Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E07-009 - BRADLEY JESSICA / CRAFT ARCHITECTS - WELLS FARGO BANKWELLS FARGO CV OPERATIONS BUILDING & PARKING LOT 6855 SO. 180T" ST E07 -009 (RELATED TO L07 -035 & L07 -037) • Cit ofm lw/ci Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Comm ; nib Development NOTICE OF DECISION November 19, 2007 To: Jessica Bradley, Craft Architects Tom Dawes, Project Manager, Wells Fargo Bank Karen Walter, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division King County Assessor Steve Lancaster, Director PROJECT: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Wells Fargo CV Operations Building and Parking Lot E07 -009 L07 -035 (Shoreline Permit), L07 -037 (Design Review) Jessica Bradley, Craft Architects, for Wells Fargo Bank Construct a 12,983 sq. ft. concrete tilt -up building and a 56 stall stand -alone parking lot on two separate parcels, both of which fall within the shoreline of the Green River. S. 180th Street and Sperry 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 Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3661 for further information. This decision is appealable to King County Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). CL Page 1 of 1 11/19/2007 1:52:00 PM f11�l�IL gA1E07 009 10 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 o Tukwila, Washington 98188 o Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: City41f 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) E07 -009 05/25/2007 11/19/2007 ISSUED Applicant: JESSICA BRADLEY Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: 12,983 sf of new tilt up concrete building for storage of paper products. 5682 sf covered truck loading for distribution of product. Parcel B is parking lot for 56 cars. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 6855 S 180 ST TUKW 3623049095 36 -23 -04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental chec clist 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 be-4-4--'6-1W -3 , 2W-1 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Official City of Tu ila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Jack Pac espons ' le Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) doc: DNS -4/07 E07 -009 Printed: 11 -16 -2007 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION /, .'_ a. f0 l Lu,(.t HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing V 1\ Determination of Non - Significance Project Name: WeAt Notice of Public Meeting Project Number: E D'1 - O0 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance 044..(, 06A4-4/— Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt gow.A ---- 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 1°1 day of Nwerh%in the ' year 20 0') PA ADMINISTRATIVEFORMSWORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: WeAt vcso Lv 0efLic floe S 6(6(4 Project Number: E D'1 - O0 0 Mailer's Signature: 044..(, 06A4-4/— Person requesting mailing: gow.A ---- PA ADMINISTRATIVEFORMSWORMSWFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION rU ∎SMARMY GRESiO.F,dENGINFERS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMI TION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE WASH () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF'd.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL IIINE FISHERIES SERVICE INGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV �Q DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* () 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 TRADE () DEPT OF FISHERIES ECONOMIC C DEV. WILDLIFE KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT 011 () FIRE DISTRICT 02 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION () K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE W.JION1LA SCHOOL DISTRICT U.....MIA LIBRARY () RENTON UBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS ()POUCE () PLANNING () PARKS & REC. () CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR OTHER LOCAL AG ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 34.MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM .FISHERIES PROGRAM (iTrN ; IZaVt4% wail-6%45 ( ) WILDUFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL P :ADMINISTRATIVEWORMSTHKLIST.DOC 3raa > -t& ( 32 c-«sr odd -t-4. Semi e.r (-OA 101 MEDIA () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE TOK!C. OEVAIENVIRTSERVICESTSEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL �K� IANDI& WM ERIRESOURCES fFOSTER(LIBRI1RYa ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) 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 AU. SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. ENCIES • ,BUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION *SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.VWWV 5 u H ✓LIoo: r' Horn- pnt5 r oeus WON 11,1 s k uoncR 014 D aw L s P^lse:01' LJ �Ur fig° ?Oat., aQto`l SEPA MAILINGS ;r Mail to: (comment period starts ate of mailing) P De t. of Ecology Environmenta view Section 'Applicant 'Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) 'Any parties of record • ' send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination KC Transit Division. -:SEPA Official would like to receive information about all projects that might affect transit demand Send These Documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan,elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: 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 corn ments 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 Shorebirds Section . State Attorney General 'Applicant . •.Indian Tribes 'Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Any parties of record ' send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures & shoreline - Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) P: IADMINISTRATIVEIFORMSCHICLIST .DOC • City of Tedcwg h/ • Department of Com ; unity Development MEMORANDUM Steven M Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director November 19, 2007 To: Jack Pace, Director, Dept. of Community Development Fm: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Re: Project File No. E07 -009: Wells Fargo CV Operations Building and Stand Alone Parking Lot Project Description: Construct a 12,983 sq. ft. new tilt -up concrete building for sorting and storage of paper products within 200 feet of the Green River. A 5,682 sq. ft. covered truck loading area will be constructed as part of the building of steel and CMU. A parking lot for 56 cars will be constructed on an adjacent parcel for overflow parking to be used by an existing Wells Fargo building that is used for training as well as the other Wells Fargo building and the new building. The sites are located at a bend in the Green River which surrounds the sites on the south and east sides (see aerial photo, page three). A U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Section 205 levee runs along the riverward side of the sites. Proponent: Jessica Bradley, Craft Architects for Wells Fargo Location: Sperry Drive and S. 180th Street Date prepared: July 31, 2007 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development CL Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc Page 1 of 8 11/15/2007 4:03:00 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Department of Ecology Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Existing Environmental Information: • Geotechnical Report dated April 17, 2007 prepared by Geo Engineers, Inc. • Technical Information Report, dated July 21, 2007; revised November 8, 2007 prepared by Barghausen Engineering. Comments on SEPA Checklist: Page 5, #5b. The Puget Sound Chinook salmon has been listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as a threatened species. This species is found in the Green River which borders the development sites on the south and east. Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth The site is generally flat, with the maximum slope 2% outside of the levee. Two soil borings were taken on the site. The geotechnical report prepared by Geo Engineers identified alluvial soil deposits: the sod at the surface was underlain by silty sand in a loose to very loose moist condition that extends to about 6.5 feet below ground surface. Below this layer are interbedded layers of very soft or loose silt, sandy silt, silty sand and organic silt with peat inclusions to a depth of 26.5 feet. Below this layer is a layer of sand with silt that ranges from loose to medium dense. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 10 feet below ground surface on the first boring and 8 feet in the second boring. Groundwater depths vary seasonally, with levels being generally higher in the winter and spring months. The Report recommends the site be pre- loaded for at least one month and surcharged to reduce the potential for unacceptable post - construction settlement. CL Page 2 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 Approximately 500 cubic yards will excavated on -site and 2,500 cubic yards of imported fill will be placed on site for the pre - loading. Approximately 700 cubic yards of stripped soil will be hauled off -site. A rock construction entrance and silt fencing will be used to reduce run -off of sediment during construction. Post construction, landscaping and the installed surface water control will provide erosion control. Air During construction small quantities of vehicle emissions, paint odors and dust will occur during grading. After the project is complete, typical quantities of vehicle emissions from on -site traffic can be expected Water The subject parcels are located in a horseshoe bend of the Green River, which abuts the building site on the south and the parking area on the east. The project is subject to the State Shoreline Management Act as the site development takes place within the 200 foot shoreline jurisdiction. A small portion of the landscape area falls within the River Environment with the parking area and a portion of the new building falling within the Low Impact and High Impact shoreline environments. The new parking lot falls within the Low and High Impact shoreline environments. CL Page 3 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo\E07 -008 StaffRpt.doc SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 The project site does not lie within a 100 -year flood plain as it lies behind a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer (COE) levee that was recently re- certified. The COE has identified a section of the riverbank just upstream from this site as having been damaged in the winter storms of 2006 and in need of immediate repair. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District and the COE to develop a plan to repair these deficiencies and provide adequate bank stability. The width of the current levee easement does not allow for adequate side slope angles and levee slumping is the result. To correct these deficiencies the applicant has been requested to provide additional easement area to allow the levee to be set back at a maximum slope of 2.5 to 1. The City's Flood Control Ordinance requires abutting property owners to bring deficient levees up to current design standards and to grant flood control easements to the King County Flood Control District and the City of Tukwila (TMC 16.52.100 C.). Since the City is already working with the Corps of Engineers and King County to upgrade the levee, the City will only require that the property owner grant additional easements to allow the repair to take place. If the additional easements cannot be secured, it will be up to the property owner to repair the levee per Corps of Engineer and King County standards. The requested easement width is 125 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark along both river frontages. Existing parking can remain but may need to be reconfigured during the actual levee construction by the County. The property owner has agreed to provide the additional easement area. This will permit achieving a 2.5:1 side slope of the levee and the inclusion of a bench at the base of the levee that will be planted with native vegetation to improve the habitat along the river. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from surface water, nor will there be any surface water or ground water withdrawals or diversions. No discharges of waste materials to surface waters will occur. The building will be connected to the City of Tukwila's sewage system. Runoff from the parking areas and building roof will be collected onsite in an underground detention and water quality vault prior to discharge to City storm water line in S. 180th Street. The storm water line flows to the P -17 storm water pond to the north. Plants Both the site for the new building and the site for the new parking area are covered with grass. One cottonwood tree, approximately 36 feet tall, exists on the parcel that will be developed with the parking lot. This tree falls outside the shoreline area. No other trees or vegetation exists on the parcels to be developed. Formal landscaping CL Page 4 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 will be provided at the new building site and in the parking lot, as required by the Zoning Code. Native and drought tolerant plantings will be used throughout the site. Animals The SEPA Checklist does not note any animals that have been observed on or near the site nor the presence of any threatened or endangered species on or near the site. Given the location of the site in an oxbow of the Green River, it is reasonable to assume that songbirds, ducks, crows and Canadian geese are probably located on or near the site. The site is located along the Pacific Flyway migration route. The only mammals observed on the site have been rodents. The National Marine Fisheries Service has listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as a threatened species. This species is known to inhabit the Green River. Energy/Natural Resources Electricity and natural gas will be used in the building for heating and other uses normal for office uses. Diesel fuel will be used to supply power to the backup generator and in the construction equipment during construction. The project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. The building will be designed and constructed to meet the Washington State Energy. Environmental Health No environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill or hazardous waster will be generated by the proposed uses on the parcels. Special emergency services required as a result of the proposed project are fire, ambulance and police. Site safety design techniques will be used including signage for traffic circulation, pedestrian walkways and site lighting to minimize environmental health hazards. Noise is generated by traffic along S. 180th Street and Sperry Way South street in front of the site and to the east. Construction noise will occur during regular hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Noise will be generated from vehicles and trucks once the building is open for business. Land/Shoreline Uses Both of the sites proposed for development are currently vacant although they are located in a small commercial /light industrial park developed with a bank training CL Page 5 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 facility, a processing center also owned by Wells Fargo and a manufacturing operation related to the aerospace industry. As noted earlier, the sites are located in an oxbow of the Green River, with the river on the south side of one parcel and the east side of the other. The site is designated Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned TUC. The proposed use is consistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation. The Shoreline Master Program designation is Urban and the proposal must obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Approximately 20 people will work in the new building initially when construction is completed. Ultimately, up to 30 -35 people may work in the facility at maximum capacity. Housing No housing exists on the site. Aesthetics The type of construction proposed for the building is tilt up concrete. The project is subject to design review and will be considered by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. There are no buildings located in the River or Low Impact Environment of the shoreline. The truck delivery area, which is 22 feet in height, falls within the High Impact shoreline environment. Light/Glare The building and parking area will have exterior security lighting. The light fixtures will be shielded to minimize any light trespass off -site. Recreation A pedestrian/bike trail system exists on the top of the levee which contains the Green River. Sidewalk already exists along S. 180th Street; a sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of the new building site to connect the new building with the street CL Page 6 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 Historic /Cultural Preservation There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for national state or local preservation registers on the two sites to be developed. Transportation Both sites will be accessed via Sperry Drive, a private road which connects to S. 180th Street at a signalized intersection. A transit stop is located at the northeast corner of the parcel to be developed with the building. This site will include 24 new parking stalls. The other parcel , Parcel B, will be developed with 54 parking stalls, to be used by the bank training facility. Traffic concurrency fees and traffic mitigation fees will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance. Public Services The development of this site as a warehouse /office building will generate an increased need for public services such as police and fire. Utilities Utilities currently available at the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, storm water and sanitary sewer. No additional utilities are anticipated to be needed as a result of the building construction. Public Comments Comments were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during the public comment period. The Tribe had the following questions about the project. The questions are in italics with the staff /applicant response following. 1. Where does the storm system that will receive stormwater from this project drain to? The checklist is incomplete. Response: The stormwater will be detained in a water quality vault and then be discharged to a City of Tukwila storm water system in S. 180th Street which then discharges to the P -17 pond, which lies just to the northeast of Costco. 2. How large is the deciduous tree that will be removed? What species of tree is it? How close to the Green River is this tree? Response: The deciduous tree to be removed is a cottonwood, is approximately 385 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark. This area falls outside of the CL Page 7 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc • • SEPA Staff Report E07 -008 Wells Fargo CV Building November 19, 2007 shoreline environment and is therefore exempt from the City's Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54) which requires replacement of trees removed from sensitive areas. 3. Will the project include any low impact development techniques as described in the Low Impact Development guidelines (http: / /www.psat.wa.gov /Publications /LID tech manual05 /lid index.htm; additional information is available at the Puget Sound Action Team's website)? If not, why not? Response: The City's stormwater code encourages the use of LID development but does not require its use. The revised landscape plan, sheet L -1, uses a fifteen (15) foot wide landscape area along the south side of the stand alone parking area for additional water quality as a bio- filtration swale, also to disperse the runoff to minimize the impact to the downstream system. 