Node 0 P 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, manufacnning, etc. r.-1-& C7 A.' I e rr b 0) F2f ook/s-77:1,/c:,-vral ko-17,itzt3-e._ (ms aS6-b He7-1-1 /9&/D LI " rrr (araPLETFD p120-4±-z-T. dept444,0,44ersr Ott. fterevA non - Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. f 4 (77 / (C %ff T /). What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: ,\(O 1467jSL(RES OPdSF2 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. AIU7 KAlOfiUij 1. Describe special - emergency services that might be required. Cyr Crx.r j 1,1e7 L- A-JL r=i m S Zfr? S (Ot- LO 3c PEC) Lr/f WJ Ar.C1it; iJ(r OolUS7-PG-zc7/Oti/ .p i&tom 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: hf 0 / I ISc(i' S P/ 0 PzSC'?? . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise I. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Oki c-f o WO cTH? ?: i N ai/V/- (/ T 8FP 7 2. What types and levels.of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long temi.basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. • .Shl•rr'7 -7-&-gfn eOi ST,t,,CCT/"t titl•fs Okfr7 -T� i7') L 0)i, 4-: Bt; /fit !??SE r TRR Fra', e r. /T OA IC Pci. ID IT(E9L t1S . 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: MC) L /, e /7 :: .. ProPv5 .. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? rniCTL -E R3/77ii..1/ RES)D e A-LSD frII�HW�t`� . C TO 7 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Ckti t AJ cwki 0044 wtti CrueswA" No SE dr-frtr YwrL Pew ft v ? Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. /40 S IF II e're:7 2 , Sir" 11fte7 -4T d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? AL-0 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? PR f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Cii- / /6./107vti/ g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Air G'i /7Pf'L/Ci7�L -� h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, sPec '• 7- y� ) i���1fL /�(JDS to SITE f' ')5& S Z FFPU rge-Prg ED P. Y Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? T7(??4:,1-fez) /t/ fcz)pc 72' 'rS /Pt= /N Ctrn/=z- . j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NG/JE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. /,/t iJ. SWR c —S p/?7P JC-7) . Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses' and plans, if any: �ZC D e;V/ /72 JT w/ zL 86= f) O PnJ 7) l: /71/ /->t-7/ 0-4-1P /770 r !Cart/1 ;/ 17/S Mu .0 P(-///\1 s. 9. Housing . a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? IndicrarP whether high, middle, or low - income housing? % //F)/l/ /7'2 I bL)( 7 j ea/ /r1'/J//Jr �///L/ fTS l7/ /LL gE" Ple0V /L) 7) . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. N( Lifki (75 CZ-! [)'7 /0 8-Te2) /7. Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: /Q /1-1 -c-71/Gric)Fs eR PaS-PP 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; at is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? • 4a. Srk 14Cnte_ rill i-L.- 3F• salt /6-7- // tol-A1P/ /i7 •12-01)Fs • K-A.1014)AI 4r TH/ 77/21e. b... What views in the immediate would be altered or obstructed? • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: iJO 1 R.-tS"- PR 01-0 T- Re-7-634r, Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? ; Mr r oWC�i s- x-1,1 i /J7c,92/rt, 1-1/rH7/4. t4'1 PR. -01 0 , PF fin /e./ x_1(r b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 1407- % Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: ktb ILL/ Sc., /ES PfRo /'os 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: t disc -fR&S PRO POSED Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 14. Transportation Identify public streets and highways serving the site, existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. S l(dt1t''STS 5/1- 41/ -.S /-7V,S Agency Comments and describe proposed'access to the Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Lf N IC-iuCL4I .i How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? ? P ro j J�f PH- R. tlfurr SP / -L E d.vV /2 C%i /lpep JJp P SP/ -ee's- w/1-t- 8{ EL A ). d. Will the proposal require any new roa is or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). A /JEW / 7/ /3E7 2— p &opOSc-T' 727 1741 87 &Z.y s 7 VE p/F PA! 7 e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: £ How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 41)PF O,l' I !y1 P-7/ 5-t( 7f / ps PL=R D/y1 eartbD CO2 u;U/ f3 rrtve7- hl 7-4 /iM 4-id o - 7 ")j. Agency Comments g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: A) 1" /G1`ii /'/ (V P ? S I & pr3e D. 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. % / e i U - S . N L . f /J7 T/I L F!( E) PCt -1 L'_� , N -f e19-Re A ui) S -i1VO c LVi b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Iq JD PpRoPie i 7E- fir fir-7-7G�l re s wad.- BE l)f}iD. 16. Utilities Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity atural g as, a er fuse service, tele p hone, sewer, sy stem other: Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. I'Vf17-FX sTom CR-Ste, -&-Ge:7-/e/t17V /1-fLO A1/97714)91- /9-7- tOri Pl;t-TE-7.) FR 10E-T- s/ Val-rtg. - C t-N 1-1114. t LA '1/4/ SA W V -rAM S6wg. - VAL-vu(, _Sevia 3> Is-I-. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: zr Date Submitted: (NON-PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). f�'10'AE #'9M' S88'538T 66.00' 588'15'18E 6450' 20' tfl W § S 158th St Lot 1 $ ti Lot Ft p Lot 2 P Lot 3 Tract A Lot 4 I 6614 Sq Ft 6514 5q Ft 046615 SO Ft 6506 Sq Ft $,�, I 9 ��,�` Kr Drainage Esot SBB''f8E �$ . SBB'f5'f8E 4137' �E 11450' SBB'L5'18E 6450' �b4'�� °, SBB•15'1BE 191.01' e " �• N 938•15'1n 24528' °' a 9)�. •1 / / { -1W 336 SF of WETLAW B / / F C ". 4. I / / 4 1 �� Pf 1518E 1z3Ae 6> . Lot 6 / i/ S0B'1 181 8631' 5 15'181 315 '4.47. � II 1320 of Tract C as Ft / 1r`Ttaw C TO 3 / r Netlaro 3C' ff O3rr TED a RNA AaSq Ft AC1) 4631E Z%.4 / 4 e7 ii 34n SF IP Lot 7 . • e i1s / vi v p 6535 Sq Ft ' / O• / / Tract B t 2 / 47027 Sq F�4 Nett `' •/ �- 10 �'- r^ 4_ �1 Cam_ '12'49E 24.10' S88'12'49E 313.62' Interstate Highway 1-5 688'12•49E 98.39' '12'49" E 68296 2.3107 X11 Cedar River Pipeline / l 593'1249t 45831' FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT PLAT NO. L05-040 CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. DECLARATION KNOW. ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS that we, the undersigned owners in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a long subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The undersigned further declare this plat to be the graphic representation of said long subdivision and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and seals. me • Name ame • • Name STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or hove satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the. instrument. Notary Public •Dated My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument Notary Public Dated My appointment expires KING COUNTY TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE • I cartlfy that ail property taxes are paid and that a deposit has been • made b suffjcjent , amount to pay the taxes for the fcfiaxing year; that there are no definquent spedcial aseesements certified to this offlc. for collection; and that all special. assessments on any of the property herein dedicated as streets. alleys, or for other public use are• paid b ft& . Examined and approved this date by this department King County Treasurer's TUKWILA SHORT SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE Examined and approved this --- day of City of Tuicwino Short Subdivision Committee TUKWILA FINANCE DIRECT There are 'no delinquent special the property that is dedlcat Examined and approved date by this departure TUKWILA PUBLIC W S Examined and ap this deparbnent 2007 j this — day 2007 tints. anq_all special assessments on any of etreet57-alleys or for other public use are paid in full. City of TukwIlla Finance Director Date Director of/Public Work. Department TUKWILA DEPT. OFCOMMUN Examined and approved this day of EVELOPMENT department 2007 15 22 14 23 S98 32.3n 21366A9' 93315'81 ZOIW __S93151ErE 13360: Dilnage Esot 20' 0 41 S 158th St 88'1249 E 682.96 111 20' 0 Iu 01 r- Lot 1 6536 Sq Ft Director of the Dept. of Community Development. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 9, BROOKVALE GARDEN TRACTS. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME KING. COUNTY. WASHINGTON; RECORDING NO. VOL./PAGE SCALE: 1" = 40' GRAPHIC SCALE i'-40 40 80 120 PORTION OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 23, T 23, R 4 E 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 47. IN EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF WITHIN A TRACT OF LAND CONVEYED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No. 5372503. EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR PIPEUNE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING No. 3641174. AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET THEREOF LYING EASTERLY OF A UNE DRAWN NORTHERLY AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT 9 FROM A POINT ON SAID SOUTH UNE WHICH IS 200 FEET WESTERLY OF THE *Yr UNE SURVEY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY No. 1, SOUTH 1 78th STREET TO SOUTH 1 26th STREET, AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORD No. 5568720.' 4fiet• 0 AND EXCEPT THE PORTION OF THE REMAINDER LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A UNE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 20 FEET • 1a3,001140 /NORTHEASTERLY FROM THE 02 CENTERUNE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY No. 1, SOUTH 1781h STREET TO SOUTH 1 26th STREET, to4.01'.4 ,two' AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 81' DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORD No. 5653378. • 214 • 93815.18t 64.501, Y. • Lot 2 8314 Sg Ft.' S93•1518E 41.37' ,z 10' Drainage see'151/3E-84— 93813'18T 191.01• C 70 BE FIU.ED 336:::::93. %IP SEI9 in (€31' 9331518T 4`.d> 37 .7412%.* 0 44k t 320 — — IIETLMO C TO Net—CLASSIed 3r EEio synalc°161183 K 443417 SF ,i 1 \ ) L vi,t 64 Lot 3 6514 Ft tc'r 1 9331538T 54I S9315181 2628' . f r• 17i • Lot 7 Sqft 1 . Jo '12•49T 24.10' •40.00' 91blel g it.40561644:4 Ftl Tri.eaclint A • 65:L60 Lot q 4F t 938 20.64' 61.04' Tract C (PRIVATE A,CCESS TRACT) • 15E62 Sq Ft' 44) 4Nts.". • / / / NO / Tract 8 / 47027 Sq Ft _.." Netlaio 119‘._ . ........„-_- .A. - / / 4108: -----/m8ffp 7....--/ ----............ / / 59312'49E 313.FR' <Z: aP / • / // R / • / I. Fi vw.2:0°). Cedar River Pipeline 1 1. 9181241TE 4E831' %ANA "1. cel / RECEIVED • MAR- 0 8 2007 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS 9381249t sea. P.MENED • (N-re !MAR 08 20071. c• RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record this day of 2006..at M in book of at page at the request of the City of Tukwilla. Deputy Director, King County Director, King County Assessor DRYCO DRYCO Surveying, Inc. 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WASHINGTON (253) 826-0300 FAX (253) 826-9703 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: I, G. PHIL SARGENT, CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT. G. PHIL SARGENT P.LS. 34145 FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27010 115 AVE SE KENT, WA. • 98031 DWN. BY LS CHKD. BY • DATE PRINTED 2/1.4/2007 DATE SURVEYED 9/23/2003 JOB NO. 2005157 SCALE 1" = 40' SHEET 1 OF 2 FIVE RIVERS SHORT PLAT LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS L05 -040 -E05-008 UN 1 PLAT. NO. THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 . NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE 78DUN. TONG COUNTY. WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS . THE COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OF SECTION SOUITHHWEST A DISTANCE OF 66298 FEET THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID A SOUTHWEST CURVE QUARTO OF 53RD AVENUE SOUTH. FROM WHICH TO A POINT OF CUSP RS A NORTH 3 THE EASTERLY MARGIN THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 8T THROUGH OF T30'4ft.OA DISTANCE 30.16 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE P; THE RIGHT.. H 1381 TO A POINT OF CUSP; NCH ' THENCE SOUTH 418174( FAST, A DSTPACE ernroff' 10.00 MT. HAVING A RADIUS OF • ON.. CURVE FROM CE N4 TH RADIUS AL POINT 18F11R5 INTO 'I OF 220.00 FEET: THENCE NOIttMERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE TO 742 RIGHT, THROUGH A CE7NTRIIL ANGLE (756'04'. A DISTANCE OF 3.59 FEET: THENCE NORTH 0053 "X. EAST. A DISTANCE OF 219.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BE 0004 : THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 005317 EAST. A 06TANCE OF 76.36 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 8815•18' EAST, A p= ANCE OF 66.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 005317 WEST. A DISTANCE OF 101.01 FEET; THENCE I: ..:7'H 8815'18 WEST. A DISTANCE OF 41.37 FEET TO DISTANCE OF NORTHWESTERLY A BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. TANGENT TO SAID TINE: CENTRAL ANGLE OF 69'083 TO 35.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC. HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET THE POOR OF BEG501I40. CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. THAT 'l' QUARTER OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 23 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE KING C SOUTHWEST DESK AS FOLLOWS: NORTH, RANGE 4 FAST OF THE WILLAMETTE - MERIDIAN. 'MONO COUNTY, WASHINGTON CO MENCINO AT TIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECnON '23: THENCE SOUTH 8812•4( EAST ALONG THE SOUM UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SIWHNTEST QUARTER' A DISTANCE OF 88298 FEET SOUTH, FROST WHICH TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE ON THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 0731'01 EAST, HAVINGIRADIUS 53RD 230.000F FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROuGH.A CENTRAL ANGLE OF T3•48. A DISTANCE OF 30.18 FEET TO A POT OF CUSP: THENCE SOUTH B8174( EAST, A DISTANCE O 10.00 10 ARADI04 CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIUS PONT BEARS NORTH T89 RI0i8. 2.48!. A A A SNOF OF 220.00 FEET; THENCE NORT4ERLY. ALONG SAID CURVE 1756'04'. A DISTANCE OF 3.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00163•17 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 296.13 FEET; TO 111E POINT OF 13071)00A THENCE THENCE SOUTH CONTINUING SMITswirly 8815'18 EAST. 4 DISTANCE OF 40.000FFEET; THOK:E SOUTH ousrir WEST, A A DISTANCE OF 195.00 DISTANCE OF 105.31 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE .PROM WHICH US POINT THENCE 50(11)4 2842'48 WE5T. HAWING A RADIUS OF 46.00 FELT AND A CENTRAL 8815'18 NORTHWESTERLY ADM 540 CURVE TO THE LEFT. A DISTANCE OF .20.04 FEET; THENCE NORTH WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.54 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0013•17 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 101.01 FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING. TRACT'S THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST WARIER OF THE'SOUMWEST QUARTER OF SECTioN 23. TowiSHip 23 NORM. RANGE 4 EAST OF THE WI1.AMETTE MERIDIAN, ONO COUNTY. WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE SOUTH 8812'4( EAST MONO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST .QUARTER. A DSTANCE OF 882.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE ON THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 53RD AVENUE SOUTH. FROM WHICH THE RADIUS 'POINT BEARS NORTH 8731'07 � AA RADIUS TF 230.00 FEET; TWEE 30.16 Y. ALONG SID OF CURVE P; THE RIGHT. THROUGH wan! 2053'17 TO A POINT OF CUSP; THENCE SOUTH 8812'4( FAST, A DISTANCE OF 712'89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNINO ;'THENCE NORTH 61'04'4( WEST, A DISTANCE OF 48.27 FEET; THENCE EAST. A DISTANCE OF 103.30 FEE TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT. TANGENT TO SAID LINE: THENCE NORTHEASTERLY DISTANCE OF 39.04 FEET ALONG THE ARC, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00. FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9051'30'; THENCE SOUTH 8815'1' EAST TANGENT 10 SAN CURVE. A DISTANCE OF 88.31 FEE; THENCE SOUTH 0807'48 EAST, A- DISTANCE OF 110.