4. What is the purpose of the "meandering dry creek bed with boulders that will be added along the NE corner of Parcel E? Is this feature needed? Would it be possible to replace this feature with planting trees along the areas of the Green River that are within 200 feet of the project areas to create shade and a source of organic materials for the Green River. Response: The dry creek bed is a landscaping feature provided to comply with the City's front yard landscaping requirements. This feature includes landscape material as well as the rocks that comprise the creek bed. The COE does not permit trees to be planted on certified levees due to concern about destabilization. The applicant is granting additional easement area to the City and the King County Levee District to permit the setting back of the levee at a future date. This will permit creation of a bench that can be planted to provide vegetation to improve the river habitat. 5. Please note that applicant's project consistency narrative is in error. There is ESA listed chinook that utilizes this portion of the Green River. In addition, there are steelhead trout and coho, both of which are proposed for listing that also utilize this portion of the Green River. Response: Comment noted. The staff report acknowledges the presence of threatened species in the Green River adjacent to the proposed development site and the file copy of the Checklist has noted this correction. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance CL Page 8 of 8 11/15/2007 3:58:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \E07 -008 Staff Rpt.doc Carol Lumb - Fwd: Wells Fargo Bank pc From: Carol Lumb To: internet:Holly.Coccoli@muckleshoot.nsn.us Date: 11/19/2007 11:45 am Subject: Fwd: Wells Fargo Bank project Hi Holly: Attached is the e-mail I sent Karen as well as a copy of her original comments that came in. We hope to issue SEPA today; if so, the deadline for comments or an appeal to be filed is December 3, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. If my boss (the SEPA official) doesn't sign until tomorrow, then the deadline will be December 4th. If, after you've looked over our response to Karen's concerns, you feel there are any unresolved issues, please let me know. I am out of the office 11/21 - 11/26, back in the office Tuesday, November 27th. My telephone number is 206 - 431 -3661. Thanks - have a great Thanksgiving. Carol Lumb Carol Lumb - Out of Office AutoReply: From: To: Date: Subject: Is FargoBank project[Scanned] "Karen Walter" < Karen .Walter @muckleshoot.nsn.us> "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 11/18/2007 2:11 pm Out of Office AutoReply: Wells Fargo Bank project[Scanned] Hello, e)03e. 04_ c4m n.us,vr F V str I am currently out of the office until December 3 2007. If you are sending something that needs urgent resolution, please call (253) 939 -3311 and ask for Holly Coccoli. Otherwise, 1'11 get back to you about this issue when I return. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division jot itle.,4_ti (..6 it1 (o LGe-C,: Carol Lumb - Wells Fargo Bank projec From: To: Date: Subject: Hi Karen: Carol Lumb Karen.Walter @muckleshoot.nsn.us 11/18/2007 2:09 pm Wells Fargo Bank project We are getting ready to issue SEPA for the Wells Fargo site (hopefully 11/19 if Jack gets a change to review the materials) - you will be getting a copy of the staff report, DNS etc. but wanted to give you a heads up and give you the responses to the questions /comments you had on the project: -The storm water runoff will first drain to a detention vault (for the site with the new building) then into a storm water drainage system the drains to the north along Andover Park East to the City's P -17 storm water pond (just north of Costco). The new parking lot will have a drainage swale on the south side of the lot as well as a storm water vault under the southwest corner of the parking lot. -The deciduous tree to be removed is approx. 36 feet tall and appears to be a Swamp Cottonwood. It is ± 375 ft. from the river, so it is outside the shoreline environment so not regulated by our Tree Ordinance as it is outside a sensitive area. -The stand along parking lot has incorporated a drainage swale to provide additional water quality before the water discharges to the storm water vault. I will give you a call to discuss the dry creek bed feature. I am out in the field first thing Monday a.m. but then in the office the rest of the day, so I will try to reach you sometime after 10:00 a.m. Hope you had a good weekend. Carol • CiOr of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number E Ci -0o L.0 - ° 35 5 kokbA -e, Lo 1- o31 - iZ LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: ❑ Building ❑ Planning Public Works ❑ Fire Dept. ❑ Police Dept. ❑ Parks /Rec Project: W e:�ts PCw3,c� G" 0 pe4r r Y On Address: . Date transmitted: t t-- .'4 -al _ Response requested by: I t - 1 Staff - coordinator: C✓DA Date response received: COMMENTS. 'YU I r sfutonuAkqi , 4 e.vl . p 1404/, c24-4- T i ga-. —) pl14^- +c> 1,4,..E Sc-PA- (444 t 'C . A ti( L i a� r tee) Imo, - 6 T ,, 3 -- (--4 4 it4- 4-(k_ l L ❑ DRC review requested Plan check date: ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved Comments prepared by: rUiI ©. HGEOC 11=, [IK7D i 1N7INd013A30 cool E I ZION OAL3d La4O0 MIEpORir Proposed Was Fargo-CV Operation Intersection of South 180th Street and Sperry Drive Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Craft Architects 1932 - 1st Avenue, Suite 405 Seattle, WA 98101 Mal, 2007 evised November 8, 2007 o. 2858 1EXF1-E3 10/10/Of 4p- 1 4"� CO ___ z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX Z �' ~ - 2 BRANCH OFFICES O OLYMPIA, WA O TACOMA, WA O SACRAMENTO, CA O TEMECULA, CA GT1 a 44 , • y www.barghausen.com < ' ENG04" • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 — Site Location Figure 3 — Drainage Basins Figure 4 — Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS RECEIVED NOV 13 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System • E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL • 12858.003.doc • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW • • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW • The proposed Wells Fargo -CV Operation will consist of development on three separate lots. The first lot, located at the southwest corner of South 180th Street and Sperry Drive, will consist of a new building, detention and water quality facilities, parking, landscaping, etc., on a previously undeveloped site. The lot immediately south of that lot is already developed but will have modifications made to the parking lot with additional parking being added, etc. There is also a lot located on the east side of Sperry Drive of approximately 0.83 acre in size that will have a parking lot added to it consisting of approximately 0.43 acre of developed area on that lot. This lot is previously undeveloped and consists of pastureland. The proposed sites are located in a portion of Government Lot 4 of Section 36, and Government Lot 1 of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. Please refer to the subbasin map within this section of this Preliminary TIR for an exact location of the contributing basins and developed areas of each lot. • • The Green River forms the project site's eastern and western boundary as this site is located on a horseshoe bend in the Green River. The City of Tukwila has already indicated that Level 1 Flow Control with Basic Water Quality, based on the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), will be the proposed means of flow control and water quality for this project site. This project is proposing two separate wet/detention vaults discharging from the western basin into an existing 30 -inch pipe conveyance system flowing westerly in South 180th Street, and the smaller east basin will discharge into an 18 -inch concrete pipe flowing north in Sperry Drive, all draining into the same 30 -inch storm pipe system flowing westerly in South 180th Street. All three lots that will be constructed are essentially flat, except for their frontage with the Green River, which is bermed up with a walking path at the top of the berm, approximately 5 feet higher than the site. 12858.003.doc • DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA WEST BASIN Developed: Total area draining to the wet/detention vault = 1.46 acres of which 1.20 acres is impervious and 0.20 acre is considered till grass Pre - developed: 0.99 acre of till pasture 0.47 acre of impervious 1.46 acres total EAST BASIN Developed: 0.41 acre of impervious 0.02 acre of till grass 0.43 acre total Pre - developed: • 0.43 acre till pasture • 12858.003.doc • • • FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER -AND PROJECT', ENGINEER Project Owner Wells Fargo Address South 180th Street and Sperry Drive Phone Project Engineer Ali Sadr Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address /Phone 18215 - 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 / (425) 251 -6222 `Part 3 TYPE OF :PERMIT. APPLICATION ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Grading ® Commercial ❑ Other art 2 "PROJECT. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION,, Project Name Wells Fargo -CV Operation Location Township 23 North Range 4 East Section(s) 35 and 36 Part 4: OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ COE 404 ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ COE Wetlands Shoreline ❑ Management ❑ Rockery E) Structural Vaults ❑ Other _ :Part'5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN" Community Tukwila Drainage Basin Green River Part4 SITE CHARACTERISTICS River Stream Critical Stream Reach Depressions /Swales Lake Steep Slopes ❑ Floodplain ❑ Wetlands ❑ Seeps /Springs ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Other • 12858.003.doc Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Newberg Nooksack Slopes ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION Sedimentation Facilities ® Stabilized Construction Entrance ® Perimeter Runoff Control ® Clearing and Grading Restrictions ® Cover Practices ® Construction Sequence ❑ Other MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Stabilize Exposed Surface ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities O Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ▪ Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATERSYSTEM. ❑ Grass Lined Channel ® Pipe System ❑ Open Channel ® Dry Pond ® Wet Pond ❑ Tank ® Vault ❑ Energy Dissipater ❑ Wetland ❑ Stream ❑ Infiltration ❑ Depression ❑ Flow Dispersal ❑ Waiver ❑ Regional Detention Method of Analysis KCRTS Compensation/Mitigation of Eliminated Site Storage Brief Description of System Operation Catch basin collection to pipe conveyance to wet/detention vault to discharge off site. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation 12858.003.doc • Part 11 STRUCTURAL: ANALYSIS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part';12 . EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEER;. I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. • Signed/Dated 7- Zo -o1 12858.003.doc • FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION • • -PM. 5 •,1 S 180TH ST L 'ST.' s aisLa .11 '41` 1186101<, rs? ST N2y, SCA Li' 1 04111 IAN 3,ITHI Lg sjs.-ss' VAf - PARK TYEE ,S8 V- I • HS MAP -4.01■11111,11Milla ,,,. : s, ‘. • - '..,, . -: •• . 71 -.' 80,41/rTH ' ST-41.11:11 alliiii."111"11111111111111. ±.;.' ..y E. 417 7 's .^-17411111117eis! / 35J - - 1.' ' „s I. , sl 1 • SPR I NGBROOK , .41-1T-.07-71' r - . ' — • ii- . .3.-----1---------- s I 1.820 t ' GREENBELT 1 -fl i . ol - ISs.,1118482TNHO_STst ., TIJ 181 Xr—i- NI 1 r-2I I-1 ^. S- I86TH ".1 v, ... ST . - . S 188TH St S 188TH ST s SEE 5600 KbA DERS°4 ,SEATTLEAT CAMPGR • I ' GREEN. 218T}Is . 6800 • Yip.i1v;WCO• .5 Z.VeZTA. miles 1 15. - 1900 ft. SEE • FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS • • • • • me 116000 ou n0 .ter 070 000000 ./600 00 OCR N Car BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 36 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. SW 43RD STREET SOO. Isom _cm 00 . crmc 5.7:55 m0 100 ow 00 6051E5 rp 4 xlW/ O10 IR ,NNa 4A405CNmo - -- Dart tatft OREEN RIVER 0L. 000 IT ,_as, [ it Nnar 0100BON 7001 /05.2 5.03 e Ir m0 a2113 \crnaam crnaam .fop COOT 00 050 I orv,I [ IT MC 0.01.41 IT OM 0.0.15 0 15 ]0 LEGEN D 0 ! ow NON IIN0L 660 Olaap 603 WOW Pr m [4 m.[ loo *0 OM IN MOW po icom R 10� 06610 131151121 1106 0 u000 m 60 W 4®e •1541 w smarat maa Oh 0060 snarastE '10 .00 .N[ • \ .o ma0o \ „•155..- � [[0,04010 [4, maw 01*0 WPM 9 *0) MOO 0600 066 4,0 LC .060 COME MI OK ,Nm 104 ,[ 5530 55..55 uc -X- 004 O[ Inc 11 PuDevELOPEp• �h5 I N MAP (9.99 AG. t:11 pdcsre at*? ;eye ✓ivKs 701-14-LA 0- 4005060X0 OM -..0- [Rmw uM Coma W[I- 1 1 .W� r r roc .sN.mw c r ..c a.ma • LT PM r *s S J D • tiSorte OP PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN WELLS FARGO — CV OPERATION A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 36 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. _ SW 43RD STREET 030.180 rat2: :6¢: aa••>..c .cwoa a. K• Y`!tt^ X c0x cdds>gµ• 76 25.5 • 0", ..65 111.65. 6' PVC ROOF DOWNSPOUT COLLECTION RIPE - zs 7 PROPOSED BLDG. cB /6 TYRE 1 • ....% RiN =26.5 E =72 T 26.2 A 2.1' 7 111511!1 �re 71-7 77117171717-1711171 �yi 1111- ��'•-a �.__. l _ 1 • L 11 � 1 1 STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION/WATER QUALITY WET VAULT (88Ix20'8• DEEP) MAX. WS EL -23.5 STATIC WS EL -20 5 BOTTOM VAULT EL -16.0 Ex BLDG C8/4 TYPE 1 RM =250 _ 1 —4 H7-7,1-- ■ PEA,u0rEp pAGoN MAP 4200f @OW DU At,. VI( /� V 06% A \\ 11.10 �• O l'�� OW jJ COW3 TYPE 2_48• .+x;,, 0 WITH SOUR LACgwr.R _AVID SPILL CBIHROL TEE N -26.O U 4 0 c)6. tlio r,nS • iE -22.40 STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION/WATER OUAUTY VAULT (20'84'x7' DEEP) B07TOM VAULT EL =17.0 STATIC WS EL =21.9 NAX. WS EL =24.5 C13/2 TYPE 1 \ RIM-3 E� 5.0 D 1 .row 111 • 6014 COT 06:f3g 000&4c. t:11 cy\em alet o rtrGod o ®g s 000 Rz. ycynt ACT 1014E ■ ■ ■ .2 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN WELLS FARGO - CV OPERATIONS TUKWILA, WASH. c O EL _ LL1 U z < O L1.1 437 I a ui Q_ O EC w CO CNC 111111 Xref: $(OETVAR,4?) AN Scale:0.450005 N $ r • FIGURE 4 SOILS MAP • • Job No.128581 11 -,4• ..1:alf ;LongacreS :fatt IR,ped.-11.116 le.1 Ur Track • 0 Soils Map 'G eNG • • TABLE 2.-- ESTIMATED PROPERTIES Soil series and map symbols Depth to seasonal high water table Classification Coarse fraction greater gran 3 Percentage passing sieve- - Depth from surface USDA texture Unified AASHO inches in diameter No. 4 (4.7 mm.) Feet Inches Percent 0 -10 *Everett: EvB, EvC, EvD, (V) 0 -17 Gravelly sandy loam -- SM A -1 60-90 EwC. 45 For Alderwood part of EwC, see Alderwood 17 -32 Very gravelly sandy loam. GM A -1 5-10 -55 series. 32 -60 Very gravelly coarse sand. GW or GP A -1 5 -20 35 -45 Indianola: InA, InC, (11) 0 -30 Loamy fine sand SM A -2 0 90 -100 InD. 30 -60 Sand SP-SM A -3 0 -5 90-100 Kitsap: KpB, KpC, KpD - -- 11-3 0 -24 Silt loam ML A -4 0 95 -100 24-60 Silty clay loam MH A-6 0 95-100 Klaus: KsC (/) 0 -60 Very gravelly loamy sand and very grav- elly sand. CP -GM A -1 20 -40 40 -50 Mixed alluvial land: Ma. Properties are too variable to rate. Seasonal high water table is at the surface. Neilton: NeC (21) 0 -18 Very gravelly loamy sand. CP -GM A -1 0 -15 40-50 18 -60 Very gravelly sand - - -- GW or GP A -1 5-15 35-45 Newberg: Ng 3-4 0 -60 Very fine sandy loam -- ML A -4 0 100 Nooksack: Nk 3-4 0-60 Silt loam ML A-4 0 100 — Norma: No 0 -1 0-60 Sandy loam SM A -2 0 95-100 Orcas: Or 0 -1 0 -60 Sphagnum peat Pt A-8 Oridia: Os 1 -2 0 -64 Silt loam ML A-6 or A -7 0 100 Ovall: OvC, OvD, OvF - - -- (V) 0 -36 Gravelly loam SC or SM A -4 0 -5 70-80 36 Weathered andesite. Pilchuck: Pc, Pk 2 -4 0 -38 Loamy fine sand SM A -2 0 85-100 (Fine sandy loam surface layer in Pk) 38-60 Gravelly sand - SP A -1 0 -15 55 -95 See footnotes at end of table. 38 OF THE SOILS -- Continued Percentage passing sieve - -Cont. Permeabilityr Available water capacity Reaction Corrosivity No. 10 (2.0 mm.) No. 40 (0.42 mm.) No. 200 (0.074 mm.) Shrink.-swell potential Uncoated steel Concrete 50 -85 40 -50 20 -35 85 -100 75 -90 90 -100 95-100 30 -40 30 -40 20 -35 100 100 85 -100 95 -100 65 -75 80 -100 50 -90 35 -50 20 -30 5 -15 60 -75 55 -75 90 -100 95 -100 10 -20 10 -20 5 -15 85 -95 95 -100 35 -55 95- 100 50-6o 60 -75 30 -40 15 -25 10 -15 0 -5 20 -30 5 -10 85 -95 90 -100 5 -10 5 -10 0 -5 50 -60 95 -100 25 -35 90 -100 35 -50 20 -30 0 -5 Inches /hr. Inches /in. pH 5.1 -6.5 5.1 -6.5 5.6 -6.5 6.1 -6.5 6.1 -6.5 5.5 -6.5 5.1 -6.5 4.0 -6.0 5.1 -6.0 5.6 -6.5 5.6 -7.3 5.6 -6.5 5.6-6.5 4.0 -5.0 4.5 -7.3 5.1 -6.5 6.1 -7.3 6.6 -7.3 Low Low Low Low Low Low Moderate Low - Low Low Low Low Low High shrink, low swell. Low Low Low Low High Low Low Low Low Moderate High Moderate to high. Moderate Low Moderate Moderate High High High Moderate Low Low Moderate to high. Moderate to high. Moderate. Moderate. Moderate. Low to moderate. Low to moderate. Moderate to high. Moderate to high. Moderate. Low to moderate. Low to moderate. Moderate. High. Low to high. Low to moderate. Low to moderate. Low. 2.0 -6.3 ' 6.3 -20.0 >20.0 6.3 -20.0. >20.0 0.63 -2.0 <.06 - 6.3 -20.0+ 6.3 -20.0 >20.0 0.63 -2.0 0.63 -2.0 2.0 -6.3 >20.0 0.2 -2.0 6.3 -2.0 6.3 -20.0 >20.0 of soil 0.08 -0.10 0.06 -0.08 0.02 -0.04 0.09 -0.11 0.04 -0.06 0.20 -0.24 0.04 -0.06 0.03 -0.05 0.03-0.05 0.02 -0.04 0.16 -0.18 0.20 -0.24 0.12 -0.14 0.30 -0.40 0.20 -0.24 0.12 -0.14 0.08 -0.10 0.03-0.05 39 • • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY • • 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY • 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: This project site will discharge into the same downstream conveyance system the site discharges to under existing conditions. It may enter at a different collection point as we are rerouting all runoff from the two developed areas of the site into two separate wet/detention vaults; however, the same downstream drainage course, will be utilized as was used previously. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis. Response: No off -site analysis will be performed for this project site as this downstream drainage course is well- documented by the City of Tukwila as runoff courses in a large diameter pipe conveyance system in South 180th Street in a westerly direction. The City is well aware of the location of discharge from this project site. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: The City of Tukwila has already indicated that Level 1 Flow Control will be the required means of detention for this project site. Therefore, we assume that this will be adequate for this site. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system for this project site will be sized based on the Modified Rational Method as delineated in the 1998 KCSWDM ,as adopted by the City of Tukwila, such that the 100 -year storm will be conveyed without overtopping any catch basins, and utilizing a 6.3- minute initial time of concentration and Manning's "n" value of 0.014. Please refer to the Final TIR for the conveyance system sizing calculations. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project site will conform to all erosion and sedimentation control requirements of the 1998 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Tukwila, such that clearing limits will be specified, perimeter protection will be installed in the form of silt fences, traffic area stabilization will be maintained by a construction entrance and by sweeping the surrounding roadways on a regular basis. In addition, a sediment retention trap will be installed on the project site (if required). Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project site will conform to all maintenance and operation requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This project site will conform to all financial guarantees and liability • requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. 12858.003.doc • • • Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: The City of Tukwila has already indicated, in correspondence, that Basic Water Quality is the only water quality required for this project site. Therefore, this project is proposing a wet vault located below the live storage in a wet/detention vault for both areas of the project site that are being developed. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area - Specific Requirements. Response: This project is not part of a critical drainage area or within an area covered by a Master Drainage Plan, a Basin Plan, a Lake Management Plan, or Shared Facility Drainage Plan; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Development Within a Floodplain or Floodway. Response: This project is adjacent to the Green River on both sides of the project site. The 100 -year floodplain will be delineated on the plans. However, the 100 -year flood of the Green River is contained within the banks of the Green River; therefore, this project site will not be impacted by the 100 -year floodplain of the Green River. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project site is adjacent to a Class I or 1I Stream and has an existing flood protection facility, such as a levee or berm; therefore, the flood protection facilities shall be analyzed and/or designed in conformance with Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) regulations. Since these flood protection facilities are already installed and operating, this requirement does not apply Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: This project site will conform with all source control requirements as delineated in the Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and King County Code, Section 9.12, such that trash enclosures will be covered, the parking lot will be swept regularly, and the property owner will be educated about the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project site is not a high use site nor is it a redevelopment project proposing $100,000 or more of improvements to an existing high use site; therefore, this requirement does not apply. 12858.003.doc • 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS • • 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS • The off -site analysis for this project site was based on City - provided maps which indicate that the entire site drains to the north into the right -of -way of South 180th Street where it is collected in a , pipe conveyance system coursing westerly through 30- and 36 -inch pipe for approximately 450 feet until coming to the east side of the right -of -way of Andover Park East. Runoff is then coursed northerly for approximately 2,300 feet in Andover Park East through 36 -inch pipe initially, but the vast majority of the pipe conveyance system is 42 -inch diameter pipe which discharges at Minkler Boulevard coursing easterly in a large ditch for approximately 1,350 feet with one culvert sized to 114 inches in the course of this ditch. Also the discharge location of this ditch is the P17 pond where runoff is collected and then pumped into the Green River almost immediately adjacent to the pond. The City has indicated there is no downstream conveyance problems with this downstream conveyance system and there is plenty of capacity in the system for development of this project. • • 12858.003.doc • DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE COURSE MAPS • • 1' P 1 vi✓.__._.. r 9�._..._.._.... �. f !497) (497) (12 99) 1.'GAc 7i 46 11; co (4 (437) (452) CITY 11411-- 0 (492) _.. _�_�1 (490) (493) •—. --�' IS' (825) TL. r; 0 J u 2s PLC. (919) 34'f:'fR// c.;N:•�� r 1 PU6ET WESTERN INC. 21.5b Ac. 0.354 t3 4'.u' >•: 57 DEARINGER .N •SAMMAMISH COMM CO INC. 1.75 At. r� TL.20 V SAXON INDUSTR$E INC 11.77 Ac. J/'J JOHN T WELCH 3.1. I A(.. T'L. f,7 pART T L sa 16 b n• t r r r l II P le I3 A...11110N p/ zc Si ,/10ti17f, cS SCARSELL.A BROS. INC �4- ..a1,0 111 "•r 33 36 ',DR] ) : _•:_r.SAX0N DR/VE POR TL 64 r'oN • rctr 5.814c. • . ......,,. • T. L 17 • 9Gt�' Gov't Lof 2 18.00 Acres • S.P. 346 -79 / (2) MEM (40..54 ( 1) • 6 i5 3' 7-U BAR`OW F 4ITE 1 ( 1 i 1 i '111 I ...,...... - i 4 -1 .. •) U -yam.:, - - i ■ I 1 r 1 r r' i i F i i \ i I �.I I 1 1 ■ ri (I �1 ri ' 3 r fir./ L• _.— .... _ _ _� I I 30 t .11 rt. .1 1r.r3yiRc.w1rL.s3j %L. a, . ,v rr i6 p1 CH. DIST.' 3 i '1:)-43RD -43RD ..r , I r lf1 ‘r--t• 7730✓Ac. \,\ -. ' ?L./C ,3. tt` k .. ��. [hi &c. ARCHER 81.01A & PPE. CO. IN 7 0,14..17 S f81Sr ST is • VICINITY MAP • • • SE:= 1g.Pli'ST); SPRINGBROOK+ GR£ENB£L L :s-H i82ND;ST. 01 s I84TH S7 Vicinity Map Job No.12858 • SENSITIVE AREAS MAP • • Sensitive Areas Map Job No.12858 • • X deol Highlighted Feature County Boundary Mountain Peaks CAO Shoreline Condition Nigh Medium Low Highways Incorporated Area Streets Highway ArtenalS Local Parcels Agricultural Waterways Wildlife Network SAO Stream Class 1 Class 2 Paranoia' C lass 2Salmonid Class 3 U nclassifiod r Legend Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Floodway 100 Year Floodplain Channel Migration Hazard Areas MOO ERATE SEVERE Sole Source Aquifer SAO Wetland SAO Landslide SAO Coal Mine SAO Seismic SAO Erosion Chinook Distribution Sensitive Area Notice on Title Drainage Complaints Areas Susceptable to Groundwater Contamination Low Medium (cant) n High CAO Basin Condition High Medium Low Shaded Relief • ASSESSOR'S MAP • 7,l i �QyPr m�, we . MOM. 01124.n ._ __.__... SOUTHCENTER SOUTH INDUSTRIAL`PARK aw +w GA$DE TR 4' s sopso ORILLIA GARDEN TRACTS Assessor's Map 1 Job No.128581 • SOILS MAP • • FEMA MAP • • MAMMAL ROW WORM MOM FIRM ROOD INSURANCE RACE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PAN+ 910 Of Ms COMMIT WKS M EL 41010 MAP NUMBER 5307360910 F NAP ROM MAY 16,1995 Federal Emergency M.eprm.DC Agency I® I I LEGEND S Cl .1 8000 ENZAID ARIAS +000m .T ION NE 201. en.... -1 1.• e....— w -.. w...0 +...+a w I Oa, .. M..A ..w Opea •••• a'NM al •44I• DWI to Ike paw. a. •• 8000 00Y MIAs 01 2Or0 AL Ora 8000 MOS 01001 ARIA LRNEVROIO COASTAL 1ARR.5 ▪ +n.F .... •10.a.. tl•a • atee8 Rosa boa. 3m.so,, • Ana Da 01 w 1 W. m NOTES M'r P00 Nw— Nan nom .nw.1e EN No W.w Wow. Mb a n EN* ENANN No. M Am. Aar NA. IN.e' NAN r.... Ors A At IMAO., +17 1- ...ewe ...ewe .w.. b ea. ew b o. twee M.k rem.,• • w I•• Ewisn...M. Men.. iN.sr ..... Os* Os* M w No* Aes * neew r.wnwM6Nwb.e wen • sae ANNA NY +s Ww• NA.* IN .w.. E. w e•Ww • w Om wens AM Aew. • MAP +00041010 Awn a .a... - .. Ms wbe EFFECT. MR Of COLI.N.f FLOOD INSURANCE MR MA.. UP.. MORI EIECT % DAMP 0+ IIENS%N14 TO INN PANEL •• • ...erM1n wren way et MO ..AM. '^• • 36 CITY OF KENT ZONE X 530060 NE 160 AN FF ZONE X ZONE AL FEMA Map Job No.128581 • BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORT • • • • • RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 24 LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington • King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District Cynthia Sullivan. District Bill Reams, District 3 Lois •North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle. Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arm/ Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel. Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural. Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poor', Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Rohert R. Fuerstenberg. Biologist & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon. Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Rohert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUM1MARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 4 1. Erosion damage 5 2. Threat of landsliding 5 3. Sedimentation 5 4. Destruction of fish habitat 5 • IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. Prevent accelerated erosion and landsliding 6 B. Improve habitat 7 V. MAP 9 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Ranking APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations • A -1 B -1 C -1 • • • I. SUMMARY The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between the cities of Tukwila and Auburn. The study area considered here includes the unincorporated areas of the basin, which can be roughly separated into northern and southern portions that are divided by the Lower Green River. The two portions are distinctly different in their development patterns, with the northern area dominated by the commercial development of South Center shopping mall, two major interstate freeways, and light industrial activities. In the southern portion, single - family residential land uses dominate. Urbanization processes in this basin are expected to continue, with impervious surfaces in some areas expanding as much as five times their present levels. As might be expected in a basin so heavily urbanized, there are numerous environmental problems. The basin contains many sensitive areas, particularly along the steep slopes of tributary valley walls that are susceptible to erosion and landsliding. Stormflows, which have increased as the basin has been developed, have caused gullying, landsliding, and other damage along many steep slopes. These problems have also increased sedimentation downstream. Flooding has occurred in some places as both natural and artificial conveyance systems have become clogged with sediment. Worst -case examples of erosion were found at the Kent Highlands landfill, adjacent to King County's Grand View Park, where storm flows have caused erosion of the landfill material. Sediments and chemicals from decomposing trash have washed into the stream system. Flooding potential was found on Tributary 0068 at two locations. Fish habitat lossess were significant in the northern portion of the basin, with one of the worst examples located on Tributary 0036. Recommended solutions in the Lower Green River Basin include 1) preventing further erosion and landsliding by using both natural and artificial retention /detention (R /D), prohibiting certain harmful development practices (such as routing storm flows over steep slopes), and revegetating streamhanks; and 2) improving habitat in the basin by preventing the further deterioration of water quality, protecting riparian corridors, and reestablishing streams and streambanks, where feasible. 11. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important element of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage conditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They P:LGR 1 • are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems: instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County officials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site - specific basis for any proposal. III. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN The field investigation in the Lower Green River Basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner, Arny Stonkus, engineer; and Lee Benda, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented in the following discussion. A. Overview of the Basin Geographic and land use features. The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between the cities of Tukwila on the north and Auburn on the south. Parts of the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn lie within the basin, which is divided into two portions. The southern portion lies east of the Green River between the cities of Kent and Auburn; the northern portion lies west of the Green River between the Kent -Des Moines Road and State Road (SR) 518. The southern portion of the basin, .which includes large residential and commercial areas within the city of Auburn, was not included in the study area. The areas that were studied - -the unincorporated parts of this southern portion of the basin -- are primarily contained in the Soos Creek Community Planning Area. Single - family residential land use dominates in this area, although small farms also occupy sizable acreages. The effects of future development may be dramatic, as some subcatchments are projected to expand in impervious surfaces to as much as five times their current levels. This development will be mainly single - family residential, interspersed with some multi - family units. The northern portion of the basin is dominated by the commercial areas of the South Center shopping mall, its surrounding commercial and light- industrial land uses, three major arterials (Interstates 5 11 -51 and 405 [I -405] and Pacific Highway south), and the shopping district north of Seattle- Tacoma (Sea -Tac) International Airport. Single - family residences greatly outnumber multi- family units in this portion of the basin, which is contained in the Highline and Green River Community Planning Areas. Future growth in this northern portion will consist of commercial and multi - family land uses, including the conversion of some areas presently zoned single- family to denser zoning classifications. Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The composition of the geologic materials in the Lower Green River valley is dominated by glacial sediments. The glacial sediments include an extensive till laver that is located at the top of the valley scarp. Deposits of recessional outwash sand and other glacio- fluvial sands are locally P:LGR 2 • • interspersed on top of the till deposits and along the edges of the valley. The valley bottom is made up of more recent alluvial sand and silt deposited by the Green and White Rivers before diversion of the White into the Puyallup River in 1906. The wide floodplain through which the Green River used to meander (before it was diked) is composed of deep floodplain, channel, and lacustrine sediments up to 100 feet thick. There are a few outcrops of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Puget Group in the basin. The morphology of the Lower Green River basin is dominated by the valley that was formed by the Green and White Rivers prior to the most recent glacial advances. The east and west valley walls were cut by numerous minor tributaries originating in the uplands above the valley escarpment. These tributaries formed steep -sided valleys and alluvial -debris fans at the mouths of the basins. Along the tributaries, landslides and slumps play an active role in maintaining the steep, hummocky valley walls. Historically. the Green and White Rivers meandered through the extensive floodplain located between the valley walls. The White River was diverted south to the Puyallup River; the Green has been straightened, diked, and cleaned of organic and inorganic debris, such as trees and boulders. This essentially isolates the river from its natural floodplain and reduces its present role as a geomorphic agent along the valley floor and walls. The upland areas of the basin have a general morphology indicative of glacial abrasion, deposition, and more recent fluvial erosion caused by minor tributaries. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. The Lower Green River Basin is composed of numerous smaller subbasins which are significantly different from each other in their drainage characteristics. The subbasins are mostly urbanized in the northern and rural in the southern portions of the basin where flows enter the Green River via relatively natural stream channels. Alterations in natural stream corridors occur at or near either the Lower Green River itself or at I -5 culvert crossings. Whereas most subbasins studied exhibited serious effects from urbanization, many were in relatively good condition and /or might be potential sites for stream restoration projects. A number of wetlands in the southern section of the basin and a few small lakes scattered throughout the basin help to mitigate some of the effects of peak flows and excess volumes generated from urbanization. Tributaries flowing from the northern side of the basin into the Lower Green River are highly urbanized drainages which are in need of R/D facilities to reduce the present and anticipated runoff associated with expanses of impervious areas. The rural southern drainages are slated for the greatest increases in impervious surface due to proposed developments, and are in need of regional R /D/ facilities. Habitat characteristics. The habitat conditions in the streams of the Lower Green River Basin vary considerably. In the northern portion of the basin habitat has been almost completely destroyed; in the southern portion, there are reaches which have been damaged but might be restored to use by fish and other wildlife. At present, there are no tributaries in this basin which support anadromous fish. Commercial development in the northern portion of the basin has severely altered streams and riparian corridors. The clearing and filling of land, construction of buildings, and roadways and piping and diking of streams have eliminated spawning gravel, and other natural features necessary for fish use. In addition, the extensive acres of impervious surfaces associated with intense commercial development have greatly increased the volumes and rates of storm runoff, thereby eroding and destroying those P:LGR 3 • few remaining natural reaches downstream in the northern portion. Complicating these conditions even further are the flap gates placed along the main stem of the Green River at most points where tributaries enter; these structures would effectively prevent any fish from entering the streams. The southern portion of the basin experiences many of the same habitat problems as the northern portion, however to a lesser extent. This problems could worsen as residential development expands these next few years. Without specific efforts to protect the environment, habitat will be lost in the southern portion of the Lower Green River Basin, as it has been in the northern portion. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin As in many other rapidly growing basins in the County, the Lower Green River Basin suffers from increased rates and volumes of runoff generated by the impervious surfaces of roofs, roads, and parking Tots. When this runoff flows into natural channels, it causes erosion, scour, and downstream sedimentation. Sedimentation fills spawning gravels and pools, eliminates fish habitat; limits channel capacity; and creates the conditions for bank overtopping and flooding. Surface water originating on pavement incorporates greases, oils and other toxic hydrocarbons associated with urban areas. The stormwater that enters drainage ditches flows at an even faster rate than in natural channels, thereby magnifying the damage it can cause. The damages caused by increased runoff in urban areas such as the Lower Green River Basin might be less severe if wetlands, floodplains, and other natural features had been left intact to attenuate and filter the flows. These elements for the most part have disappeared with development. While development has been accompanied by the installation of artificial conveyance and R/D systems, these have often been undersized, poorly designed and installed, or otherwise inadequate to handle the cumulative effects of runoff from new development. For example, the lower portions of Tributaries 0061, 0068, and 0069 were found to contain particularly serious damage in the form of erosion, scour, sedimentation and the elimination of vegetation from streambanks and corridors. Flooding in these tributaries seems to have increased, in part, from the use of undersized drainage pipes. This problem is repeated along the lower reaches of Tributaries 0036A, 0036B, 0036C, and 0038, where flows have have been piped on their approach to I -5 or the Lower Green River. Several extreme cases of erosion - incised channels, and landslides -- in pan resulting from flows diverted from their natural drainage course and passing through King County Grandview Park -- were noted on the Kent Highlands landfill area. The destruction of pre- existing tightlined conveyance systems has caused surface water at this location to flow unchecked over the unconsolidated former gravel pit slopes and natural hillslopes. Erosion in this case will also cause water quality deterioration, as toxicants from deteriorating garbage and sediments eventually enter the Lower Green River. C Specific Problems Identified Problems -- both existing and anticipated -- in the Lower Green River Valley are clearly development - related. Earlier descriptions of the basin and the effects of urbanization pointed out these problems in a general way. Specific details of the most serious problems identified during reconnaissance are provided below. 1. Erosion is damaging both public and private property in the Lower Green River Basin. The majority of the erosion problems in the basin are P:LGR 4 associated with the steep slopes within the small tributary valleys and along the major valley walls. a. Gully erosion is occurring adjacent to King County's Grandview Park, where the routing of concentrated storm flows over the steep hillslopcs could cause even more serious mass - wasting. Such intense gullying is also occurring in the glacio- fluvial sand adjacent to the Kent Highlands landfill, a situation requiring immediate solution. b. Channel and bank erosion from high peak flows is occuring along many tributaries, particularly those with narrow, relatively steep sides. On Tributary 0016 (RM. 10) and Tributary 0069 (RM. 50) there are examples of this type of erosion. 2. Landsliding is both a present and future threat on steep valley walls. The removal of vegetation, as well as the routing of stormwater along steep slopes (see also 1.a. above), may result in landslides. Many of the valley walls show evidence of historic landslide activity, such as scarps, tilled blocks, chaotic terrain, and tilted trees. A portion of land along the valley wall in the landslide terrain has been put up for sale at S 312th St. and 104th Ave. SE. This area should be assessed for its stability prior to development and all regulatory safeguards (statutory and other regulations) should be used to prevent landsliding. 3. Sedimentation accompanies the kind of erosion processes discussed above. For instance sediment is filling the stream channel on Tributary 0068 at river miles .30 and .60. This is reducing channel capacity (increasing the possibility of flooding at these locations), as well as degrading fish habitat and water quality. Severe sedimentation in the lower portion of Tributary 0069, where a sediment fan presents a potential barrier to fish. 4. Fish habitat has been destroyed by urbanization throughout the basin, particularly in the northern portion. a. The elimination of habitat features from streambeds and riparian corridors has made most of the basin's tributaries unusable for fish. As discussed in III.A. above, stream channels have been severely altered in the Lower Green River Basin. As a result, large organic debris, pools, gravels, and other elements of godd instream habitat have disappeared. One of the worst cases was found on Tributary 0036, along the north side of SR 518 near 42nd Avenue S. b. Poor water quality is caused by three separate problems in this basin. First, streams are contaminated by the domestic garbage dumped directly into streambeds and ravines. Second, streams are being adversely affected by the accelerated erosion in the Kent Highlands landfill. Sediment from the landfill is being carried downstream, polluting water and eroding banks along the way. The latter is expected to continue and worsen, if not addressed. Third, greases, oils, and toxic hydro - carbons from highways, parking lots, and commercial areas around South Center are degrading water quality. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The solutions proposed for this basin focus on eliminating damage to the natural drainage system, restoring natural drainage conditions where possible, and preventing further damage P:LGR 5 • throughout the basin as the urbanization process continues. In most cases these solutions will require the cooperation of local government and other interested agencies. At the present time such arrangements already exist among the King County Surface Water Managment Division; the cities of Tukwila. Kent, and Auburn; and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The purpose of these arrangements is to identify and propose solutions to hydraulic and habitat problems in the basin and to develop cost - sharing agreements where capital improvements are required. These efforts should continue, and similar joint work should be undertaken among other interested agencies, as appropriate. A_ Prevent further accelerated erosion and landsliding in the Lower Green River Basin, where possible. Erosion is the source of many other problems discussed in this and other basins reports. By reducing erosion and landslide problems, sedimentation will also be minimized in the both natural and artificial conveyance systems. When sedimentation is reduced flooding problems will be reduced throughout the basin. The steps toward erosion control are listed below. 1. Preserve wetlands for their R/D values, and for the valuable roles they play in enhancing water quality (through filtration) and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Natural R/D facilities, such as wetlands help to attenuate storm flows and prevent accelerated erosion in downstream areas susceptible to erosion damage. The southern portion of the basin contains several wetlands that serve as natural R/D areas. 2. Promote infiltration of excess surface water in upland areas where geologic analysis indicates it will not cause landsliding and other similar problems. Groundwater contaimination should also be considered in this analysis. 3. Preserve vegetation along steep slopes by establishing native growth protection easements, and appropriate building setbacks, and prohibiting vegetation removal. Protected vegetation should include trees as well as shrubs and groundcover. 4. Prohibit the concentration of sormflows over steep slopes. Require that stormflows be attenuated from above with adequate R /D, tightlined or diverted to stable channels. The drainage and erosion problem adjacent to King County's Grandview Park should receive immediate attention to alleviate the severe gully erosion that is presently occurring. S. Prohibit construction along steep slopes identified as landslide hazard areas in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). In addition, strengthen the criteria used by Building and Land Development to review development proposals in landslide hazard areas below valley walls. More restrictive criteria will minimize the potential for property damage for property damage caused by erosion and landsliding in the basin. 6. Prevent instream and bank erosion caused by livestock by limiting their access to stream channels. This will preserve streambank vegetation and eliminate the trampling of banks (a direct source of sedimentation). This is particularly important along the Green River, where livestock are presently causing damage. P:LGR 6 • 7. Construct or upgrade R/D facilities to assure adequacy to contain both current and anticipated stormwater flows. a. Tributary channels currently experiencing channel and bank erosion (e.g., 0061 and 0069) should be analyzed immediately for their R/D needs. Future developments should be reviewed using criteria that require RID provisions to maintain stormwater runoff at the level necessary to prevent adverse impacts such as erosion. h. Upgrade the existing earthern berm and R/D pond on Tributary 0036D at collection point 7 (47th Avenue S and S 173rd) and add energy dissipators for outflow from the pond. This will improve the overall function of the facility. 8. Replace undersized conveyance pipes, where necessary. Analyze the adequacy of pipes at key locations in all areas where development has occurred or is planned. Review natural capacities as part of this assessment for stormwater conveyance. B. Improve habitat in the Lower Green River Basin stream system where practicable. 1. Prevent the deterioration of water quality from the toxicants of mad and parking lot runoff, from domestic trash (including erosion at the Kent Highlands landfill), and from sedimentation. a. Construct an R/D facility on Tributary 0069 adjacent to Wetland 3226 to provide 3 acre -feet of storage. The facility will intercept drainage from roadside ditches on Southeast 312th Street and cleanse it by means of an oil /water separator. b. Increase enforcement of regulations against the dumping of domestic garbage into ravines and stream channels. Garbage not only degrades water quality as it deteriorates, but it creates fish blockages in tributaries (e.g., Trib. 0069 at RM .65). c. See A.4. above, regarding the attenuation of stormflows near Kent Highlands landfill and Grandview Park. Preventing severe erosion at these locations will also decrease the washing of chemicals and sediments from the landfill (adjacent to the Grandview Park) into the stream system. 2. Protect against further destruction to channels and riparian corridors in order to preserve the essential features of fish habitat. a. See A.2., 3. and 6. above for recommendations related to the protection of these resources. b. Establish stream - corridor guidelines to prohibit clearing, filling and building within riparian corridors. All streams in the basin would benefit from these guidelines. 3. Reestablish stream and streamside habitat in the northern portion of the basin where these elements have already been severely altered. These restoration efforts should occur during development (or redevelopment) of a site. Opportunities for restoration presently exist on Tributaries 0036A, 0036B, 0036D, and 0038. P:LGR 7 Y'f'sw ■ �1c • 453,.r„4 TLe- TACOMA RNATIONA .JRPaRT 00360 • a,1E� FrpGr 5 ,t3 1ST f.. Q 3_ ST 8 5T< LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN (North Section) Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary 02 Collection Point " ■_ - Stream 0038 Tributary Number •3205 Proposed Project `. 224 • 7 4 Kent July, 1987 LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN (South Section) KEEN slizallmmwm■ Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary (..2) Collection Point Stream 0061 Tributary Number •3201 Proposed Project July, 1987 6 ST ; Auburn 34.51 tJn 0 9'. • • (;RF-:EN RIVFH SE 32, 31 157. S • • • • • • C.; • 1 ; Vf/ Ad 34< 451 T•1 £W LVF ST •. • U• =•,•+.3•1 SF ' T .7; k • • • APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN NOTE: indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 3201' 18 Construct R/D facility with 3.0 acre -ft. of storage adjacent to upper end of Wetland 3226. Interceptthe roadside runoff on SE 312th so that it will he retained in the upper wetland. Further biological assessment is needed to assure this project does not decrease habitat values. 3204 15 Construct R/D facility on Trib.0061 at RM 1.25 which would have a capacity of approx. 3.7 acre ft. 3205' Install a control structure and excavate two existing stream channels to provide 2.5 acre -ft. of storage (Trib. 003613, 0036(.). Problem Addressed Decreases potential downstream flooding and improves water quality. Estimated Costs and Comments $ 99,000 (subject to right of way acquisitions). Lessen impact on downstream riparian habi- $160,000 tat. Provides storage for runoff from (dependent on land future development. acquisitions). Eliminates channel scouring, road erosion and potential downstream flooding P:I.G R.APA A -1 $85,000 (Dependent on right -of- way acquisitiuns) • • APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN A total of three sites had been proposed for Surface Water Management (SWM) projects prior to the field reconnaissance• of the Lower Green River Basin. One project remains proposed as iden- tified, one project has been changed to an R/D facility. one RID facility has been added, and one proposed R/D facility has been eliminated by the consensus of the field team because it is located in the wetland serving as the city of Kent's water supply. The previous SWM project list for the Lower Green River Basin had an estimated cost of 5700,000, compared to a revised figure of $344,000 for the remaining three projects. The revised costs are a result of lower estimates for right -of -way acquisitions. These projects are listed in the table below, which summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed projects in the basin. These projects were rated according to criteria set forth by the SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee. The first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO /NO GO," could be answered affirmatively for the projects below. These projects can now be considered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any projects scoring more than 100 points should be considered for incorporation into the six -year CIP plans. Project No. Score Rank No. Cost 3201* 103 1 S 99,000 3205* 73 2 35.000 3204 60 3 160.000 TOTAL S344,000 Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management prior to reconnaissance. P:CLGAPB /mlm 13-1 Al1DIX C DETAILED BINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LOWER (;KEEN RIVER BASIN • All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item* River Mile Point Category Prop. Prot. Conditions and Problems 1 Section 15 12 Geology & Ilydrology 2 0001 RM .29 -.30 16 Geology 3 0001 20 Geology RM .31 4 0001 20 Geology RM 30.60 P:LGAPC /mlm Runoff from Kent Highlands landfill and sub -basin tributary to King County Grandview Park is causing extensive gullying and steep - walled valleys. Presents a potential hazard. Extensive sedimen- tation is resulting from erosion. Lower portion of channel is experiencing channel and hank erosion. A very large gully (small valley) is developing due to discharging con- centrated flow on steep slopes. Landslide area is posted for sale. C -1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued extensive erosion. Fill material will continue to scour away because of lack of compaction. Considerable volumes of fill (contrihuting to poor water quality) will still he conveyed. Uncontrolled runoff is the cause. Increasing erosion with in- creasing flows in the basin. Continued erosion; may be a puhlic hazard due to 30' vertical walls. Possible hazards associated with development could occur. Recommendations Tightline runoff' down to valley floor in a safe, nonerosive manner. Plan and develop adequate regional R/D facilities in the basin. Determine whether existing facilities should. he upgraded for greater control of flows and storage. 'I'ightlinc drainage to Green River. Perform critical predevclopmcnt review. • • Trib. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile I'oint Category Project Conditions and Problems 5 0001 20 Geology RM 31.00 6 0036A 9 habitat RM .80 7 0036B 8 0036B 9 003613 10 003613 P:I.GAPC /mlm 4 Ilydrology 3205 4 Habitat 4 Ilydrology 4 Geology Large gully (small valley) formed by development - relat ed drainage. Wash water from Segale truck center flowing under Prager Rd. contains oil film and quantities of algae. Backwater in channel appeared to he caused by defective riser control. Low- gradient stream chan- nels on Trihs. 003613 and 0036C. Floodplain approxi- mately 25' wide. Stream corridor and in- stream habitat both heavi -. ly impacted by erosive storm flows, clearing, and sedimentation. Manhole inlet with trash rack next to new extensive roadfill. Damaged inflow pipes into manhole control structure. Channel is experiencing channel and hank erosion. Cause is probably high flows. C -2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued erosion. Recommendations Tightlinc drainage. Same. Install and maintain a wastewater treatment facility before releasing water to ditch and ultimately the Green River. If no upstream R/D exists, then water may back up during storms. Riser replacement may eliminate this problem. Further deterioration of the stream system. Roadfill embankment will continue to erode. Erosion will continue. Excavate and install control struc- ture for an R/D pond. This system needs R/D to lessen impacts on the system from urban runoff. - Locate control at intersection of Trihs. 3613 and 36C. - Reduce existing storm flows. - Restrict future development to release runoff at nonerosive rates. - Require setbacks from tops of ravines. - Repair and replace pipes in manhole structure. - Stabilize roadfill. Build upstream P /') facility. • • Trib. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile I'oint Category Project Conditions and Problems 11 0036D 12 0061 RM .00 -1.40 13 0061 RM .01 -.15 7 I Iyd rology 14,15 Habitat Geology 14 0061 14 Ilydrology RM .02 P:I..GAI'C /mlm R/D berm has collapsed. Severe instrcam erosion above and below the faci- lity. Sedimentation and erosion in lower reach by farm adjacent to the Green River. Middle reaches have nice pools and riffles. Four waterfalls up to 10' high keep this from being an anadromous stream. Stream ravine is steep and mostly vege- tated. Best trout stream habitat in the basin. Bank erosion and sedimen- tation in channel located on private property at mouth of basin. Erosion is limited to this sec- tion. Cause of this ero- sion is not certain. Scouring, hank erosion, channel erosion, sediment build up in stream. The channel capacity is too small for the flows pre- sently generated. (: -3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Instream erosion will con- tinue. No energy dissipation from Drisco pipe above berm arca. Sediment build up from erosion will migrate downst ream. Future development could create up to four times the current amount of impervious surface. This could fill pools with sediment and destabilize the large organic debris in stream. Possibly continued erosion with increased development in the basin. Degradation of riparian corridor will continue. Erosion will continue. Recommendations - Stabilize and upgrade earthen herm. - Provide energy dissipators for Drisco pipe outflow. - Establish a stream corridor pro - •tecting the stream and adjacent ravine sidcslopes from clearing. - Future development should release stormwatcr at nonerosive rates. - Develop adequate R/D for the. basin to prevent erosion. - Reestablish the channel flood plain at the mouth of the basin. Use onsite infiltration to the maxi- mum extent pos.sihlt: for new const ruction. • • Trih. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project 15 0061 15 Ilydrology 3204 RM 1.25 16 0061 14 Ilydrology RM 1.50 17 0068 17 RM .25 -.35 Ilabitat 18 0068 17 Hydrology RM .25 19 0068 17 RM .30 P:1XiAPC /m1m habitat Conditions and Prohlems Stream segment meanders with little change in ele- vation. Erosion and down - cutting exist in lower segments of stream. Existing outlet of Wetland 3224. Floods over existing gravel road. This wetland is owned by the city of Kent as a water supply source (approx. 