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8812'4( EAST. A DISTANCE OF 24.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1731'10' 645T, A DISTANCE OF 23.40 FEE: .THENCE NORTH 8008'20' FAST. A DISTANCE OF 88.13 FEE TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO 00 THE LEFT FROM WW41214 THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORM 180037125!, SA A RADIUS A D F 46.0 ff FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'29'4(; 1)42422 2127 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 834831 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 188.40 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POOR BEARS SOUTH 59'1008 WEST, HAVES) A RADIUS OF 387.22 FEE AND A CENTRAL ANNIE OF 11161'28: THENCE SOUTHERLY HONG SAID CURVE. A DISTANCE OF 80.14 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP; THENCE NORM . 8812'48" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 98.39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01'47'11' WEST, -A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEE; THENCE NORTH 8812'4( WEST. A DISTAHOE OF 313.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEE0I 41)40. TRACT C ' QUARTER OF TEE =MET QUARTER ff SECTION 23. TOM2HTP 23 THAT PORTION OF SE 1142 'ST I�IAK KD6 COUNTY. NASHIN6T0N 0E9WIBED AS F01AN9: NOTFL RAH: 4 EAST OF TIE ' WILLAMETTE _ CORNS; OF Cp!@C3 AT TEE S ' QUARTER OF 111E SECTION SOLITHIE3T QUARTER. A DISTAIAE OF FEET TO A' ALCM 'DE SOUTH 0? OF ON CARVE ST _ POOR OF QBP ON A GAVE W DE 1JSTELY' 1MTSIN OF 632 AYETIE. BOURN RCN MACH DE RADIUS P0114T EARS FORTH 13291'07' FJST, HAMS A RA011.0 7'30'40'. A FEET: 1)20 NORI M.Y. ACM SAID -CURVE TO TIE REM THSGUBN -A CENTRAL AN9F OF TO A POINT OF 0.62 THENCE SOUTH 08'12'49' 245T. A DISTANCE �S70B' 50.00 FEET T�A RODS OF O F • A Q1RVE FAGI YI'62 T ALCM BEARS RIGHT TLi016H A CENTRAL SOLE ff 05504'. A FEET, TF4OF ND FEET: i . D ISTANCE OF 3'39 1,@m LOTH 0033'12' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 121.74 FEET TO THE PODNF oF mamma macs =muss NORM 0033'12' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 93O1 FEET TO A POINT ff CUSP OF 25.00 04 A GAVE FROM .18001 1HE RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 891013' EAST. 4 S A RADIUS ALONG FEET ND A CENTRAL ANN E OF 89'0$'30 ; THENCE SOUDETTL . SAID 0AVE TO THE LEFT. A DISTA1Y£ CF 3890 FEET, 11EO2 .9011)4 89'15'38' EAST TAIGENT To SAID GAVE. A DISTANCE OF. 391.51. FEET TO 142 1393114010 OF A DINE TO THE RIGHT F084 IlSC4 THE RADIUS POINT BEATS SOUTH 01'44150' HEST, FNS RADIUS NUS Y FEET ND A CENTRAL. NOE OF NEETIE LY. NORTH/ESTER-1 AND 247213139% weics EASTER-Y. BOUDEASTERLY. ,OTI$l.Y ALONG SAID CURVE. A DIDTAINE OF 1913E4 FEET TO APOOR OF .C6P 04 A NAVE FTION WW1 TEE RADIUS POINT BAS 90JTH 6973'41' MST. 172)42 NORT431.9. FOTF8ESTER.Y'*10 25.00 FEET Y A DISTANCE OF ; ANN O.67'9B9 ' THENCE FORTH 88'1518' NEST TNEENT TOASAID ff '. 2900 D AND A CENTRAL 323 AMBLE ff A CAVE TO THE LEFT. TANGENT TO '8A1 GAVE A DISTANCE OF 123311 EST L T* E8D)IDNG UNE 7}{}X2 IESTEiLY. SOJIHeESTF3tY AND 130ITHFSLY A pygTANCE ff.39b4 FEET A.06 WE ARC FLAVOR A MRS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'5110' TO TIE POINT OF EBD►ND1. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record .this day of 2006..at M in book of at page at the request of .' 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST the City of Tukwilia. SUMNER, WASHINGTON (253) 826 -0300' FAX (253) 826-9703 DRYCO LOT 2 - .. THAT PORTION QUARTER 02 THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RN4GE 4 EAST 1H4EOF WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 8512'47 EAST ALONG 1)12 SOUTH N THE SOUTHWEST SOUTH CORNER QUARTER SAID 23; SOUTHWEST � A DISTANCE OF 88298 FEET THE SQJTH lAFE U SAID A CURVE THE TO .A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE ON THE .EASTERLY MARGIN OF 53RD AVENUE SOUTH. FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORM 8731'07' EAST, HAVING A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE 10 THE RKINT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF- 730'48, A DISTANCE OF 30.16 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP: THENCE SOUTH 131312'49. B . ANOR DISTANCE 8757'08' F 10.00 FEET A RADIO! OF CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT' OF 220.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY. ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE N0317'. . :THROUGH4 A CENTRAL ANGLE 0'56'04'. A DISTANCE OF 3.59 .FEE; THENCE NORM 0353'17 FAST. A DISTANCE OF 290.13 FEE; THENCE THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH EST,,AA DISTMOE OF 64.50 FEET THENCE SOUTH 2' WIT, A DISTANCE OF 101.01 FEE; THENCE NORTH 681518 WEST, A DISTANCE OF 84.50 FEE ;, THENCE -NORTH 0•53'17 EAST. A DISTANCE OF 101 .01 FEET TO THE POINT Of BEGINNING. LOT 3 THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. ICING COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS Fouows: O0MMp40N0 AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAD SECTION 23; THENCE SOUTH TIE A DISTANCE OF ALONG FEE . T SOUTH DINE - OF SAID SOUTHWEST OIWT.'ER OF THE SOUTHWEST TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE ON DE EASTERLY MARION OF 53RD AVENUUE SOUTH. FROM WHICH NORTH 822127" THE RADIUS PONT 230.00 FEET; ALONG SAID CURVE RIGHT, CENTRAL ANGLE OF 73(748", � OF 30.6 ON A CURVE WHICH ME RADIUS �POINT BEARS NORTH 89'57'08 1EAST.�9)10 A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHER17, ALONG SAID CURVE 70 THE ROM THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ()Ivor. A DISTANCE Of FEET THENC! NORTH 0053' FAST. A DISTANCE OFa13 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8815'18 EAST. A DISTA/2: OF 130.50 FEE 10 THE POINT OF 8E INNI40 THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 6815'18 EAST, -A DISTANCE OF 84.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 0053'17 WEST. A DISTANCE OF 10151 FEET; THENCE NORTH 8815'18 W EST. A DISTANCE OF 64.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11053•17 EAST. A DISTANCE OF 101.01 FED TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF DE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWwwep 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 FAST OF THE WILMETTE MERIDIAN. 9540 COUNTY. WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. THE SOUTH UNE THE 418 SOUTHWEST CORNER QUARTER T 5 OF A DISTANCE OF 682.98 FEET THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, THE SPOIN UNE OF SAN AOUMWFST THE - TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE ON THE - ESTERLY MARGIN OF 63RD AVENUE SOUTH. FROM -WHICH THE RADIUS PONr BEARS NORTH 8731'07 EAST. 0 TOf 230.00 FEET; AICE OF 30.16 Y. ALONG SAID•CURVE 10 THE RIGHT. THROUGH TO A POINT OF CUSP: THENCE SOUTH 8812'41/ FAST. N 4 AA 10.00 HAVING A RADIUS OF ' ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT BEARS 220.00 FEE; THENCE NORTHERLY. ALONG SAN TH CURVE TO E RICHE. THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGIE OF . (756'04',-A DISTANCE OF 3.59 FEE; THENCE NORTH'0053'12' FAST. A DISTANCE OF 298.13 FEE; THENCE SOUTH 8815'18 FAST, A' DISTANCE'OF 234.99 FEET TO THE' POOR OF BEGINNING; f THENCE comuctN0 SOUTH 8815'18 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 81.04 FEET; 'THENCE SOUTH DISTANCE OF 37.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 384330' WEST, A DISTANCE OF'109.31 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH 11E RADIUS POINT BEARS SOUTH 5819'39' WEST, SAID CURVE TO THE .. 48.00 FEE AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29'33 5S; DUCE ' CE OF 105D FEEL TO THE LEFT, A DISTANCE OF 23.78 FEE; THENCE POINT OF BEGINNING. .. LOT 5 • THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTOWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. 