86 acres). Nice - looking stream with few pools. Good stream - side cover and instream stabil -ity. Lots of benthic organisms. No fish observed. Outfall has instream ero- sion taking place. Large fill of combustible and construction debris on left hank. Fill is unstable and sliding downhill toward stream. (: -4 Anticipated Conditions and Prohlems No change in existing con- ditions. Impact on downstream areas will con- tinue. Increased flows and flood frequency due to develop- ment. Use as a well field for water supply. Further instrcam instability from future development storm runoff. Probable vegetation clearing in stream corridor from development. Erosion of stream channel/ bank, if flows continue unchecked. Health and water quality hazard. Recommendations Construct an RID facility with 3.7 ac /ft. of storage to mitigate downstream problems. Develop an interlocal agreement to examine the possibility of using part of the wetland for a regional RID facility. - Establish and enforce stream corri- dor guidelines. - Future development should release stormwaters at non - erosive rates. Subcatchment 17 should use onsitc R/D and infiltration systems to the maxi- mum extent possible for control of peak flows. - 13A1.D grading and filling section has been contacted. - Stabilize and revegetate slope down to stream. - Prohibit filling in st ream ravine. • trig. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project Conditions and Problems 20 00618 17 RM .60 21 0069 18 RM .00 -.90 22 0069 18 RM .10 -.90 23 0069 18 RM .10 P:LGAPC /mlm 1labitat Habitat Geology Geology Stream becomes eroded from road ditch flows above 1081h Ave. SE. Dill occurring adjacent to stream in SW corner of SE 299th St. and 108th Ave. SL. Minimal fish habitat potential in this stream. Access to stream is open to Green River, but stream is heavily impacted by runoff. This is causing sedimen- tation of the channel in lower portion, erosion and garbage in mid- section, and ditches by trailer park in upper section. High frequency of bank erosion, some small streamside landslides associated with bank ero- sion. Sedimentation resulting from channel and bank erosion described above. Sedimentation is occurring over a large area and may threaten private property. C -5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems More erosion and possible flooding due to fill in the stream corridor. Subcatchmcnt projected to quadruple in amount of impervious surface, The suhcatchment is pro- jected to expand in imper- vious surface five times that in 1985. All problems exhibited in 1987 will pro- bably get worse. As development increases in the basins, erosion will increase. Sedimentation will increase with continued development in the basin. Rccommcndat ions No obvious regional R/U sites, so onsite I2 /D will he critical in This suhcatchmenl. Release rates of stormwatcr shuuId he aI nonerosive levels. Assess the fish - hahitat potential of this stream before doing any habitat projects. Reducing existing and future storm runoff will he key to maintenance of a good stream. Releasing stormwater runoff at nonerosivc rates would help accomplish this goal. Plan and develop adequate R/U as population and development increase in the basin. Same as RM .I(1 -.')0. Also construct sediment detention ponds at the mouth of the stream. • • Trite. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project Conditions and Problems 24 0069 18 RM .10 25 0069 18 RM .65 26 0069 18 RM .90 -1.10 P:I_(iAPC /mlm IIydrology I labitat I ydrology 3201 Undersized pipe for existing flows. Evidence of debris from backwater. Garbage pushed over ravine embankment is blocking stream. Presents fish blockage and is visually very unpleasant. Wetland 3226 is hissected by SE 312th St. Plows into the northern wetland are blocked due to .non- functional culvert on opposite side of SE 3121h. This has caused the asphalt road to begin to fail.from saturation and standing water. Wetland 3226 contains a wide variety of trees. (: -6 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increase in flows from development in upper catch- ment. Instrcam erosion and headwall erosion will result. Possible water quality problem and further fish blockage. Potential road failure of SE 312th St. Continued impact on northern portion of Wetland 3226 if road- side ditch flow is not curtailed. Introduction of petroleum by-products into wetland system. Recommendations Increase the capacity of the existing pipe system. Consider project to remove garbage to allow fish passage without further destabilization of the strcamhcd. - Construct an R/D facility on the southern portion of Wetland 3226. - Intercept the roadside flows on SL 312th to southern portion of Wetland 3226. This will incorporate .a major flow source of the region into an IZ /U facility and mitigate a major impact on the northern section of wetland. - Perform a detailed wetland study to determine environmental impact. • WETLAND INVENTORY MAP • • Des Moines Creek Duwamish River Lower Green River Green River Basin • 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • A. Existing Site Hydrology • • The existing areas of the site are either developed with parking lot surface or consist of a pasture, grassy vegetation and are level for the most part. At the time of the site visit and the writing of this report, the existing ground was still moist and wet due to the fact that rains had occurred earlier in the week. A portion of the site that is in the southwest corner of the intersection of Sperry Drive and South 180th Street will be redeveloped with an additional parking lot and some modifications to the landscaping. However, the site located east of Sperry Drive is all undeveloped except for some gravel surfacing that will remain intact for this development. The area south of the gravel surfacing will be developed, which is an all pasture and grass area and is essentially flat. B. Developed Site Hydrology Please refer to the detention and water quality sizing criteria on the following pages of this report for the land cover criteria used in sizing the detention/water quality systems proposed for this development. There is an existing berm located west of the project site that is adjacent to the Green River, portions of which drain onto the project site and will be collected and conveyed to the detention vault proposed for that western basin. There is more impervious surface under developed conditions than there is under existing conditions. C. Performance Standards The area - specific flow control standards, as determined by the City of Tukwila for this project site, are Level 1 Flow Control. The applicable conveyance system capacity standard, since this site is less than 10 acres in size, is the Modified Rational Method. The area - specific Water Quality Treatment Menu followed for this project site was the Basic Water Quality Menu as delineated in the 1998 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Tukwila. D. Flow Control System Please refer to the illustrative sketches of the flow control facilities and its appurtenances located on the following pages of this report. In addition, the calculations for sizing the flow control facilities based on the KCRTS methodology and the Level 1 Flow Control standards are included. E. Water Quality System Once again, two on -site wet/detention vaults will be used on this project. The locations of the vaults are shown on the following pages of this report. In addition to the calculations for sizing the wet vault portion of the vault, which meets the Basic Water Quality Menu as adopted by the City of Tukwila and as delineated further in the 1998 KCSWDM are included. I2858.003.doc • • • DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY SIZING CRITERIA WEST BASIN Developed: Total area draining to the wet/detention vault = 1.46 acres of which 1.20 acres is impervious and 0.20 acre is considered till grass Pre - developed: 0.99 acre of till pasture 0.47 acre of impervious 1.46 acres total EAST BASIN Developed: 0.41 acre of impervious 0.02 acre of till grass 0.43 acre total Pre - developed: 0.43 acre till pasture 12858.002.doc • • • SIZE THE WEST SIDE WET VAULT (BASIC WATER QUALITY) Volume = (3)[0.9 A, + 0.25 Atg](0.039)(43,560) = (3)[(0.9)(1.20) = (0.25)(0.26)](0.039)(43,560) = 5,836 cu. ft. required Volume Provided = 88 ft. x 20 ft. x 4 ft. = 7,040 cu. ft. Size the east side wet vault (Basic Water Quality) Volume = (3)[(0.9)(0.41) + (0.25)(0.02)](0.039)(43,560) = 1,906 cu. ft. Volume Provided = 88 ft. x 20 ft. x 4 ft. = 7,040 cu. ft. 12858.003.doc • • KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series -e,vri O ic, FIoW i oitroI -2t- O Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac ^r. Computing Series : 12858eastpre.tsf n C S _�� Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTP60R.rnf Till Pasture 0.43 acres Total Area : 0.43 acres Peak Discharge: 0.052 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12858eastpre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12858eastpre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12858eastpre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 12858eastdev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 0.02 acres •Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf Impervious 0.41 acres •Total Area : 0.43 acres Peak Discharge: 0.198 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12858eastdev.tsf Time Series Computed • • KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12858eastdev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12858eastdev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention /Detention FACILITY Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:12858eastdev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:12858eastdev.tsf Riser Configuration Changes Rectangular notch added to Riser Edit Facility Time Series Found in Memory:12858eastdev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:12858eastconvey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data\ example , \kcrts \12858eastconvey.do Time Series Found in Memory:12858eastdev.tsf Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:12858eastconvey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data\ example \kcrts \12858eastconvey.do Time Series Found in Memory:12858eastdev.tsf Retention /Detention Facility Design • • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.030 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.012 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.028 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.003 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.016 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.026 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.025 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.052 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.052 1 100.00 0.990 0.030 2 25.00 0.960 0.028 3 10.00 0.900 0.026 4 5.00 0.800 0.025 5 3.00 0.667 0.016 6 2.00 0.500 0.012 7 1.30 0.231 0.003 8 1.10 0.091 0.045 50.00 0.980 • • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.101 7 2/09/01 2:00 0.088 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.123 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.103 6 8/26/04 2:00 0.122 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.108 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.149 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.198 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.198 1 100.00 0.990 0.149 2 25.00 0.960 0.123 3 10.00 0.900 0.122 4 5.00 0.800 0.108 5 3.00 0.667 0.103 6 2.00 0.500 0.101 7 1.30 0.231 0.088 8 1.10 0.091 0.182 50.00 0.980 • • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastrdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period (ft) 0.073 2 2/09/01 15:00 0.158 2.64 1 100.00 0.990 0.013 7 12/28/01 17:00 0.073 2.62 2 25.00 0.960 0.018 5 2/28/03 7:00 0.026 2.60 3 10.00 0.900 0.013 8 8/26/04 6:00 0.019 2.36 4 5.00 0.800 0.016 6 1/05/05 15:00 0.018 2.10 5 3.00 0.667 0.019 4 1/18/06 23:00 0.016 1.63 6 2.00 0.500 0.026 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.013 1.09 7 1.30 0.231 0.158 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.013 1.06 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.130 2.64 50.00 0.980 • • Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 84.00 ft Facility Width: 20.00 ft Facility Area: 1680. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 2.60 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 21.90 ft Storage Volume: 4368. cu. ft Riser Head: 2.60 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 1 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0.68 0.020 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 21.90 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 21.91 17. 0.000 0.001 0.00 0.02 21.92 34. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.03 . 21.93 50. 0.001 0.002 0.00 0.04 21.94 67. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.05 21.95 84. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.06 21.96 101. 0.002 0.003 0.00 0.16 22.06 269. 0.006 0.005 0.00 0.26 22.16 437. 0.010 0.006 0.00 0.36 22.26 605. 0.014 0.007 0.00 0.46 22.36 773. 0.018 0.008 0.00 0.56 22.46 941. 0.022 0.009 0.00 0.66 22.56 1109. 0.025 0.010 0.00 0.76 22.66 1277. 0.029 0.011 0.00 0.86 22.76 1445. 0.033 0.012 0.00 0.96 22.86 1613. 0.037 0.012 0.00 1.06 22.96 1781. 0.041 0.013 0.00 1.16 23.06 1949. 0.045 0.013 0.00 1.26 23.16 2117. 0.049 0.014 0.00 1.36 23.26 2285. 0.052 0.015 0.00 1.46 23.36 2453. 0.056 0.015 0.00 1.56 23.46 2621. 0.060 0.016 0.00 1.66 23.56 2789. 0.064 0.016 0.00 1.76 23.66 2957. 0.068 0.017 0.00 1.86 23.76 3125. 0.072 0.017 0.00 1.96 23.86 3293. 0.076 0.018 0.00 2.06 • 23.96 3461. 0.079 0.018 0.00 2.16 24.06 3629. 0.083 0.018 0.00 2.26 24.16 3797. 0.087 0.019 0.00 2.36 24.26 3965. 0.091 0.019 0.00 • • • 2.46 24.36 4133. 0.095 0.020 0.00 2.56 24.46 4301. 0.099 0.020 0.00 2.60 24.50 4368. 0.100 0.020 0.00 2.70 24.60 4536. 0.104 0.329 0.00 2.80 24.70 4704. 0.108 0.892 0.00 2.90 24.80 4872. 0.112 1.620 0.00 3.00 24.90 5040. 0.116 2.410 0.00 3.10 25.00 5208. 0.120 2.700 0.00 3.20 25.10 5376. 0.123 2.950 0.00 3.30 25.20 5544. 0.127 3.190 0.00 3.40 . 25.30 5712. 0.131 3.410 0.00 3.50 25.40 5880. 0.135 3.610 0.00 3.60 25.50 6048. 0.139 3.810 0.00 3.70 25.60 6216. 0.143 3.990 0.00 3.80 25.70 6384. 0.147 4.170 0.00 3.90 25.80 6552. 0.150 4.340 0.00 4.00 25.90 6720. 0.154 4.500 0.00 4.10 26.00 6888. 0.158 4.660 0.00 4.20 26.10 7056. 0.162 4.810 0.00 4.30 26.20 7224. 0.166 4.960 0.00 4.40 26.30 7392. 0.170 5.100 0.00 4.50 26.40 7560. 0.174 5.240 0.00 4.60 26.50 7728. 0.177 5.380 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 0.20 * * * * * ** 0.16 2.64 24.54 4443. 0.102 2 0.10 * * * * * ** 0.07 2.62 24.52 4397. 0.101 3 0.11 0.03 0.03 2.60 24.50 4371. 0.100 4 0.11 * * * * * ** 0.02 2.36 24.26 3973. 0.091 5 0.12 * * * * * ** 0.02 2.10 24.00 3522. 0.081 6 0.07 0.02 0.02 1.63 23.53 2733. 0.063 7 0.09 * * * * * ** 0.01 1.09 22.99 1826. 0.042 8 0.10 * * * * * ** 0.01 1.06 22.96 1781. 0.041 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:12858eastdev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:12858eastrdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.198 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.158 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 2.64 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 24.54 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 4443. Cu -Ft 0.102 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858eastrdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob • • • (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.073 2 2/09/01 15:00 0.158 2.64 1 100.00 0.990 0.013 7 12/28/01 17:00 0.073 2.62 2 25.00 0.960 0.018 5 2/28/03 7:00 0.026 2.60 3 10.00 0.900 0.013 8 8/26/04 6:00 0.019 2.36 4 5.00 0.800 0.016 6 1/05/05 15:00 0.018 2.10 5 3.00 0.667 0.019 4 1/18/06 23:00 0.016 1.63 6 2.00 0.500 0.026 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.013 1.09 7 1.30 0.231 0.158 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.013 1.06 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.130 2.64 50.00 0.980 • • 0454 LAJC-5.- L ve.1 one FiokJ C©(TrYc I KCRTS Command Vel > r) 0 �. `J , k, .'; k CREATE a new Time Series J Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 12858westpre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTP60R.rnf Till Pasture 0.99 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf Impervious 0.47 acres Total Area : 1.46 acres Peak Discharge: 0.342 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12858westpre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12858westpre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858westpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12858westpre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 12858westdev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf • Till Grass 0.26 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf • Impervious 1.20 acres • Total Area : 1.46 acres Peak Discharge: 0.622 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12858westdev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12858westdev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858westdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12858westdev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention /Detention FACILITY Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:12858westdev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:12858westdev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:12858westconvey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data\ example \kcrts \12858westconvey.do Time Series Found in Memory:12858westdev.tsf Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design Edit Facility Time Series Found in Memory:12858westdev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:12858westdev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File:12858westconvey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data\ example \kcrts \12858westconvey.do Time Series Found in Memory:12858westdev.tsf Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858westpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.168 5 2/09/01 2:00 0.127 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.196 2 2/27/03 7:00 0.121 8 8/26/04 2:00 0.147 6 10/28/04 16:00 0.181 3 1/18/06 16:00 0.174 4 10/26/06 0:00 0.341 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.341 1 100.00 0.990 0.196 2 `25.00 0.960 0.181 3 10.00 0.900 0.174 4 5.00 0.800 0.168 5 3.00 0.667 0.147 6 2.00 0.500 0.127 7 1.30 0.231 0.121 8 1.10 0.091 0.293 50.00 0.980 • • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858westdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.314 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.268 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.378 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.304 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.363 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.335 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.442 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.622 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.622 1 100.00 0.990 0.442 2 25.00 0.960 0.378 3 10.00 0.900 0.363 4 5.00 0.800 0.335 5 3.00 0.667 0.314 6 2.00 0.500 0.304 7 1.30 0.231 0.268 8 1.10 0.091 0.562 50.00 0.980 • • • Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12858westrdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.172 4 2/09/01 19:00 0.556 3.11 1 100.00 0.990 0.111 7 1/05/02 18:00 0.208 3.01 2 25.00 0.960 0.163 5 2/27/03 10:00 0.180 2.95 3 10.00 0.900 0.109 8 8/23/04 21:00 0.172 2.69 4 5.00 0.800 0.141 6 10/28/04 19:00 0.163 2.42 5 3.00 0.667 0.208 2 1/18/06 21:00 0.141 1.80 6 2.00 0.500 0.180 3 11/24/06 6:00 0.111 1.13 7 1.30 0.231 0.556 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.109 1.08 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.440 3.08 50.00 0.980 • • • Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 88.00 ft Facility Width: 20.00 ft Facility Area: 1760. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 3.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 20.50 ft Storage Volume: 5280. cu. ft Riser Head: 3.