10WNSHP 23 NORM. RANGE 4 EAST OF 1HE'WBIAYETTE MERIDIAN. 10N0 COUNTY, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED. AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SAID s NEST CORNER QUARTER S OF ME SO A DISTANCE OF 882.96 FEE we SOUTH UNE OF SAID AOCTHWEST QWT1:R TO A POINT OF CUSP ON NORM 8231'OT ,EAST. HHAAVDWGA NRADIUS 02 230.000FFEET THENCE NORTHERLY.. .. THE RADIUS CURB BEARS A CENTRAL ANGLE OF T30'44f , A DISTANCE OF 30.18 FEET TO APOAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH, 13171 TO A POINT OF C1SP;'THENCE SCUM 8814( EAST: A OISTANCE'OF 10.00 FEET TO A PORT OF CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POET BEARS NORM 885708 EAST. HAVINGGAA ANGLE OF (756• '0 FEE: THENCE 3.59 F Y. ALONG NORTH 00G53'� RIGHT, OF 296.13 FEET; 008'04'. A DISTANCE OF EAST,' FEET: THENCE 3254'10' EAST. A THENCE OF 37.4) FEET EAST: POINT OF ;BEGINNING; 286.04 FEE: CONTINUING SOUTH . DISTANCE OF 37.41 FEET' TO 114E PORT BEGINNING 02300N0: EI10 1 E RIGHLAHC T; �HHT�1� 'P05R - BEARS S 131 141 FEET TO THE ING A RADIUS A CURVE 387.22 THE RIGHT FROM ANGLE OF 1108'27; THENCE SOUTH 41'40'36. A Y ALONG SAID CAVE. A DISTANCE OF 75.29 FEET To A POINT OF CUSP; THENCE 50UTH:8734'44' WEST. A DISTANCE OF 120.07 FEE TO A PONT OF CUSP ON A CURVE FROM WHICH • THE RADIUS 34'32'04'; BEARS NORTH 88081 Y i CURVE E 10 THE LEFT. A DISTANCE OF 227 733 FEET; ANGLE N 82)43 4. (f EAST. A DISTANCE, • THENCE NORTH 38'13'30' EAST. A DISTAINC.+ ff 108.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF .4TEGNNN0. • DRYCO Surveying, Inc. PORTION OF SW 1/4, SW 1/4, S 23, .T 23, R 4 E LOT 5 Of THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, 10W1154P 23 THAT PORANG OF THE SOUTHWEST WILLAMETTE ]5 NORTH, RANGE 4 FAST OF THE W8IAMETE IIEJiN1AN. TONG COUNTY. WASHINGTON _O1 FOLL+OW& COID1FNCNG AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 2.440 SECTION 23: THENCE SOUTH 6812'48 FAST HANG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TIE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 662.06 FEET TO A PONT OF CUSP ON A E 8731'OT EAST. HAVING RADIUS OF 230.00 FEET NORTHERLY. AVENUE SOUTH, FROM WHICH THE RADIUS PUNT BEARS ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT. SOUTH THROUGH 1 A CENTRAL ADDIS CE OF 734748% A 10.00 FEET OVA POOR OF CUSP OF 30.16 FEET TO A PORT OF CUSP; WHICH HENCE 50DIU 68174( FAST. A DISTANCE 22 . CURVE FROM CE N THE RADIUS POINT .BEARS NORTH E RIGH8 FAST, HAVAIICEN RADIUS ANGLE OF 220.00 FEET: THENCE NORTHERLY, ALONG SAN CURVE 512' RIGHT. THROUGH DISTANCE T SOUTH 8315'18 EAST, DISTANCE OF 296.04 FEET; THENCE swim warn' • FAST, Af.4 POINT BEARS SOUTH 541'40'3CW0T. HAVING A RADIUS OF 387.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11'0O27": TO DIE BEGIN1010 OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT FROM WISCH NE RADOS DSTANCE OF THENCE SOUTHEASTiRLY HANG S610 CURVE. A DISTANCE OF 75.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BE0300404 THENCE CONTINUING SOUTHERLY A DISTANCE OF 110.50 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE. HAVING A RADIUS OF 387.22 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1821'07 TO A POOR OF CUSP; THENCE NORTH RRAADIUS 413'31' PONT HEMS NORTH 44'3027 WEST. TWANG A RADIUS OF 46.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 44'3•51'; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAIL CURVE TO THE WEFT, A. DISTANCE OF 35.83 FEE; THENCE NORTH 0034'44' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 126.07 FEET TO THE P004T OF BEGINN I& LOT 7 . THAT PORTION OF THE SOU14WE5T QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE ME4NIAN. 1010 CQONTY. WASHINGTON ABED AS FOLLOW • SOUTH NE AT THE SOUTHWEST OLRNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER. A DSTANCE OF 682.95 FEE To A POINT UNE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER EASTERLY MARGIN OF 53RD AVENUE SOUTH, FROM WHICH THE R OF CUSP BEARS NORTH ON THE ,141 A RADIUS OF 230.00 FEE; 742]422 NORTHERLY, ALONG BROUGH 'FCENTRAAVING SAN CURVE TO THE RIGHT, THROUGH A CENTRAL mom OF 73048. A DISTANCE OF 30.18 FEET TO A POINT OF CUSP; THENCE SOUTH . 8812'49' EAST. A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEE TO A'POINT OF CUSP ON A HAVING A RADIUS OF CURVE FROM WHICH ME RADIUS P0011 BEARS NORTH 89•57•07 THE NORTHERLY. ALONG 'CURVE 1O 14E RIGHT. THROUGH CENTRAL ANGLE us 5 OD FEET; THENCE - DISTANCE OF 3.59 FEET; 'THENCE NORM 0053'17 EAST. A DISTANCE OF 11.74 THE BECOMING OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, TANGENT TO SAN UNE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY OF 39.64 FEET ALONG THE ARC, HAWING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9051'30'; THENCE 5013114 e815'18 EAST TANGENT TO SAID .CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 60.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF.BEG908NG: THENCE commis 50(114 8815'18 FAST. A DISTANCE OF 37.57 FEET 10 THE BECOMING OF A CURVE TO DE RIGHT, TANGENT TO SAID LATE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY A DISTANCE OF 29.52 FEET ALONG THE ARC.'HAWNG A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL µ10(1i OF 673889* TO A POINT OF' CUSP ON A CURVE. P� WHICH ME RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 0923'48 EAST: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY . A DISTANCE FEET ALONG 425 THE ARP 414 SAID CURVE P: THE TEE LEFT NAVE WEST OISUNCE OF 08.13 FEET; 34944E OF 114 1731'10' LS 10 A POONA DI CUSP; THENCE SOUTH NORTH 88.174( WEST, A DISTANCE OF 24.10 SCUM 422 11 WEST, A DISTANCE OF 23.40 HET: THENCE' FEE: THENCE NORTH OSOT4' WEST. A DISTANCE OF 110.78 FEET TO THE PORT OF BECOMING. ' NOTES -1. ALL COH5TRUCn0N MUST COMPLY WAIN THE GEa1E290CAL ENGINEERING REPORT Of LS ADOPT. NC. . . DA cartecteam TED AUGUST X20.01; SFPTIMBER4.2003:.FEBRUART 9. 2005; APRIL 25. 2005, MID SUBSEQUENT 2. . NO RUNOFF. INCLUDING DOWIISPOU15. sou. BE INFILTRATED INTO THE GROUND THROUGH 'CRY WELLS OR PERFORATED INFILTRATION PIPES AND TRENCHES. . .. - Director, King County Director, King County Assessor 0. PHIL. SARGENT S- /11-0-? P.LS. 34145 r<7'1 pF . ti "" FIVE RIVERS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 27010_- 115' AVE .SE' KENT, WA. .98031 DATE PRINTED 2/14/2007 JOB NO. ' SHEET 2005157 HYDROSEED "4rr.LAWN' ' N EXISTING TREE REMOVAL AND.., m .REPLACEMENT 'CALCULATIONS tar. If ° oj711 • NIL I 1075 Dame ►r t•1 Im• - • 1 w te-N50 for �y t -0Y 1 14 tart =u -d LOT r t - t? -r LOT 1 t tr 91 tow to can • e i0 -n to n O409oo 103:510751/3 • Ip • ttr.mm o® ROD Wan DO • 1m RADON .0 MO 110540017 I PROD Dm were R. w S. a SENSTIVE AREAS MME DOSING 11103 MAY BE REMOVED SLOPES OVER 152 11ERAND AREAS CS BIFFERS - . I; PLANT UST . . Sw9CL 0 11,A 01. PUNT l 0311101 NSW n 0weS9J1YNa4EOAMCt MAO MESS C-f eas 9g SPAt91C r to 37 T0UW 1A SHOI•17LLA .ESm01 FEW= . (-2 MB I0.-217' 0.C. ®ume.i aim 0s ion 910E ACER PLAT AI IDES -NORWAY MARE - Y CAL B&B SPACED AS SHORN row uoi O 1. SETBACK SETBACt< FOR BASEMENTS FO FIUNDATIONS P ATER THAN 36" /06 t -Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rim: 't2 58 IE12 ?Ctr: 8:76 Catch Basin Rim: 169.95 IE 12 "W: 167.7 s • 9 • \ \ . \ N N 09 \, C'9, 9 s 9r, 1 WETLAND / BUFFER PLANTING PLAN WETLAND / /BUFFER PLANTING AREA TOTAL WETLAND AREA TOTAL BUFFER AREA 5,693 S.F.. 26.953 S.F. • RECEIVED CTT'Y nc r t�r•ugA . MAR 0 8 2861' PERMIT Ctlitu+ . WETLAND - MITIGATION . SHEET INDEX V16.