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 1 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.96 0.181 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 20.50 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.02 20.52 35. 0.001 0.015 0.00 0.04 20.54 70. 0.002 0.021 0.00 0.06 20.56 106. 0.002 0.026 0.00 0.08 20.58 141. 0.003 0.030 0.00 0.10 20.60 176. 0.004 0.033 0.00 0.12 20.62 211. 0.005 0.037 0.00 0.14 20.64 246. 0.006 0.040 0.00 0.16 20.66 282. 0.006 0.042 0.00 0.26 20.76 458. 0.011 0.054 0.00 0.36 20.86 634. 0.015 0.063 0.00 0.46 20.96 810. 0.019 0.071 0.00 0.56 21.06 986. 0.023 0.078 0.00 0.66 21.16 1162. 0.027 0.085 0.00 0.76 21.26 1338. 0.031 0.091 0.00 0.86 21.36 1514. 0.035 0.097 0.00 0.96 21.46 1690. 0.039 0.103 0.00 1.06 21.56 1866. 0.043 0.108 0.00 1.16 21.66 2042. 0.047 0.113 0.00 1.26 21.76 2218. 0.051 0.118 0.00 1.36 21.86 2394. 0.055 0.122 0.00 1.46 21.96 2570. 0.059 0.126 0.00 1.56 22.06 2746. 0.063 0.131 0.00 1.66 . 22.16 2922. 0.067 0.135 0.00 1.76 22.26 3098. 0.071 0.139 0.00 1.86 22.36 3274. 0.075 0.143 0.00 1.96 22.46 3450. 0.079 0.147 0.00 2.06 22.56 3626. 0.083 0.150 0.00 2.16 22.66 3802. 0.087 0.154 0.00 2.26 22.76 3978. 0.091 0.157 0.00 • • • 2.36 22.86 4154. 0.095 0.161 0.00 2.46 22.96 4330. 0.099 0.164 0.00 2.56 23.06 4506. 0.103 0.167 0.00 2.66 23.16 4682. 0.107 0.171 0.00 2.76 23.26 4858. 0.112 0.174 0.00 2.86 23.36 5034. 0.116 0.177 0.00 2.96 23.46 5210. 0.120 0.180 0.00 3.00 23.50 5280. 0.121 0.181 0.00 3.10 23.60 5456. 0.125 0.492 0.00, 3.20 ' 23.70 5632. 0.129 1.060 0.00 3.30 23.80 5808. 0.133 1.790 0.00 3.40 23.90 5984. 0.137 2.580 0.00 3.50 24.00 6160. 0.141 2.870 0.00 3.60 24.10 6336. 0.145 3.130 0.00 3.70 24.20 6512. 0.149 3.370 0.00 3.80 24.30 6688. 0.154 3.590 0.00 3.90 24.40 6864. 0.158 3.790 0.00 4.00 24.50 7040. 0.162 3.990 0.00 4.10 24.60 7216. 0.166 4.180 0.00 4.20 24.70 7392. 0.170 4.360 0.00 4.30 24.80 7568. 0.174 4.530 0.00 4.40 24.90 7744. 0.178 4.690 0.00 4.50 25.00 7920. 0.182 4.850 0.00 4.60 25.10 8096. 0.186 5.010 0.00 4.70 25.20 8272. 0.190 5.160 0.00 4.80 25.30 8448. 0.194 5.300 0.00 4.90 25.40 8624. 0.198 5.440 0.00 5.00 25.50 8800. 0.202 5.580 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 0.62 * * *. * * ** 0.56 3.11 23.61 5476. 0.126 2 0.34 * * * * * ** 0.21 3.01 23.51 5295. 0.122 3 0.32 0.18 0.18 2.95 23.45 5198. 0.119 4 0.31 * * * * * ** 0.17 2.69 23.19 4736. 0.109 5 0.38 * * * * * ** 0.16 2.42 22.92 4262. 0.098 6 0.36 0.15 0.14 1.81 22.31 3180. 0.073 7 0.27 * * * * * ** 0.11 1.13 21.63 1984. 0.046 8 0.30 * * * * * ** 0.11 1.08 21.58 1904. 0.044 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:12858westdev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:12858westrdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 0.622 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.556 CFS at 8:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Peak Reservoir Stage: 3.11 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 23.61 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 5476. Cu -Ft 0.126 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis • • • Time Series File: 12858westrdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.172 4 2/09/01 19:00 0.556 3.11 1 100.00 0.990 0.111 7 1/05/02 18:00 0.208 3.01 2 25.00 0.960 0.163 5 2/27/03 10:00 0.180 2.95 3 10.00 0.900 0.109 8 8/23/04 21:00 0.172 2.69 4 5.00 0.800 0.141 6 10/28/04 19:00 0.163 2.42 5 3.00 0.667 0.208 2 1/18/06 21:00 0.141 1.80 6 2.00 0.500 0.180 3 11/24/06 6:00 0.111 1.13 7 1.30 0.231 0.556 1 1/09/08 8:00 0.109 1.08 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.440 3.08 50.00 0.980 nE;J 1' 40' 0 2Q 0 80 ,•••• •••• I • Asoi,aostn,%.‘, \ _ GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN WELLS FARGO - CV OPERATION A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 36 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. SW 43RD STREET 030.180TH SD azt I) ••r? ------ :ens ot, .11 26 • ; \ ..'..-.•• ,..... -,,- • • FIELD LOCAlt (21S104G HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL 1 • LOCATION or UV STOMA DRAJN INSTALL !, :r .7..."..- ' NEW ce TYPE-2 \ •" *MN SOUD LID I 8114- 255± E-21.5(nao voarY , s 4 .1, PRIOR TO INSIALLAT ON) EX BLACI \ • • s7:1, ' \ c_r,j,„;,„„.,.;,. ,........:...... i,.. -L.-..,:,e;-.7 7.-:-..77.-:-;:'-'kr--,.,7::':•:, . ■•••,4.,x, •••=„ar: A ',sow NEW SEAM WITH SOLID UD RLM..26.1 lE■20.0 o \ \ • STORM DRAINAGE 26. , DErmoN/wATIN • °miry WET VAULT \ (88'x20',,8' DEEP) MAX WS EL23.5 k STATIC WS 020.5 = \ BOTTOM VAULT EL=16.0 26.2 1 *5148; CPEP \ EX BI_CX) \ FF-26.8 , 10 LF r xcpcP o ootek .53 TYPE , • NEW CB #5 \ RIAI=25.4 \ r. 450 2.S.D Cp KB illIg1111/04111 uzr, IE. 2 46 12"6 CPEP 21-a • KVINX X ee r7r kW. • STDEOEURAINAGE /WATER QUALITY VAULT (20ie84.e.s' DEEP) BOTTOM VAULT 0,17.0 STATIC VoS EL.21.9 MAX. WS a=24.5 DO LF 2' WIDE GRASS UNED SWALE 0 1.0% •80 LBO LF 2' WIDE RASSUNED SWALE o 0.508 SLOPE TD Liva. ES,AT t0 pPACT 20NE • .8 z 5 a_ uJ 0 z 0 0 1- 0 z 0 z 0 14,0 WELLS FARGO - CV OPERATIONS TUKWILA, WASH. 14) a W (OZ E LLi ID CO Z < < ui co 0 W c•I 0) 0 Fo" co CC) C 5 8 8 8 a 1 8 • 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • The conveyance system for this project site has been sized to convey the 100 -year event based on the Modified Rational Method as adopted by the City of Tukwila and delineated further in the 1998 KCSWDM, which requires an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes, a Manning's "n" value of 0.014, and the 100 -year precipitation is used in the calculations. This is a very conservative design and gives higher peak flows than actually occur on a given project. However, since this project site is Less than 10 acres in size, this is the required methodology to be used. Please refer to the following pages of this document for the pipe conveyance basin map and pipe conveyance calculations. • • 12858.003.doc • CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS • • • JOB NAME: WELLS FARGO - CV OPERATION JOB#: 12858 REVISED: 12858- 100.XLS A= Contributing Area (Ac) C= Runoff Coefficient Tc= Time of Concentration (min) I= Intensity at Tc (in/hr) d= Diameter of Pipe (in) 1= Length of Pipe (ft) D= Water Depth at Od (In) 11111 10.xIs BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS - PIPE FLOW CALCULATOR using the Rational Method & Manning Formula KING COUNTY DESIGN FOR 100 YEAR STORM NOTE: ENTER DEFAULTS AND STORM DATA BEFORE BEGINNING DEFAULTS C= 0.9 n= 0.014 d= 12 Tc= 6.3 Od= Design Flow (cfs) Of= Full Capacity Flow (cfs) Vd= Velocity at Design Flow (fps) Vf= Velocity at Full Flow (fps) s= Slope of pipe ( %) n= Manning Roughness Coefficient Tt= Travel Time at Vd (min) FROM TO A s L d Tc n C CB1 CB2 0.28 0.50 70 CB2 CB3 0.24 0.50 174 CB4 CB3 0.50 0.50 58 CB3 VAULT 0.12 16.41 22 CB5 VAULT 0.33 39.00 10 SWALE VAULT 0.50 58.75 8 COEFFICIENTS FOR THE RATIONAL METHOD "Ii-E0 ATI N SUM A STORM Ar Br 2YR 1.58 0.58 10YR 2.44 0.64 25YR 2.66 0.65 50YR 2.75 0.65 100YR 2.61 0.63 A'C PRECIP= 3.95 Ar- 2.61 Br- 0.63 SUM A'C I Od ' Of Qd /Of D/d D Vf Vd 8 6.3 0.014 0.9 12 6.8 0.014 0.9 12 6.3 0.014 0.9 12 7.7 0.014 0.9 8 6.3 0.014 - 0.9 12 6.3 0.014 0.9 0.28 0.52 0.5 0.12 0.33 0.5 0.25 0.22 0,45 0.11 0 30 0.45 Tt 0.25 3.23 0.81 0.79 1.027 0.850 6.80 2.27 2.57 0.47 3.09 1.45 2.34 0.619 0.580 6.96 2.98 3.16 0.45 3.23 1.46 2.34 0.622 0.581 6.97 2.98 3.16 1.03 2.86 2.93 13.40 0.219 0.315 3.78 17.07 13.61 0.30 3.23 0.96 7.01 0.137 0.250 2.00 20.08 13.95 0.45 3.23 1.46 25.35 0.057 0.163 1.96 32.30 17.33 Page 1 0.45 0.92 0.31 0.03 0.01 0.01 • • BASIN MAP • • 2 40 BO 00 0 c - om. , • \ \l\ • GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN WELLS FARGO — CV OPERATION A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 36 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST W.M. NNau \ $W 43RD STREET (80.180TH STREET) • NEW 12• CPEP 5E419 SR "" rox A ir a.1f. taaw ..q w,. a -m • el• ftb? Y T +2u . :'. ♦v WfA'R CONIVEYANcr._. AGV NiA? :aA.•t i � n %: w.r. R •: !tM: i�2AS • -Lx >ri ti wawa C'li'ff m uaea -. a �apR•RS c» I • m T ¢.(ww A NEW SENN WITH SOLID UD RM -26.1 IE -20.0 STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION/WATER QUALITY WET VAULT (wawa DEEP) MAX WS EL -23.5 STATIC WS EL =20.5 BOTTOM VAULT EL =16.0 nap LOCATE EXISTING HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION OF EM STORM DRAIN INSTALL NEW CB TYPE -2 WIN SOLID LJD RIM-25 5t IE- 21.5(EIELD VERIFY PRIOR TO INSTALATON) ■ F � IX BLC t'' F� -268 ry :,r 10 LF B• ' �• 4010,„„, 111: . ANEW CB j5 I'I('�17LO� TYPE 1 � E 250 IE =22.40 1.4. TR\K aN mxy mx:c»w V. - IE =24.6 . - -- 12•a CPEP STO MACE D RM /WATER QUALM' VAULT (20'284'45' DEEP) BOTTOM VAULT EL =17.0 STATIC WS EL =21.9 I2AX. WS EL =24.5 BO LF 2' WIDE GRASS LINED SWALE O 1.0= 130 LE 2' WIDE RASSUNED SWALE 0 0505 SLOPE FOR TO CURB B UNOFF CO ALE pp I IE -25.5 (� 1i BOTTOM SYMLS _ _ I" l) . °y 1 �! �.tcF ESNTI Ab .2 LL O Ea- S 2 1 co 2 a N r� co s wg, x12858— a.dwg, • 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES • • • 7.0 OTHER PERMITS • • 7.0 OTHER PERMITS • Other permits for this project site include: • Clear and Grade Permit from the City of Tukwila • Building Permit from the City of Tukwila • Site Development Permit from the City of Tukwila • Right -of -Way Use Permit from the City of Tukwila • Water Line Extension Permit from the City of Tukwila • Side Sewer Connection Permit from the City of Tukwila • • 12858.003.doc • 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • • 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN • As one of the first items of construction, the detention vaults on this project site will be built and all surface water generated on site will be routed to these vaults during construction in order to settle out sediment from the runoff generated on site. This should provide a higher level of protection than would actually be required by the 1998 KCSWDM, Appendix D, in the sizing of a sediment trap for each side of this development. In addition to the detention vaults, clearing limits will be specified, cover measures will be instituted, perimeter protection will be installed in the form of silt fences, traffic area stabilization will be maintained by a rock construction entrance, and regular street sweeping should sediments be tracked off site. Runoff will be routed through the temporary V- ditches with rock checkdams toward the catch basins that will ultimately drain into the wet/detention vaults that will act as sediment traps during this phase of the construction. Please refer to Section 4.0 of this TIR for the means and methodology to size the detention vaults for this development. • • 12858.003.doc • 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATIONS OF COVENANT • • • 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL • • Page 1 of 1 Carol Lumb - Re: Wells Fargo site From: Ryan Larson To: Carol Lumb Date: 08/10/2007 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Wells Fargo site West on S. 180th to north on APE to east on Minkler to the P17 pond. »> Carol Lumb 08/10/2007 1:40 pm »> Hi Ryan: Wells Fargo is building a new building at Sperry and s. 180th St. The SEPA checklist says the water will first go to 2 vaults, and then to a line in S. 180th. After that, where does the S. 180th line go /discharge to ?? thanks. Carol file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\Ternp\XPGrpWise\46BC6D86tuk-m... 08/10/2007 Carol Lumb - WF CV Operations comm -s - answer to question #1 (SEPA review) Page it From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Carol: "Jessica Bradley" <jessica @craftarchitects.com> "'Carol Lumb "' <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> 08/06/2007 8:52 am WF CV Operations comments - answer to question #1 (SEPA review) <kathy @craftarchitects.com> You suggested that if we could answer question #1, you could make progress with the SEPA application. The answer is: Yes, the new parking area on Parcel B is to provide additional parking for the adjacent existing building on parcel A. (Wells calls this the Sperry building) Not parking for parcels D or E. Best regards, Jessica Bradley Project Manager Terminal Sales Building 1932 First Ave., Suite 408 Seattle, WA. 98101 p.206.720.7001 f.206.720.2949 www.craftarchitects.com • Ciz of Tukwila • Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 31, 2007 Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Wells Fargo CV Operations Land Use Applications Dear Jessica: This letter is a follow -up to my letter dated July 30, 2007 which provides technical comments on the Wells Fargo project. As I said in my e-mail to you yesterday, when I reviewed the July 30th letter, I noticed I had left out two items, which are as follows: 1. I don't find a plan sheet that identifies the location of the different light fixtures, lighting for the new parking area serving the new building and lighting for the new parking area on Parcel B. Please provide this information. 2. When you apply for the building permit, the materials must include plans that show street lights on S. 180th Street. I apologize for the omission of these items in the original letter. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206 - 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Joanna Spencer, Public Works Development Engineer CL Page 1 of 1 07/31/2007 9:52:00 AM QAW•Po r•-g•1Tge'N'ea' Cg- 1- 191'92 dog 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 •.. City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director July 30, 2007 Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Wells Fargo CV Operations Land Use Applications Dear Jessica: Staff has reviewed the proposed new building and new stand alone parking lot on the Wells Fargo site and has the comments that follow below. In addition, comments /questions were received from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe during the public comment period. I forwarded those comments via e-mail to you on July 26, 2007, but will include a copy with this letter. Please provide a response to the Muckleshoot comments as well as to the City's. E07 -008: Environmental Review 1. For the new parking area located on Parcel B, is this parking to provide additional parking for the training building on the north? L07 -037: Design Review Building Design: 1. The site plan does not identify the number of parking stalls required for the new building or the number of stalls that are required for the existing building and whether any parking stalls are being lost due to the new building. Please provide these calculations on the site plan or other appropriate plan sheet. 2. We understand the need for security for the proposed building — however, it is not acceptable to present a completely solid wall facing S. 180th Street. The building design along S. 180`x' Street must appear less warehouse -like, with a front facade that mimics a front even though there is no public access. Currently, the design of the north side lacks a consistent design theme, with the CMU randomly placed along the wall. CL Page 1 of 5 07/30/2007 2:41:00 PM QAWsWr•);-egniTee`ri-r' Cr-rnrrwiir Orr Aum cnnthr.ontor Rmrlovarii .Cnito *inn • Tukwila- Wa.chinvtnn OR1RR • Phnner 20h- 4.31 -.Th7O • Farf 2011- 4.31 -3665 Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects July 30, 2007 • • The Shane Company, located at the intersection of Southcenter Parkway and S. 180th Street had security concerns but provided a facade that faces the street on two sides that adds visual interest and has a retail feel even though no windows are provided. The building located on the southwest corner of Andover Park West and 180th Street also had security concerns but was able to incorporate false windows (and even false building entrances) to the facade to provide a street presence. I have enclosed some photos of both these buildings for your review. 3. Will the doors to the outside have awnings that match those of the existing building? 4. Is there any ventilation or other equipment located on the ground other than the generator? If so, please identify on the site plan. Landscaping: Please see the enclosed landscaping sheet with comments and questions to supplement the comments below. 5. Please provide a column in the Plant Schedule Ke_y that identifies the number of plants that will be planted for each species. 6. The Plant Schedule Key uses two different symbols for the same tree - Ginkgo Biloba `Princeton Sentry' — is there something that distinguishes one from the other? 7. The plans are missing an irrigation sheet. 8. The Landscape Code requires shrubs to be a minimum of 18 inches in height at planting — it appears from the Plant Schedule that the shrubs will be 21 inches in spread - does this correlate with our code requirement? 9. The Swedish Columnar Aspen do not match other trees planted along S. 180th Street. Please substitute Red Maples, Tulip Tree, English Oak, or Accolade Elm, which provide more shade potential as well. 10. Will the proposed spacing of groundcover at 30 inches on center provide 90% coverage within 3 years? 11. It is not clear from the landscaping plan whether groundcover is provided throughout the site. The Landscaping Code requires groundcover that will cover 90% of the site within 3 years. It needs to be clear to the landscape contractor where groundcover is being planted and what type so that enough ground cover is ordered. Either provide.a note in the planting key or a separate landscape plan that just identifies groundcover location and the type. 12. Please confirm that shrubs are being planted along the shoreline — the symbol in that area does not match the Plant Key for Dwarf Redtwig Dogwood (which needs to be substituted as it is not a native species). If a continuous evergreen hedge is used, then groundcover would not be required. 13. Native plantings are required in the 200 foot shoreline area. Please indicate the shoreline environments on the landscape plan assist in identifying which areas will require native plantings. Native strawberry will do well both in the sun and the shade, unlike the Kinnikinnick, which will be shaded out by the mature landscaping eventually. CL Page 2 of 5 07/30/2007 2:41:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \Technical Comments Ltr.doc Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects July 30, 2007 14. The stand alone parking area on parcel B must include the full range of Type 2 landscaping (trees, shrubs, groundcover), not just landscaping for the parking bulbs. Please provide a pedestrian connection between this parking area and the front door of the training building. This is also an area that provides an opportunity for the use of low impact development techniques. 15. Please a pedestrian connection from the stand alone parking area on parcel B to the shoreline trail that abuts on the east. 16. Why are shrubs being removed from the existing landscaping along the river? This is mature plant material that appears to be in good condition. Shrubs are part of required landscaping — if we approve their removal, new shrubs must be planted along with groundcover. 17. Please identify on the landscaping plan the location of the new fencing and how it will connect with the existing fencing. It is not clear if the fencing starts at the western edge of the new building or runs in front of it — please clarify. 18. Wood slats must be used with the chain link fencing unless the landscaping will form a fairly solid screen. 19. It is awkward to jog the proposed new fencing out to join the existing fencing along the trail. Since work is proposed in the existing landscaping area '(removal of shrubs) this is an opportunity to move the existing fence to the correct location — inside the landscape area rather than outside. 20. For security purposes, would it be better to plant the Barberis shrubs along the fence on the northwest side of the site? 21. There is a wedge - shaped area south of the new shoreline planting area adjacent to the asphalt trail that is labeled "River Protection Easement" (identified on enclosed Landscape Plan) that is not proposed for landscaping. It appears this area is part of the Wells Fargo property and should be included in the shoreline planting area? 22. The parking bulbs are required to be planted with one tree and a combination of groundcover and shrubs and mulch. Some parking bulbs show only a tree and groundcover. 23. For the dry river bed area, can you provide a photo (electronic) of how this area will look (for inclusion in the staff report) or suggest other sites where this technique has been used close by that we could view? Public Works Comments: 24. The frontal improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk on S. 180`h Street must be continued along the east side of the site. 25. The Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the section of riverbank upstream of S. 180th along the Tukwila 205 levee and identified a section that is damaged and in immediate need of repair. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District and the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to repair these deficiencies and provide adequate bank stability. Existing easements do not allow for adequate side slope angles and levee slumping is the result. To correct these deficiencies, additional easement will be required from the property owner to allow levee side slopes to be a maximum of 2.5 to 1. CL Page 3 of 5 07/30/2007 2:41:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \Technical Comments Ltr.doc Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects July 30, 2007 The City's Flood Control Ordinance requires abutting property owners to bring deficient levees up to current design standards and grant flood control easements to the King County Flood Control District and the City of Tukwila. Since the City is already working with the Corps of Engineers and King County to upgrade the levee, the City will only require the property owner to grant additional easements to allow the repair to take place. If additional easements cannot be secured, it will be up to the property owner to repair the levee per Corps of Engineer and King County standards. The Easement width we are requesting is 125 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark along both river frontages. Existing parking can remain but may need to be reconfigured during the actual levee construction by the County. 26. The proposed storm water vault should be moved as far from the river as practical so that it will not be affected by any future levee setback work. You may also want to consider moving the new building eastward, to accommodate the additional easement area. The following comments are for your information when applying for the building permit for the project: 1. A separate Public Works permit will be required for the site pre -load. 2. A Traffic Concurrency Test Application (copy enclosed) is required. This Application is separate from the Traffic Mitigation fees to be paid prior to issuance of the building permit; 3. The current submittal does not address cross - connection issues. When submitting the building permit materials, please show the RPPA for domestic water and DDCUA in a vault for fire prevention on the plans. 4. The new building will be required to be sprinklered. 5. Maintain the existing hydrants and keep a 4 foot clear space around the existing hydrants. 6. Additional hydrants may be needed, per TMC . 14.24.040. The parcel on which the stand alone parking is proposed must be consolidated with the parcel with the training facility. I am enclosing the application for the lot consolidation. Processing of this application will not affect the timing of the design review or shoreline permit applications. The design review application is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing at the August 23, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. To retain this hearing date, I will need to receive a response to the above items, the comments submitted by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and 4 sets of revised plans by Tuesday, August 7, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. I realize this is a very short turn around time, but public hearing notices must be mailed August 8, 2007 - 14 days prior to the hearing date. Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to meet to discuss any of the above items. My schedule is open through Thursday. Ryan Larson, the Public Works CL Page 4 of 5 07/30/2007 2:41:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \Technical Comments Ltr.doc Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects July 30, 2007 engineer who provided comments on the levee is on vacation until Monday, August 6, 2007, in the event you want to schedule a meeting with him. I can be reached at 206- 431 -3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Enclosures cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Joanna Spencer, Pubic Works Development Engineer Ryan Larson, Public Works Senior Engineer, Surface Water CL Page 5 of 5 07/30/2007 2:41:00 PM Q: \Wells Fargo \Technical Comments Ltr.doc Carol Lumb - Fwd :_ Wells Fargo- CV operation- E07 -009, L07 -035, and L07 -037 Noti From: To: Date: Subject: Application Hi Jessica: Carol Lumb jessica @craftarchitects.com 07/26/2007 11:13 am Fwd: Wells Fargo - CV operation- E07 -009, L07 -035, and L07 -037 Notice of I am forwarding the only outside comments I received on the Wells Fargo project - these are from Karen Walter, who is with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries program. I am working on a technical comments letter that will consolidate comments I have received from Public Works, our Urban Environmentalist and me. I hope to have this completed by tomorrow or Monday at the latest. In terms of the in -house comments I've received, the major one is from Public Works regarding the need for obtaining from the property owner additional easement area along the levee to allow the levee side slopes to be a maximum of 2.5 to 1. I believe Public Works also brought this issue up at the Pre - Application meeting that was held on this project. There is no need to respond to the Muckleshoot comments separate from my technical comments letter. I will include their comment e-mail with my letter - I just wanted to pass them along so you had an opportunity to review them ahead of time. Let me know if you have any questions. Carol Carol Lumb - Wells Fargo- CV• ration- E07 -009, L07 -035, and L07•7 Notice of Application Page 1 of 1 From: "Karen Walter" < Karen .Walter @muckleshoot.nsn.us> To: "Carol Lumb" <clumb @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 07/24/2007 2:52 PM Subject: Wells Fargo- CV operation- E07 -009, L07 -035, and L07 -037 Notice of Application Carol, The Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division has reviewed the Notice of Application and environmental checklist for the above referenced project. We have some questions. 1. Where does the storm system that will receive stormwater from this project drain to? The checklist is incomplete. 2. How large is the deciduous tree that will be removed? What species of tree is it? How close to the Green River is this tree? 3. Will the project include any low impact development techniques as described in the Low Impact Development guidelines (http: / /www.psat.wa.gov /Publications /LID tech manual05 /lid index.htm; additional information is available at the Puget Sound Action Team's website)? If not, why not? 4. What is the purpose of the "meandering dry creek bed with boulders that will be added along the NE corner of Parcel E? Is this feature needed? Would it be possible to replace this feature with planting trees along the areas of the Green River that are within 200 feet of the project areas to create shade and a source of organic materials for the Green River. . Please note that applicant's project consistency narrative is in error. There is ESA listed chinook that utilizes this portion of the Green River. In addition, there are steelhead trout and coho, both of which are proposed for listing that also utilize this portion of the Green River. As you can see, we need additional information before we can provide any technical comments to this project. I look forward to the City's responses. Thank you, Karen Walter Watershed and Land Use Team Leader MITFD 253- 876 -3116 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \CAROL -L \Local Settings\ Temp \XPGrpWise \46A6121Etuk -ma... 07/24/2007 Joanna Spencer - Proposed Wells Far c,V Operation From: Ryan Larson To: Joanna Spencer Date: 07/03/2007 10:28 am Subject: Proposed Wells Fargo -CV Operation CC: Levesque, Andy Joanna, I have reviewed the levee issue for this project with Jim and have the following comments: The Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the section of riverbank upstream of S. 180th along the Tukwila 205 levee and identified a section that is damaged and in immediate need of repair. The City is working with the King County Flood Control District and the Corps of Engineers to develop a plan to repair these deficiencies and provide adequate bank stability. Existing easements do not allow for adequate side slope angles and levee slumping is the result. To correct these deficiencies, additional easement will be required from the property owner to allow levee side slopes to be a maximum of 2.5 to 1. The Flood Control Ordinance requires abutting property owners to bring deficient levees up to current design standards and grant flood control easements to the King County Flood Control District and the City of Tukwila. Since the City is already working with the Corps of Engineers and King County to upgrade the levee, the City will only require the property owner to grant additional easements to allow the repair to take place. If additional easements can not be secured it will be up to the property owner to repair the levee per Corps of Engineer and King County Standards. The Easement width we are requesting is 125' as measured from the ordinary high water mark along both river frontages. Existing parking can remain but may need to be reconfigured during the actual levee construction by the County. The proposed stormwater vault should be moved as far from the river as practical so that it will not be affected by any future levee setback work. - Ryan CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT' INFORMATION. Jessica Bradley, Craft Architects, PLLC has filed applications for development of a 12,983 sq. ft. concrete tilt -up building and 5,682 sq. ft. covered truck loading area with associated parking, and a separate parking lot associated with an existing building to be located at 6855 S. 180th Street, Tukwila, WA. Each building site is bordered by the Green River. Permits applied for include: E07 -009, SEPA environmental review; L07 -035, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and L07 -037, Design Review. Other known required permits include: building permit Studies required with the applications include: Technical Information Report (stormwater) and Geotechnical Report. An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES ' AVAILABLE'. FOR PUBLIC: REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: E07 -009, L07 -035 and L07 -037 ',OPPORTUNITY:FOR PUBLIC:'COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Wednesday, July 25, 2007. To receive notification of the final decision on this project, please submit this request to DCD by July 23, 2007 as well. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, tentatively scheduled for August 23, 2007 to consider the proposed design of the building (file #L07 -037). To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431 -3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. The design review application may be appealed to the City Council; the shoreline substantial development permit may be appealed to the State Shoreline Hearing Board. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at (206) 431 -3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: May 25, 2007 June 18, 2007 June 25, 2007 CL Page 1 of 1 06/25/2007 9:23:00 AM Q: \Wells Fargo \NOA.doc • VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 'tiAAPOIJ T:.� Midland Dr a o� 5 Trdland Dr aP nE EIVED JUN 01201 C:Gnin'iUNiTY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATION 1 200nn, '600ft- I S,180.th, St ►Ilia $ 160th SC Yi QSegale Park D t7r� Qr qJ., Xr 1 �4Ai o r =S fI raga a� , ; ,: :1 t*, - -- - - ": ,;,%1 - .._te.,,°• , i./ 4 r �j" • s� �S G ci.rSt 29 sit4t @ePuf:st`Il`"" tfi WELLS FARGO CV OPERATIONS Tukwila, Washington awF a r c h i t e c t s COVER SHEET WELLS FARGO CV - OPERATION A PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LOT 4 OF SECTION 36 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST WM f== =T T =60' CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1- 800 - 424 -5555 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1-, S'' '' nn HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing ( s ,--- - CU D Determination of Non - Significance ` Mailer's Signature: b, e:/lloct-___' Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment- Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda 1/ ce 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 gS day of1l� �� -'n the year 20 071 P:\ ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMS\AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION Project Name: Wedt, ( s ,--- - CU D laPAcj-km. Project Number: .-Q -(—i o01 1.07r03s LO'1 -031 ` Mailer's Signature: b, e:/lloct-___' Person requesting mailing: Ca_-o C -A,.,{ -lAk P:\ ADMINISTRATIVEFORMS \FORMS\AFFIDAVITOFDISTRIBUTION () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMIN TION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.O. () NATIONAL SINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. EPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV EPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS SITE MAPS WITH DECISION () OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TRADE () DEPT OF FISHERIES WILDLIFE O DEV. PC KING COUNTY AGENCIES • SEND • SEND () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT $11 () FIRE DISTRICT #12 () K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DMSION () KC. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () KC. ASSESSORS OFFICE SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT iI<TUKIM"�LAIUEtiK RY NTON UBRARY ( ) KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE UBRARY UTILITIES () OWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY UGHT () PUGET SOUND ENERGY () HIGHUNE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES CITY AGENCIES () KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWWLA CITY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLICCIA ORKS () FIRE POUCE () FINANCE () PLANNING () BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () CITY CLERK OTHER ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL 6 ( SW K C CWIMBER OF COMMERCE `I'(M KKLESHOOT INOIAN!N TRIBE 1* 'f ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM .FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDUFE PROGRAM ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL. p:MDMTNISTRATIV ENFORMS\CHKLIST•DOC 111.5er 14011 e, 1 Poitt Vvv410 -I- SeM ci441.11se w- or. P(4"3 ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE KC DEV & ENVIR SERVICE SEPA INFO CNTR )) K.C. TRANSIT DMSION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) KC. LAND & WATER, RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT &20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () BRYN MAWR- LAKERIDGE SEWERANATER DISTRICT ENTON 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. LOCAL AGENCIES )(DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY () SOUND TRANSIT () DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN-UP COALITION *SEND NOTICE OF AU. APPUCATIONS ON OUWAMISH RIVER MEDIA () HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.VVA.US.WWW G✓&-r Aorcfm t"S On' 6.t_ss co. 'bra a �� Suit G o3 ( °� 32 ii✓si!e- 2-tog C - 48 10 I SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts dilate of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmenta . view 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 PMrs) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS:. .. . Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision,on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21-day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant . 'Indian Tribes 'Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list), 'Any parties of record ' send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send These Documents to DQE 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 PMI's) — Site plan, with mean high water mark dc improvements — Cross- sections of site with structures do shoreline — Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part front 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: 1ADMINISTRAT IVE1FORMS1CHXLIST.DOC AMC FAMILY LLC PO BOX 2720 PORTLAND, OR 97208 EJT INC PO BOX 25080 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98093 HD DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND PO BOX 105842 ATLANTA, GA 30348 JAMES CAMPBELL COMPANY L L 1001 KAMOKILA BLVD KAPOLEI, HI 96707 CASCADE TUKWILA LLC 7900 SE 28TH ST 3400 MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 FIRST INTER BNK- KIRKLAND PO BOX 63931 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94163 HIGH BEECH LLC PO BOX 463 REDMOND, WA 98073 LILY POINTE INVESTMENTS 4128 W AMES LAKE DR NE REDMOND, WA 98053 EDWARDS,J MICHAEL 265 CAREFREE WAY FRIDAY HARBOR, WA 98250 GRAY CAT COLLECTIVE LLC 5430 45TH AVE W SEATTLE, WA 98199 HOUGHTON HARBOR LLC 1233 ANDOVER PARK E TUKWILA, WA 98188 NC POWER SYSTEMS CO 17900 W VALLEY HWY SEATTLE, WA 98188 SFP B LTD PTNRSHP TENANT TENANT OPO BOX 667 1228 ANDOVER PARK E 1230 ANDOVER PARK E PRINEVILLE, OR 97754 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TENANT TENANT TENANT 18123 72ND AVE S 18235 OLYMPIC AVE S 18251 CASCADE AVE S KENT, WA 98032 TUKWILA, WA 98188 SEATTLE, WA 98188 TENANT TENANT TENANT 18260 OLYMPIC AVE S 6700 RIVERSIDE DR 6750 S 180TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98188 SEATTLE, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TENANT TENANT TENANT 6801 S 180TH ST 6804 S 180TH ST 6810 S 180TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TENANT TENANT TENANT 6818 S 180TH ST 6820 S 180TH ST 6835 S 180TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98188 TENANT TENANT TUKWILA TT LLC 6847 S 180TH ST 7100 SW 43RD ST 3300 MAPLE VALLEY HWY TUKWILA, WA 98188 TUKWILA, WA 98055 RENTON, WA 98058 Jessica Bradley Craft Architects 1932 1stAve., Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukpla.iu ci.tukwila.wu.us AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) I 6-A✓0 (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 to -LT-0 1 the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and to other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 5. 