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN &WETLAND & BUFFER AREAS MAP •V6.1.2 TYPICAL PLANTING PLAN, PLANTING LEGEND & DETAILS .3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PROGRAM, PLANTING DETAILS 1 NATURE BY DESIGN • Commercial & Residential Landscape A,cnitecture • irrigation 253.460.6067 0 rn 1•. a) a) flan & 'rogran m a REVISIONS: 0 ADDED LANDSCAPE- SKEET 10 PLANS DRAWING ISSUED FOR: AGENCY REVIEW DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2006 STATE OF WASHINGTON - REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KATHERINE OWENS CERTIFICATE NO. 692 PROJECT NO.: RLE NAME X -EELS: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: PLOT SCALE: DRAWING SCALES: 0615 0615V&D CIVIL KLO KLO 1:1 1:20 DRAWING CONTENTS LANDSCAPE &. WETLAND DELINIATION PLAN DRAWING NO • "iI.1.1 1 OF 3 iris �`1 ,�i1��,-� °I ": /•\� WETLAND MITIGATION PLANT LEGEND WETLAND /BUFFER TREES 5136301. OTT . DESCRIPTION TSH , 6 Tsogo hetephyllo Westernro HmMock 19 Acer moerophyllum Bp Leaf Maple 9 Frodnus lobfolio Oregon ash '16 .Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce 3 Pyrus fusee Western crabapple 2 Sob. 'lasandro • Pacific Willow 9 Soli, sitchensis Setko willow 23 Thujo pliicoto • .Western red cedar WETLAND)9UFFER SHRUBS SYFIBOL OTY DESCRIPTION 99J SIZE 2 Gat. Yin. 12' -15' O.C. 5 Gal. Min. 10' -15' 0.C. " 129245' 8.C.. —8" art.: 10-15 r0.C. i0 — 15rO.C. .12= aiSrO.C.- 1215rO.C: 19 Acer cirdnatum' . Vine Maple 20 Comus stolonifera red osier dogwood • 7 Loniaero involucrota • . dock twinberry .. 15 Phyysocorpue capitatus ninebork 102 Roar: 9ymnocorpa rib rose 9 Rosa nutkono Nootko rose 135 Symphohcorpos olbus anowberry • 0�z• Catch Basin Rim: 169:95 IE12 "W: 167.7 .75 Care: obnupto slough sedge • 75 Sciprus microcorpus .moll Iruited bulrush SIZE 2 -GAL. 0 6' O.C. 2 GAL 0 4'. O.C. 2 GAL 0 4' 0.C. O 4 0.C. 2 CAL 0 4' O.C. 4' O 44'' 0.C. 4' pWq O 1' O.C. 4" plug O Nall 4• Plugs to be planted In the Welland. PIN o grapIngs .110or awe. Wsbmrb evenly d1,ghout NUS al the dbamorr of the poled Mingle. Existing Deciduous 7,.e to be Reaosd EW5r'g Evergreen Tree to be ReteYsd Oedema Tree to be Removed EdslIng Evergreen Tree to be Reamed 7 SNAG / STUMP SEE DETAIL • 7 LOG • SEE DETAIL ATTACH SIGN TO. POST WITH TWO .5/16 GALVANIZED LAG BOLTS WITH • WASHERS 5' TO GRADE ' SIGN SHALL READ: 'Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to . TUC Chapter 18.45. Please w9 the City of Tuk-Bo for more information' 8' — 4.4 CEDAR POST SET 3' • INTO POST HOLE • ri!Inllnl „...„11n„.E„ ,E.,,.1,,!,,!Ini NIVI 11.x, II 11t11„II;,u STUMP AND LOG DETAIL WETLAND BUFFER FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE i • 2' MIN. • • • COMPACTED NATIVE • BACKFILL IN POST HOLE THE WEILAID/STREAM SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE LOT AND THE SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER. ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED FOR EVERY RESIDENTIAL LOT AND ONE PER EVERY 25 FEET FOR ALL PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, TRAILS. PARKING AREAS. PLAYGROUNDS DRAWING NO: AND ALL DINER USES LOCATED ADJACENT TO WETLANDS AND ASSOCIATED BUFFERS AND SHAM BE STATIONED PER LOCATION. ON THE APPROVED PLANS' us(` . THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. . - .. f Tn .ePn. DETAIL - SENSITIVE AREA SIGN " Ma p8 1� NOT TO SCALE' 70.µ1T CE<c NATURE BY DESIGN Commercial & Residential Landscape Architecture irrigation 253.460.6067 a.. r.va I. NAY REVISIONS: D ADDED LANDSCAPE SHEET TO PLAINS DRAWING ISSUED FOR: AGENCY REVIEW DATE: NOVEMBER 27. 2006 STATE OF WASHINGTON - . REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KATHERINE OWENS CERTIFICATE NO. 692 PROJECT No.: 0515 RLENAME 0615VAD. XIS: - CIVIL DRAWN BY: - KLO CHECK® BY: KLO PLOT SCALE " 1:1 DRAWING SCALES: 1:20 DRAWING CONTENTS WETLAND.. .- PLANTING PLAN NOTES & DETAILS OF SELECTED COMPENSATORY IMMOATION APPROACH - . We planning f the Five Rivers Pwlldmry Plat has loaaed on 6s nwMated hierarchy of rsdand Impact radudac 1) aroNnol[ t)rebbsbatien and]) comprrapan. These avoidance and m0intratn strategies Included. she design to nabob impacts to deb %11Iand Mater*. The present alts das197I would retain the nuprly of regulated rub Wetlands A and C, rune end faded* deling regulated waded and biller snob rd establish peered% beers In somrdrms veal newly Wafted C6y of Tulle Chapter 16.46. unavailable Impacts to Welled C elmI be Mopetd through the reaiara0m dal lead 5.000 square feet of Madre wetland area W M Wetland C end Wetland A. Restoration dell Include the removal of beaky shrubs. the amoral of garbage, and the adding of neovs bees end shut*. The robbed bee areas asodmed sA6 Wetland C end Wetland A alai also be restored thread' the removal of Mole shrubs, the removal d garbage, and the *nem of nabs tree end shrubs " • Wabnd B and the vm mOy d Wetland DOJO be sled to reefed the Indeed roadway end new homed. eta: Both at bees wetlids are bolded, lees then 1, OW square eat In roa e1h0* a low functional vale Ming, and we net regulated by to /lib d Tukwila. • The overall impede to Wetland C end t moused buffer rseu6fig from the development of the new mss roadey MN he vaYmbed through the creation of her verged will mbar than a roadway ml s lops. PmddOd kneads sandsted with the oomtrudbh dtlds mw supportive wall *hal Ins niinbsd by ensuhe that all work would be remised ban 6e reedway weed to now roadway vr.km. The wok area would be deely maned and pndetlad %a am fencing and - appropriate woolen cored.; The dewed work eras wade follow the established edged the new rsdmy ripe of way end *nib rat extend Into the reaimd wetland or named Ceder. Iditlipalen Benda. • The reedretlr+d the retained wetland end buffer areas b designed to ecompsy alb development. The prinery be.8. associated with the proposed compensatory mitigarce program Include the restoration and enhancement of a Rabe %Mere and butte maim of weave emended sedbs, and tress %WM an • rah presently impeded by pad end use maybes. The sobbed plan spades wend [lease dNsn6y and cortpladp Main be mp1Mbn .0.. In addition, the • Wetland and burr Panda. shag he defined Midst an bdepended 0ari DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPENSATORY MmoATlON PROGRAM - - 1. At mnpeaaen for the unavoidable died Impact to 336 swan feet d Cfy of Tukwila Type 3 Wetland (Wetland C) and the (neaten of 1,320 aquae feet at C8y of Tutted. Type 3 Wetland (WMIesd C) Into tulle. a nbiran of 5,693 square (and of ratably] *Mere w0M Wiled C and Wetland A shell he roared The amount at weed to be r.etred prone. a 3.0101.0 nfion ratio (restored to impebd). Welland restoration shall bidude the removal d Invader • drubs, be removal of garbage, and to planting of mu0e traae and shrubs. - . • • 2. Protective barters shall be eet80bhe0 for Weigand A and Wetland C. A miner amount 14 buffer sea alma to eastern edge of Wetland C and Mono to nation edge of Welland Aaim1 La Randal. 2. The buffer associated W6h to reeked Wattled C and WeUend A Malabo be restored through 6e renewal d Made daubs. i nroval d garbage, and the d shrubs. denting nabs trees and shrubs. - L Habitat Tebbe. (La. stendbg snaps and dosed logs) WMg be pieced w6Nn the createdwMand, end restored sedate and beer areas to provide Structural dlerdy and 6.163101or Addle carman to the area. - - . .. I . 3. Hatbt beores (Le. stand%m mega are downed lope) Mao be placed slid the restored wetland and buffer sees to provide etrudol dNemOy end habitats for midge common to to area. - • : . • 4. AO ana6ir aetdtea doll be motored Mee omits 0bbg11. Following the completion of mete &calm ecM8ss 8 'rsarddrarlig' pan and Implmnm4atlm report shall cepveparod and ammtoed to ne pydTukwila. - - . 4 Foaming Clay dTukwb eppwal doe bnpicnantd prderarr s flveyear mambo program shall he undertakes to taus to sums doe compeneetory md0g don program. A .arks d humid guarantees Mel also to ten tament.d N buried byte ap o Tukwila) to neae that lie prap0..d hark is combed • and Is successful. - . 4 Temperery and long-term mimabs austral measures alai be bipemadd. These measures *0 6d. sun rhdre during Me (.epsilon and *wend wanton, and seeded of exposed nor areas. - - • 7. The mar bmmdey dins 6 (Wetlands A and C, ad two associated established beam) del be marked with Marled My tinder/la "Wetland Bailer Boundary sigrn al 201oal Wends. - - - 4 This came idler baudary dTray Bshal be pertotiandy fenced to 6M Intrusion 6to tese wens. The fence can be and a e0efoot solid-mot spat MI, do-loot d ein Ink fence. or den City of Tukwila pro-approved substitute. N bast one amen gate dell be prodded dump the form for me1d 0011 and mm6odrg puposes.. - - - GOAL AND OBJECTIVE OF THE MRIOATION PLAN, The GOAL of the Compensatory IAlgadon Program Is to Day serpents for be muvddaWe adverse kneed to Webre C meshing tam the development d a new access medway. Upon the completion of this mmmetlon program then Mai be no oil bee of regulated wetland fumM1s or vahey and an bon en A is poundal for the eMahgMed wetlands and Mira to emceed wed aquatic and terrestrial landau . - - - To adder's the deiced GOAL 6e foa0.i a OBJECTIVES and RI PETWORMANCE CRITERIA have are defined - - - - . 06).coe A. : A minimum d ILINCI own feet of adding degraded wetland area MI6 retained Webnd C and Wetland A Mal be restored. Perfonnunce CAe1en MC:'As defied et representative sample ads the eahmged pled dmaniy ME* the restored 6,893 square feet of taker. wetland ante anal =Mal a last an BO% tonnage *tab Me years following tenet dash.. Penferman1ce Celled= 942: As Pared by repraentabe .ample pea to se belmb and sapling vegea9m den *mid the restored 5,693 @bare feet d Metre weird em Mail MINIed Peat •60 %aortal ceerege *Oil fide years Mowing Fhmd dentin} - - . - - Performance Criterion IIAX As lotted by pled mots at representative lain* rids 1009. al the bees ad drubs 6014 planted within the restored wetlands shall Melt soiled through the end of Be het growing season felowIg 361169. - I Performance *Orlon q■: As dewed by gad counts et .eproa0eBve sample dots 80%dthe Sees end shrubs 6maDyfpbnbd ways 6e reseed wetlands and bears shall 1461 added through the end aide MO wets season ldoia OMEN. Objective B. - The beta areas sandaled with Wetland C and Walked A dell be restored and.ha1 ase66 • eonbka.b and eme m tree vegetation daises *mis be years Mow6g hiial planting. - - " . . _ - • Performance Crinuke 01: A. defied by pan tests al representable sample pie 100% of the tress Wend shrubs Wkly paled w8In the restored 6461. Mud coded Ma1v.l through the end of be 6M grovia MOM laming aanaliP , • Performance CAerioo Rik As 4efhed by pad courts el representeke sample pots BO%of the tress and Maws In1bly planted *mid the reseed buffer. Mel akd06 added trough be end at to 1091 grvem treason following pismire. .. Ob*.cOve C. - The restored wetland and buffer areas Mal Inducts the aamrtem of snaps and dared IoW vetch provme nesting and osier Mead fce pea.a . beu..melon to to rove. - _ _ - • Performance 04611.8001: A mbdnu. d two (2) snags (silbnun 10 feel In ends. mAknan 20 Inch demote et to s** mn 10 foot demister al bottom of roothd) and a mind um of two (2) downed ills (Wren= 20 bet in lends, nidbnum 20 bell diameter at 10 wet above rod role, minimum 10 : . - foot dame at bean of rootlet) Mall tea dated %mid be restored parade of Wetland MRIGATIOM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Shedd 0hb otage8ad tnarndda0rl net WOox6g be time poke noted above Me project bon wail combats • wised sdadue eft the C ty d Tukwila. PROJECT NONRORl1GPcDoA4g be amoomful aompb6on d to proposed tasrratcn macre o five year neMOrkg and era6ation program e1e0 be undertaken The papoo this program b to ensue the amens of the seeded mltlpabon as measured by an - euta66had eat of palameno cted& This mr0otbg Mal also podia wake* Information on On effectiveness d Macedon meadows • Vegeteden llarIDe60 Sequence L .. .. ✓d�.;. .. ;. . ..., 1- -T •L• ET•'+[. G1 - McEM =2 1 4_ :)•LTT_ ="1124,7 •SL_,ZI =1.. •-• VEGETATION NAMTENANCE PLAN - Ma6deano. of the restored wetland and huller dart oorm)nmss may be required to acme to tempter= heats and wdhre of the weal% end butlers ar1oenetd .ender.' Suds rtre nie pro stud be mroAtled during 6e montane piled and wbemelon1 o*Iy fdfo*Og dermhnn end aoordrrdm eft to Cory d Tukwila. The overaO oejeclve is to establish udtslufd pled communities OM do not remade - ..ma6teranee. 'Adrtbe may Include, but we not abed to. the removal of Mea6e non•n ate vogeta9on and the brigade of selected areas. Eefeb4Me6 maintenance a1OvBee Wade to re1011 of any 0eeh within the wetland or abler. Me1dew11 . anthems nay Adud* repadrg plants that din not ■AAe and taaeedkg of gram` Maintenance aadvltles shall bakes weedkm to the Mp6e ell Installed game• mad If 1 Invader species cover Is ass than 169E REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NONNATIVE VEGETATION A. aeibgr 03. stand the femme dime*. net -i14.e imitation beam necessary, .the pdecl proponent shag contact City oTdnw6a to establish and bane spedeo actions to be taken. Reader. corbwency plan *RAW strall be knplernented Wen to agate vameta nn mria68 pew= Mattes 6M gams !sled in Me WashbIkkon Stab Nodoue Weed Lilt bedbares. read boa, r Smh1 broom are becoming d eni ere In 6e cormamhy. ., SEEDING FOR EXPOSED AREAS . Sabena fora! exposed surfaces .Nnn the created wetland and restored edi8ana . - butter seal be competed watt two seeks 0d0Atre the completion of dbb(s nmrovd and plaom ere of dean. 192NY d1 enk ►.' -T"_7 � is rte-:- '7� :•.. A P.da.meace CeRbflord.C2: A mien= d twd (2) magi Minimum 10 fed In length. mInAmm 20 Inch donee M the top. mkt.= 10 bun does al Ides of rodtsl) and • niimms of 0.0 (2) bladed bps (minimum 20 feel In length. .*dean 20 Inch diameter at 10 bet above mot Oder. Manure 10 Ind diameter at bottom at netball) Mull be rind MOM the resided potion of VA7tnd a - - Performance Criterion MCk A mhdmum class (3) rage (mhi um 101.11616.50*. minimum 20 Inch dames at the sop, n*.u1110 foot diameter' at bettor. of rodMI) end * siiman d Wee (3) downed logs (Odium 20 feet In length. rinmum 20 loth &e*etar M 10 (wet above amt ode, nin1uan 10" . foot darned al Moons of morbid) Mug be paced vain reseed bar antes adlaerate Wetland A and Weeded G. SELECTED PLANT COMRRR4TES . . - - - I " 16.3146 .11.11.4 f& deco ere within the restored wetland and bur areal shad be 1ra*sd es mosery dock. Them sebdl4 spades we native and =once* mow In to local area. The den species preserbd am selected to Paean Pent d6atly. match preemie amts wrmmmas, i.vme mediae habitats, and angoras be aquatic miwlaermia. - - !ROGATION fMPLOADRATION 608PECT1Ok1 . Esa3ut 1 to the success bee co p3wey mitigation pogrom le the edemas Iap•d0• of orate adMan bbnectletely prior le and duke the take %11110 and buffer reetrs0on phase. Tress .dv6Ye Include de- t.plekhartsaon eke Ltapsdoa. area .pedon and Wend &radon doing %abnd m a der% and planting - advslee, and pmf•pad6g site bnpedm ad.vMMOr1 - - . The BOn end Inspection allows the project team and the plod biologist to evaluate anal! necessary. undltl ken mina ed1n6mne 668 ant kpemmLton steps. These same Include anemia of project eke elevason 0saues: prajec asque419 end Sam m 0101 Wads embed• a londoen 0010*4 odor moaaWOrn tether original lel8 ment plan. erd die ...abashment of anytanmental profs:Pons (salience. etc.) requhd Oahe belementiace. Osate - bdcdce) 6npgetn Oetng hnpandedaa and paNg a Blass Mai) te tradeevend by the project biologist The peeled biologist shad palm* *Pbrtwtstn oerepn and redress minor unforeseen 6planatstn Madan to same that the bed at the mmpau11ry Meador' popem b met. Tae removal of existing Mond vegetation wads the mitigation area Mall be undertaken by had and pntrkbly a emu aoedMar. AI removed vegetation shall be conveyed by a hogs 1 yad dare bud to an append rp6re deposal ern. • . The perked biologist Mel ale be responsible for ensuing 6a to spades and den d man pats selected end noted wants the anal pm6g plan are anted dung Yuplarwts1r1 6 selected Dabs spades Irma unavailable.** pmpat b1legst Mel coed was the Chy of Tiewb ter w6.®ts dent spades to assure that the grad d the compensatory mitigation program b mat. Po11#1pbrtrnbson rt Aapsmonf eyebal m shall Imsde to p0paedon d elidero-drerebge and1geWted 1cpieneteket repot which Mal be aerated to the City d Tuk*+b. CONTINGENCY MAN A. e md6gen:y. should to proposed compensatory Magadan people 1d to met Re Merman abb. the ceded reopened ate0 undertake required re etl10 . adorns.• Where Glad sunhat Is to bike component, Be plod prapawd shell molar. and antes the mamas of tale emcee planting MidchMat be had to the same standard of success as measured by Omashoa 4636 and modakg When roil- neeve, 6wans vegetation enoeds ON *MM overage Oe paled propane aid udontre removal *dons. Such removal adorn alma be completed u*fg hand sob a pulling the plats by hand to remove Os Invasive' vegetate. without doupn d the ad poets. M odor piled vegetation end be removed from to Magadan e e and disposed 6 n approved kcearc Herbicides - . &1451 yd be used farming approval by the COY d Tends. AOMetldda*opkIOon . Mde6 te completed by • bonged prlmk d. - Should e4ldtional remedial aeons be ,*mied, to project po9msar4 Mora meet etch to Cly d 'DMA. to esabbh end bane *ere to be taken to meet to dashed .god of Ws nnlPpaOOn ProMM. . TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The poled poisoner. sham ensure that riin.n of one (1) Inch of writer b • emceed each weak to be mapmndry mmpebon was between June 1 and - Octobr 16 for a east to 1611 two mean following keel plads9 The ol4Wad artmn d required ale shall Include bah mil raked and tee peaty Amaimc The read for additional year. of litigation shall be determined based on ske month. .1 and aen9 pea suvivaL The moue of weer supplied to the compensatory rhdags6r1 are. shall be Increased ales dredge of the t7ly d Tideke or B mate n0n6ortg deans wild r reed. • PLANTING NOTES - m WOh the exception d the kmtitled grass seed neseas. all pent nel3la1 armed within the restored regard end buffer erns Mull be man to the Puget Sound Region. The ends *Meld Meg kneed pea rteeY1 to uses the atpn0pla. amt 144011 and pad dheradeedln see real The omleal pr0pmsd Odd warrant dial all Peets amid pertain alive end bedew for • period at one yeah - fDo•1ug aanpletn of planting edvi0ea The pled Pralconen a replae ea dad end unhealthy pats with darts dee harm .paml188111. ' MULCH TO .DEPTH SPECIFIED IN NOTES FORM CONTINUOUS RIM lbld!I!I11111111U�y� ul1191111 WHEN'BdrB: REMOVE =111=111 1// 111 -11 I -11- .0o 'r'D BURLAP _ - III -III- II I= 111 =111= 111 =11 _Till!) ' NATIVE SOILKF1Ll.: EINSTING • 2XBALLD&A. BACKOLL - W/ NATIVE SOIL IN 9'• LAYERS. WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AR POCKETS SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2. MULCH WITH COMPOST. . 3. ALTERNATNELY,• ENTIRE AREA FOR PLANTING MAY BE. WENDED W/ COMPOST. N0 1. PLANTING BACKFILL: EXISTING NATIVE SOIL . 2. MULCH MTH COMPOST. 3. ALTERNATIVELY. ENTIRE AREA FOR PLANTING MAY BE AMENDED W/ COMPOST. CONIFER TREE MULCH TO DEPM SPECIFIED • IN LAtISCAPE NOTES NATURE BY DESIGN Commercial *6 Resider, hal Londs1ape Sochi facture Irrigation 253.460.6067 " ...,notreetee.ignincsam & Prograrn IT! REVISIONS: .. • D ADDED LANDSCAPE SHEET TO PLANS - 212 STORE DRIVEN INTO SUBGRADE • p� INTERLOCKING PLASTIC TIES FORM SAUCER NTH , CONTOBIOUS RI4 • ,� ii.�i/ /: /_. 1,111 Gil. ,uu✓ `1114left/i•:•.,w� /ai /.'v. - . �11�- WHEN B&B: REMOVE. ALL =1_1 I =1 i I_:: 'OWN 11-I i I I COMPLETELY , BURLAP III -11 �� s. I I EXCAVATE -PIT TO DEPTH OF • -1 11 l 1- -111 =111 =1 1 =I ROOTBALL OR PDT. II -1 I 1 =111 =111 =1 11= 11 = -' SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM III -I I 0F.7 LAYERS, WATER AND 504. EVERGREEN TREE STAKING • / TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS • • PLANTING :DETAIL . NOTES: . 1: Wits Meg be round torn Gel aodandam 6rmna0WSl9 prier to paiGm. Immediately prior to 64661601. root tub Mal be examined and bound throughout at east 1' of root bag. Any damaged, matted or circling mob sell be armed. • 2. Pods shall be healthy and vial sous, red brained. YAM wWsvMopad nets. morel In pattern of pmah end free d peas and dlaeages. Damaged. &rimed. Paeo-kfiented. beeped. tabbed, dne6a4 bared. broker a o0 mite deledl e Own wm te minted. Woody pees wet ebreabns of the bark or awedd *G a m)eded. Pleb meal a adds gram unless 06a,be apedled. Roc bete meal Mid together when the pad le removed from the pal coed 6M and annual of boss set may be on the top d to meta. Pads must not be root-0oun4 dare nova be he adkg mob paean In any den eueriai 6ap.daL R.o6.le that are raced or broken when renewal from be woks erg be rejected. REFENTED . X10 8 zomn PERMIT CENTER PROJECT NO.: FILE NAME X -8815: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: • PLOT SCALE DRAWING SCALES: 0615" 0615Y&C KLO KLO 1:1 DRAWING CONTENTS WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM . DRAWING NO.: • W L 1 ? 3 OF T CLI •I,- Tr-.;- Shedd 0hb otage8ad tnarndda0rl net WOox6g be time poke noted above Me project bon wail combats • wised sdadue eft the C ty d Tukwila. PROJECT NONRORl1GPcDoA4g be amoomful aompb6on d to proposed tasrratcn macre o five year neMOrkg and era6ation program e1e0 be undertaken The papoo this program b to ensue the amens of the seeded mltlpabon as measured by an - euta66had eat of palameno cted& This mr0otbg Mal also podia wake* Information on On effectiveness d Macedon meadows • Vegeteden llarIDe60 Sequence L .. .. ✓d�.;. .. ;. . ..., 1- -T •L• ET•'+[. G1 - McEM =2 1 4_ :)•LTT_ ="1124,7 •SL_,ZI =1.. •-• VEGETATION NAMTENANCE PLAN - Ma6deano. of the restored wetland and huller dart oorm)nmss may be required to acme to tempter= heats and wdhre of the weal% end butlers ar1oenetd .ender.' Suds rtre nie pro stud be mroAtled during 6e montane piled and wbemelon1 o*Iy fdfo*Og dermhnn end aoordrrdm eft to Cory d Tukwila. The overaO oejeclve is to establish udtslufd pled communities OM do not remade - ..ma6teranee. 'Adrtbe may Include, but we not abed to. the removal of Mea6e non•n ate vogeta9on and the brigade of selected areas. Eefeb4Me6 maintenance a1OvBee Wade to re1011 of any 0eeh within the wetland or abler. Me1dew11 . anthems nay Adud* repadrg plants that din not ■AAe and taaeedkg of gram` Maintenance aadvltles shall bakes weedkm to the Mp6e ell Installed game• mad If 1 Invader species cover Is ass than 169E REMOVAL OF INVASIVE NONNATIVE VEGETATION A. aeibgr 03. stand the femme dime*. net -i14.e imitation beam necessary, .the pdecl proponent shag contact City oTdnw6a to establish and bane spedeo actions to be taken. Reader. corbwency plan *RAW strall be knplernented Wen to agate vameta nn mria68 pew= Mattes 6M gams !sled in Me WashbIkkon Stab Nodoue Weed Lilt bedbares. read boa, r Smh1 broom are becoming d eni ere In 6e cormamhy. ., SEEDING FOR EXPOSED AREAS . Sabena fora! exposed surfaces .Nnn the created wetland and restored edi8ana . - butter seal be competed watt two seeks 0d0Atre the completion of dbb(s nmrovd and plaom ere of dean. 192NY d1 enk ►.' -T"_7 � is rte-:- '7� :•.. A P.da.meace CeRbflord.C2: A mien= d twd (2) magi Minimum 10 fed In length. mInAmm 20 Inch donee M the top. mkt.= 10 bun does al Ides of rodtsl) and • niimms of 0.0 (2) bladed bps (minimum 20 feel In length. .*dean 20 Inch diameter at 10 bet above mot Oder. Manure 10 Ind diameter at bottom at netball) Mull be rind MOM the resided potion of VA7tnd a - - Performance Criterion MCk A mhdmum class (3) rage (mhi um 101.11616.50*. minimum 20 Inch dames at the sop, n*.u1110 foot diameter' at bettor. of rodMI) end * siiman d Wee (3) downed logs (Odium 20 feet In length. rinmum 20 loth &e*etar M 10 (wet above amt ode, nin1uan 10" . foot darned al Moons of morbid) Mug be paced vain reseed bar antes adlaerate Wetland A and Weeded G. SELECTED PLANT COMRRR4TES . . - - - I " 16.3146 .11.11.4 f& deco ere within the restored wetland and bur areal shad be 1ra*sd es mosery dock. Them sebdl4 spades we native and =once* mow In to local area. The den species preserbd am selected to Paean Pent d6atly. match preemie amts wrmmmas, i.vme mediae habitats, and angoras be aquatic miwlaermia. - - !ROGATION fMPLOADRATION 608PECT1Ok1 . Esa3ut 1 to the success bee co p3wey mitigation pogrom le the edemas Iap•d0• of orate adMan bbnectletely prior le and duke the take %11110 and buffer reetrs0on phase. Tress .dv6Ye Include de- t.plekhartsaon eke Ltapsdoa. area .pedon and Wend &radon doing %abnd m a der% and planting - advslee, and pmf•pad6g site bnpedm ad.vMMOr1 - - . The BOn end Inspection allows the project team and the plod biologist to evaluate anal! necessary. undltl ken mina ed1n6mne 668 ant kpemmLton steps. These same Include anemia of project eke elevason 0saues: prajec asque419 end Sam m 0101 Wads embed• a londoen 0010*4 odor moaaWOrn tether original lel8 ment plan. erd die ...abashment of anytanmental profs:Pons (salience. etc.) requhd Oahe belementiace. Osate - bdcdce) 6npgetn Oetng hnpandedaa and paNg a Blass Mai) te tradeevend by the project biologist The peeled biologist shad palm* *Pbrtwtstn oerepn and redress minor unforeseen 6planatstn Madan to same that the bed at the mmpau11ry Meador' popem b met. Tae removal of existing Mond vegetation wads the mitigation area Mall be undertaken by had and pntrkbly a emu aoedMar. AI removed vegetation shall be conveyed by a hogs 1 yad dare bud to an append rp6re deposal ern. • . The perked biologist Mel ale be responsible for ensuing 6a to spades and den d man pats selected end noted wants the anal pm6g plan are anted dung Yuplarwts1r1 6 selected Dabs spades Irma unavailable.** pmpat b1legst Mel coed was the Chy of Tiewb ter w6.®ts dent spades to assure that the grad d the compensatory mitigation program b mat. Po11#1pbrtrnbson rt Aapsmonf eyebal m shall Imsde to p0paedon d elidero-drerebge and1geWted 1cpieneteket repot which Mal be aerated to the City d Tuk*+b. CONTINGENCY MAN A. e md6gen:y. should to proposed compensatory Magadan people 1d to met Re Merman abb. the ceded reopened ate0 undertake required re etl10 . adorns.• Where Glad sunhat Is to bike component, Be plod prapawd shell molar. and antes the mamas of tale emcee planting MidchMat be had to the same standard of success as measured by Omashoa 4636 and modakg When roil- neeve, 6wans vegetation enoeds ON *MM overage Oe paled propane aid udontre removal *dons. Such removal adorn alma be completed u*fg hand sob a pulling the plats by hand to remove Os Invasive' vegetate. without doupn d the ad poets. M odor piled vegetation end be removed from to Magadan e e and disposed 6 n approved kcearc Herbicides - . &1451 yd be used farming approval by the COY d Tends. AOMetldda*opkIOon . Mde6 te completed by • bonged prlmk d. - Should e4ldtional remedial aeons be ,*mied, to project po9msar4 Mora meet etch to Cly d 'DMA. to esabbh end bane *ere to be taken to meet to dashed .god of Ws nnlPpaOOn ProMM. . TEMPORARY IRRIGATION The poled poisoner. sham ensure that riin.n of one (1) Inch of writer b • emceed each weak to be mapmndry mmpebon was between June 1 and - Octobr 16 for a east to 1611 two mean following keel plads9 The ol4Wad artmn d required ale shall Include bah mil raked and tee peaty Amaimc The read for additional year. of litigation shall be determined based on ske month. .1 and aen9 pea suvivaL The moue of weer supplied to the compensatory rhdags6r1 are. shall be Increased ales dredge of the t7ly d Tideke or B mate n0n6ortg deans wild r reed. • PLANTING NOTES - m WOh the exception d the kmtitled grass seed neseas. all pent nel3la1 armed within the restored regard end buffer erns Mull be man to the Puget Sound Region. The ends *Meld Meg kneed pea rteeY1 to uses the atpn0pla. amt 144011 and pad dheradeedln see real The omleal pr0pmsd Odd warrant dial all Peets amid pertain alive end bedew for • period at one yeah - fDo•1ug aanpletn of planting edvi0ea The pled Pralconen a replae ea dad end unhealthy pats with darts dee harm .paml188111. ' MULCH TO .DEPTH SPECIFIED IN NOTES FORM CONTINUOUS RIM lbld!I!I11111111U�y� ul1191111 WHEN'BdrB: REMOVE =111=111 1// 111 -11 I -11- .0o 'r'D BURLAP _ - III -III- II I= 111 =111= 111 =11 _Till!) ' NATIVE SOILKF1Ll.: EINSTING • 2XBALLD&A. BACKOLL - W/ NATIVE SOIL IN 9'• LAYERS. WATER AND TAMP TO REMOVE AR POCKETS SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL 2. MULCH WITH COMPOST. . 3. ALTERNATNELY,• ENTIRE AREA FOR PLANTING MAY BE. WENDED W/ COMPOST. N0 1. PLANTING BACKFILL: EXISTING NATIVE SOIL . 2. MULCH MTH COMPOST. 3. ALTERNATIVELY. ENTIRE AREA FOR PLANTING MAY BE AMENDED W/ COMPOST. CONIFER TREE MULCH TO DEPM SPECIFIED • IN LAtISCAPE NOTES NATURE BY DESIGN Commercial *6 Resider, hal Londs1ape Sochi facture Irrigation 253.460.6067 " ...,notreetee.ignincsam & Prograrn IT! REVISIONS: .. • D ADDED LANDSCAPE SHEET TO PLANS - 212 STORE DRIVEN INTO SUBGRADE • p� INTERLOCKING PLASTIC TIES FORM SAUCER NTH , CONTOBIOUS RI4 • ,� ii.�i/ /: /_. 1,111 Gil. ,uu✓ `1114left/i•:•.,w� /ai /.'v. - . �11�- WHEN B&B: REMOVE. ALL =1_1 I =1 i I_:: 'OWN 11-I i I I COMPLETELY , BURLAP III -11 �� s. I I EXCAVATE -PIT TO DEPTH OF • -1 11 l 1- -111 =111 =1 1 =I ROOTBALL OR PDT. II -1 I 1 =111 =111 =1 11= 11 = -' SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM III -I I 0F.7 LAYERS, WATER AND 504. EVERGREEN TREE STAKING • / TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS • • PLANTING :DETAIL . NOTES: . 1: Wits Meg be round torn Gel aodandam 6rmna0WSl9 prier to paiGm. Immediately prior to 64661601. root tub Mal be examined and bound throughout at east 1' of root bag. Any damaged, matted or circling mob sell be armed. • 2. Pods shall be healthy and vial sous, red brained. YAM wWsvMopad nets. morel In pattern of pmah end free d peas and dlaeages. Damaged. &rimed. Paeo-kfiented. beeped. tabbed, dne6a4 bared. broker a o0 mite deledl e Own wm te minted. Woody pees wet ebreabns of the bark or awedd *G a m)eded. Pleb meal a adds gram unless 06a,be apedled. Roc bete meal Mid together when the pad le removed from the pal coed 6M and annual of boss set may be on the top d to meta. Pads must not be root-0oun4 dare nova be he adkg mob paean In any den eueriai 6ap.daL R.o6.le that are raced or broken when renewal from be woks erg be rejected. REFENTED . X10 8 zomn PERMIT CENTER PROJECT NO.: FILE NAME X -8815: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: • PLOT SCALE DRAWING SCALES: 0615" 0615Y&C KLO KLO 1:1 DRAWING CONTENTS WETLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM . DRAWING NO.: • W L 1 ? 3 OF E. Catch Boa' 1 7/' .Rim: 145.01 -IE8111: 142.65 Ex. San Serer Manhole RUn: 146.70 IE Ctr: 136.81 NEW 5' SIDEWALK NEV VERT. CURB/GLITTER EX. SAN SEVEN EL VATER NAIR E. Catch Basin Rim: 136.59 IE81V: 132.14 X. F (TO BE TED B NIND V FLOW RESTRICTOR RISER AND .IC CUTLET 64.5' MEM • 1.....••••.,./1 L./ N\., .1\1119171 Y C.., VY.M. 150 14b �RAINA i. TENTION VAULT /V TVAULT DESIGN VATER LEVEL. ELEV. 1263' TOP VETPOND ELEV. 121.5 BOT VETPOND ELEV. 117.9 VETPOND VOL1.6IE PROVIDED 6081 CF VETPOND VOLUMM REQUIRED 5874 CF DETENTION VOLUME PROVIDED 11665 CF DETENTION VOLUME PROVIDED 11694 CF 0' SETBACK FOR BASEMENTS FOR I. FOUNDATIONS GREATER THAN 36' DEEP. •w��...ww.ww� ■•1111t._IM©w•w.w1= ■wwwww��Rnwww� ■ww..ww..wwww� ■.w.w.ww..w.�. ■.�a.w.wwwL�..� C- ■r..ww.■ -wa... ■••.w.ww.•ww= LOT 2 - 'POTENTIAL HOUSE SECTI ❑N SCALE. H. 1' x< 30' 140 130 REVISOR& 1 REV. 6 -26-06 2 REV. ROW A ADDED NOUSE FP 3-5-07 z w w /z V z Nw L1.. 0 w 1) wa'v� w '^��■�meaeuil "frin IA4 1:1AW3 Pill LI! k 41■711Er le WNW CONC. \ RETAINING VALL \\ WETLAND _ -- 4240 SF) 1 ,- (PORTION -Tp BE' °n FILLED) \ \ I 1 \ • Catch: Basin Rim: 169.95 1E121V 167.7 S. 159 . ST,_ -� 5' SIDEWALK VERT. CURB/GUTTER ZLI CL ET 31 0 LL. -Ex Storm Manhole - Rim: 98.79 1E24': 86.04 . —Ex Storm Manhole Rim: 98.91 1E12.5: 92.51 IE18'S: 85.66 .1E24'N: 85.71 ' IE24'NE Out: 85.11 J^ ct 0 in = S gym^ Ct � vJi vi 0 Lri cCS Q CC 43 g LL. Ex Sanitary Serer Manhole Rim: 127.00 ABAN00NED DRYCO DRYCO Surveying; Incorporated 12714 VALLEY AVENUE EAST SUMNER, WA 98390 253-826-0300 FAX 253- 826 - 9703 2000202 DATE PRIM 1/23x1001 GRAPHIC SCALE . 15 50 .60 . 120. ( 01 MT ) 1 Inch - 30 (t. DAIS 3/10/05 SCALE - 1' - 30' 13E8011 8T: JJ ones& BT: JJJ APP. BT: JOB No. iEET 1 oc 1