020 S6- 1 S fel/y/ l' ✓; so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way primary vehicular access to the property for application file number L O 7 -0011 , 401 - 03 S, Lo7 - 03 7 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. Applicant or Project Manager's Signature On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SignSpecHandout - June 2006.doc June 19, 2006 Carol Lumb Public Notice Boards • From: Carol Lumb To: Internet:157 @fastsigns.com Date: 06/18/2007 3:36 pm Subject: Public Notice Boards Hi Julie: I would like to request public notice boards for two different projects as follows: Board #1: Project Name: Associated Grocers Access Improvements File Number: L07 -034 Permit Action: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Site is on the NE corner of East Marginal Way S. and Boeing Access Rd. Please post the notice board on East Marginal Way, just before the entrance to the site, which is just north of the intersection of these 2 roads. There is a power pole at the entrance, then a small strip of grass in front of a chain link fence with brown slats - put the sign to the south of the power pole, in the grassing stip between the sidewalk and the slatted fence. Board #2: Project Name: Wells Fargo Building File Number: E07 -009, L07 -035 and L07 -037 Permit Action: Environmental Review, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Design Review Please post the notice board on the NW corner of Sperry Dr. and S. 180th Street. There is no site address as yet for this project, but the parcel # is 362304 -9095 if you need to see where it is located. Let me know if you have any questions. My telephone number is 206 - 431 -3661 or you can e-mail me at clumb @ci.tukwila.wa. Please let me know as soon as possible when the signs will be posted so I can coordinate the public notice mailing that goes out concurrent with the sign posting. Thanks very much. Carol Lumb June 18, 2007 • Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Ms. Jessica Bradley Craft Architects 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Wells Fargo CV Operations, File Nos. E07 -009 (SEPA), L07 -035 (Shoreline) and L07 -037 (Design Review) Dear Ms. Bradley: Your shoreline substantial development permit and SEPA applications for a new building for Wells Fargo Bank, located at 6855 S. 180th Street, Tukwila have been found to be complete on June 14, 2007 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to me, and tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. The Design Review application (L07 -037) was missing the response to the design review criteria. I have faxed these to your office. I don't need the response to these criteria to get the review process going, but these must be submitted as soon as possible to complete the design review application materials and retain the tentative August 23, 2007 public hearing date before the Board of Architectural Review. If the materials are not received within 90 days, the Department may cancel the application due to inactivity. • This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 431 -3661. Sincerely, ?f1L41 04.614(4/— Carol Lumb Senior Planner cc: Nora Gierloff, Planning Manager Reviewing Departments CL Page 1 of 1 06/16/2007 2:34:00 PM 6300 SotYt PI' &Nara Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 TO: • City of Tukwila Department of Community. Development File Numbers EOi al - 035 L0"1 - D31 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Budding ovr Planning Public Works `Fire Dept. r !! Police Dept. 1 Parks /Rec Project: Lkit is .c-at/1 0 3ic(3 4- STn/ &knC P tu. Lc r- Address: 01.6-5- s - t3C- f _ Date transmitted: (i - I (' -0..7 Response requested by: Sul/ 0, 2.00 7 Staff coordinator: L6.4/01 Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Piotor wii- e., 726.--au b,ee-7) 7 P•ebugtote-- D 0 In Al tX I91uiG iStiozewrs . /7YD,dfA/75 m- A/& l '7b $E 14-PD ED tb roc &-ice- D kCC' 6)0L /friE S7 ire 7M L' /'1, 24/. 05/0 . /14)91 pv 1/' CL. rag L /Y 211 030 's vm c677 /44-W-4/1.--A/ r5 PdZ '.Plan check date: Comments prepared by: J6 ►Z Update date: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Numbers EO'7 -cr LD'l- 035 LO1 - 031 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building ir Planning 'Public Works :'Fire Dept. Police Dept. != Parks /Rec Project: W&S cat/1 o 3►Ct3_ 4- s;zu L nC etA4C . 14 r---- Address: 07`.5, S. 180`1 Date transmitted: 0 - 1(o_0 7 Response requested by: Sul/ 0, 7 Staff coordinator: Lu" ro 1 Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or tuming analyses) may be required of the applicant. Lc, „,d s «� T COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) o In c c c . t ? lc yr - 1710 re LJI4i— . G ine4 ,1„c(k �) o — ��-� s •( 4,) a0,9 v c w '1101e f �� 0-b1,to a reCL vvt o.t.e. ct t I b, cte C c CC 11.>11 v-60 4-5' t�1 Q-e vv a inr) S C a r, Vim `I S � v ut ' 461 V^P C ,-c -to rent vile, c• CoIum1,0 GSP I1 la S- c v rI 1 e re --('ke l e u-ek_ c,t eeo ,v, d ? u C S iree / 1\ € Plan check date: J Comments prepared by: ,SG„„44 Update ate: �, c ,^� e re t A i oof C ) c (Q t& -i c) 7 - g$- -p7 TO: • • Cit y of Tukwila RECEIVE Department of Community Development JUN 1 8 2007 TUKVVlLA PUBLIC WORKS File Numbers Eat x1 0 35 L0-1 — D31 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM Building Planning Public Works :'Fire Dept. Police Dept. 17:2 Parks /Rec Project: tAitirtS cavj 0 Bici.3 +- sno-vi &Y'C pewt(,<. rti r-- Address: U1755 $ . 130` Date transmitted: ii — 1 60—o---7 Response requested by: S`iil g , 2_007 Staff coordinator: L0 1 Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However,_ project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and,/or support materials as needed.) t s e - wee dace/ 7`03/ 20 07 aitackeid n2 Q� h,re2 3) �� 'C c, y % G�i°'7'1- �G°�'�'i°y` 44ze , o , 4. 1 . we:/ 44...eF' / oan% ;goad • ems, . %s ,4 e . C e. Ti fee lac pap,313 Prn ogi, 162/ 17Zt s i s 04, T fp'by * 61-, i.e.0 ,'.-0o/1e,.- �.-/- s /zz.e . 14) C ,01.- issues moo/ m C/ �ez/ , ,,, htoti, €.sf 'e G•rd� e,- of ct ibLGfiff i i .. dz- !/tlu. v �'re pee &r i t J�o,IC �e S DK Plan check date: Comments Update date: ok lrsz"s I prepared by: J2QMn4.P__ _CITY OF: /LA RECEIVED Public Works partment Permit Center 6300 Sauthcenter Blvd., suite "ao1Y 2 5 2001, Tukwila, WA 98188: ht�J/wbvw:ci:tukwila.wa.us COPT MU ITY DEVELOPMENT • Perm tNo. ProjetNo, (Forofce.ure only) TRAFFIC CONCUREENCY CERTIVICATE- APPLICATION; Applications and plans must be complete in order,to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted tbrough'the mail or by fax. Iilease.P.rint"`" SITE LOCATION Site Address: S. 180th St. & Sperry Drive TenantNarnet Wells Fargo -CV Operations Property Owners Name; First International Bank c/o Craft Architects Mailing Address: 1932 1st Avenue #408 King Co, Ass tssor's: Tax No.: 362304 -9017 and 9095 Suite Number: cry Seattle Type of;; Existing Usc :' :Size of:Existing.Usc: is existing. building: vacant? For how long? • slate WA yip 98l.01 . CONTACT PERSON coritact;whrn your concurrencycertiitcate la.ready,to be issued: Name Betsy Dyer /Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc .T)ayTelephonc; 425- 251 -6222 Mailing Address:' 18215 72nd Ave. S. E -Mail Address: bdyer @barghausen. com P'ax'hlumber: 425- 251 -8782 Scope of Work:(please. provide detailed information): To construct a 12,983 sq.ft. new tilt up cone building for storage and sorting of paper products. A 5,682 sq.ft. covered truck loading area will be constructed and parcel "B" will City Kent sistc WA yip 98032 become separate parking for 54 cars. Type of work:' 17 New 0 Addition Type of Proposed Use; 0 Change ise 0 Reinodt1 Size of Proposed Use t7 TenantImproverncnt PERMIT APPLICATION.NOTES - Expiration - Tli,c cancurrency teat,liatice shallexpire.90 days:aita issuance unless: the applicant submit§ a SEPA or other:dodumentatioa pursuant to TMC- 21.04. if die submittal Ja!made,within 90 days, thctest node; shall be valid: for one. calendar year,from the' date of issuance ofthenotica_ Once tho.associated'deyclopment pernut,or building pernut is approved, the final coneuriency Certificate, shall be validifor 2:ycars or as long as,the developer possesses a -valid buildingpemttt for the dovclopment. Extensions may be granted in accordance with TMC 9:S0. Transferability, -,A certificate oft onetureneyis.not transferable to other land, but may,be.transferred to new owntxs'ofthc original land. 'A certificate ofconcerrenay, shalt apply onlyto the specific land usc,,dcnsity, and;uitensity :desnribed.in°the application for devdopnwnt persmt or building permit: ',HEREBY CER Itili T I'HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND kNOW THIS SAME TO TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF : i i TN CAWS.OP.THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND.I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR. THIS. PERMIT. PROPERTY 0 n RTZED.AGENT; �L Signature: 09it.* Print Name: ((A =MP WY Mailing Address r11 Ni 6 b ii S9-. Day Telephone: my Date: . Q� 24, 720 --NI Sute `M- Zip cB 101 1 Date Application Accepted_ moor Date Application Bupires: IOW Staff Initials: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Soutl:center Boulevard, Tukwila, IVA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(a?ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents engineers, contractors or other re rrssentatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property. located at 1.9 555 Cj , ' PtO'f•� �T. for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the Toss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days. shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at (city), ‘^►r' 1 • (state), on 200'4- On this day personally appeared before me executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed purposes mentioned therein. MhW 2-4 "TM M A S D PSY4ES (Print Na e) (Address) •U Z I _ ' 20 �1 . 3I 8 � �' - NAY 2 2007 AJEtt i.∎rrtt COP/yFNT (Phone Num (Signature) a me known to be the individual who same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF on ex-A, kol- 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the St of Washington �G '�-� �LL _�/� residing at lJ li Ilk) w04!i(Ar I1C� Ioh1 My Commission expires Atte ly, Soto P,00am ins FormAApplicuion SMrr6,06 doc Murtha 4. 2006 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanAci.tukwila.wa.us • 14� SEPA Ay CA4RONMENTAL 2 6 2007 REVIEW APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: Application Complete (Date: � File Number: ��� O 1 b ° — D01-- Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: ,cj��A�o -Gv np�QA-n�a� LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. job 5- .22on ar. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 319- 23- b4gbfl t?PRv,H4,1 -1:St) : 3to -z3 -1' 900,56 M.v►1%,DI1,I b� DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: 3".s_slc_f\I-te.f\t).L.Eki- I\2\ tTECTS Address: '°) Fas-t' �\ V� t `� 4O9J `E\ 10 I Phone: r%n(p -%2- 7O�� FAX: 20119--7 2O - 2.949 E -mail: e=�j ► � AI �? 'f'OS 0.sc- 61 E S , C Signature: 114,/ Date: 511 -)1 c7 P: \Planning Forms\ ' pplications \ EPAApp- 6- 06.doc December 4, 2006 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 - 431 -3670 (Departmea of Community Development) and 206 - 433 -0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. "�� 20 Vi May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and P 1 . APPLICATION MATERIALS: 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. N. `■ 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist, SEPA Environmental Checklist and drawings (5 copies). 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17 ". ' j 4. Application Fee $590. NI 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA review. L \ c, \.\2 PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: NI 6. of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or _Payment Provide a 4' x 4' public notice oar on site wit m ay of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). 7. Payment of a $100 mailing label fee to the City of Tukwila or Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple - family buildings - e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). .4/A 8. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: 9. Vicinity Map with site location. 10. Provide four (4) copies of any sensitive area studies such as wetland or eotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See the Geotechnica epo Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www.ci .tukwila.wa.us /dcd /dcdplan.htm) for additional information. 11. Any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit. Maximum size 24" x 36 ". P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-6-06.doc December 4, 2006 .1 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 1A1 VAR-C) - CA) D'-R- P�o1.1s 2. Name of Applicant: Agency Comments 3. Date checklist prepared: MN( IS , 2oc 7 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): UoNC) 5/c>" G rz.rz \pc,, 9/0-7 L.X)C0 CnA.MV. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 140 7. List any environmental information you know about that lias been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. aF..C7 .C.H1y1Get. RN' pATE p?.1 L 1-7,2007. 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. 1\1a 0 P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-6-06.doc December 4, 2006 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 9. List any government appror permits that will be needed for your proposal. RANA yr Im KfcNtc4L, -.L c .tc 1. A 'FcftSQQxiae.. 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size- of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. 1'Ap_c_V.1--.11 )12 ,98 3 s cxiti1 C.:BLDG rp.. STb?J r. Agency Comments • ,, -rev► ..4 LO N ti-16, .o§ Is-\ -9.1 \n-T\ON oo (i'P.0 ZtnGv. Cszy4s , c a� sT:E.L CiNetv TracsycaE . Pig` i\A6) -50 R. SA- C.ARs(AshRALID 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 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. R11/4r2l. _ LL IS i,ocA p a -r •5 c.0 VS2 65 \-\ %t ' • .'rr • • 3 - 049095 we p 1 Loy e_ . r CRAVE, b1■ ., _ = _ `= t. 0 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? YES — w I 114 Ink114 Zoo' 05 C \.1. � SHO EL • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Agency Comments b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Z tvt Ax �� D 1 fc P.L.01N16. G .IAR`v -(R c� kgEsK P2oPitrY . 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. StLTkSRi41:) SAAO\' 51LT OR kAA1 5l LT•wI Q1�r.,AT ��.1�LV�51 Dt.tS • d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable. soils in the immediate vicinity? • If o, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. AN 0 —` _ r�_ • • eta `f� _.. _ 11V1Pd -PILL WILL 91 -ACS. box "lea G% OG s--q_11:11-1/1 WtLL jlfmkL 01.1- 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 descri e. DIME mks_ s1/4i 4 5 oF. S rr , -%T j'S R LO 4-.15- C= ! •s • I� L ..liar..am.. _.t't. Agency Comments g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 58°r� h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: ±1.!1111' _ , .■ 1111. S \LT1 n\NI ‘ Wu-k- 0\iME-1) ` OJnc Zwi.ticycz lose CDtas' vextc : La -413Sci\P114 A SA215NcE WFTaE ob sA: 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. 1 t�1la CCAt1S Ac'ikak-s :SPAN-L. 6u,l..tsc 1if 'S O • \) Gl ' to_MS1c _S oykn QUA `t (1AP�11•1 G 6P_Jko k\ v Q P iitezzx CAv.A9 Leo . 1-Y Pt Cam.. 11 \k ' \ X \ - \ E t 16-gs -59..o �- b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 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. .. 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. \f't, , -r1-V. SyJ `1.j W BU t L ti41, tk) l u.._ RP? . 10"7' Wpm ��(', L1t.1 F Tey -ro rt COQ . ,�vtet13'7'- ' c .Wpm 6s ov PRR41Ai PQOP. Ly1.1V +Ad Flom T\E vV 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. • • 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. . Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type . of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. 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. 1.1(5 Agency Comments • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 2. 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: c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will,this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 3A146 m RAI L W 1 LL "E,, C.01-'1..CMU Agency Comments ( ukL1-\Y \Ru X.c C> 2. C-►-T‘( " 0(403S P9 V` 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: RVS G PA2k.A1.1U, SM - W 'M kkaa-S $ 1_4\ -t4 L_Po P 11.16. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: I Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, €ther) Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs X 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 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Aj-tl Len- bra c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Ut11k.1.1 riw�.t Agency Comments d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 'PLAI ■\-\ PI-4;1174 WILL C. K. 1?N- ®vJ `$ou.► -uses P,u3W ALOV 6 • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. I/I.ia 1$/5 .31A • d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: IAv kil'EkSkOE W to 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be_used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. U.L.�crak Pcv2_Pos Agency Comments CAA L\ • • 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. 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: TN'. 3tuILDDt [� \j ' LL �1.1_ C -r6 hi -' D� VJi\5irk1A,Q --d 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. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: S-rs SAS O S' ■& 0,t1 I-JA ta6i a5 E #p er Sly v, G 'N. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? TH i s �S A RUSY w .\1g'{2. < (J,L k ATT c 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. • ► 1 VOA •� LifskATRAkcAlotA lAD\5_5 . Pp-st' C l.cRtrtil : `11. .04.rc‘ S\Z PLO s ¶f F1C. • 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Cap MatA. Urtr .6c L-ATto . =1:8 C.ot.k. r -u.Ln ccA 1n10' .No�iPs • ■ i ��.• ►1_� V IL a �t c� tcx G Toe. T e. ; AWt L. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Z-014 NG I S -11,V 6-TA OA.) I }-ik . • ! Agency Comments -4∎ 141 _ __* • � . _ 1 • � ` E _ 1 Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. 16 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? -11AV__V31 LK. \A0A;-\--‘ (-11L4 f. What is the 'current comprehensive:plan desi nation of the site? • TUv.vr lteZik . N,- :w cm cP Peox _ 2 o' .EN g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. cs •_D -fi t• 1 ty."E. Peinirn y To eve Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? • 7Ir ! Lamt.. it . t _ _ • a r,: _ Agency Comments 1 -L -�-� -W 11■-z&.. Po\i-kMi<s■ x-35 b PLC tv�Y W5ice-ti4 Fk-r ■MAr(vMv\ cM fac- j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 1�0 k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: CR- SIE0V15 .15 - LOuk' -Q 11--\ 7Ar arYi 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, �m`iddle, or low- income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 2 2-' l• _ � 1G- • W A LL •PA'I� J-� b. What views in the 'immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? 14C LfiRE $ge3 " i ti lid 6 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 0 nnsn s . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? . GL. RE P1/4- c) OM), GikTVNAZ Agency Comments t4 Nez—tt SIR 1 r► la : b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? 1\1b c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: L • t.� v L. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? • 1 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. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including `recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant,; if any: 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. 14 6 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. i -IA QUSr��,. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. D12-\ . S 2-`c „\1-E 1s��1 T'� •5:1 . Ait b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance - to the nearest transit stop? Yes -'kl si 1-S ,I\ TPA ACS' c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? -4 or! S to -5t,Pa►,5 0.A 'N 12 :%” *Oe 6v_e_.iRtatz PARK! qcss -..1—.1rn1M4 k c3. 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). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. • 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. isartZcZZ, 74.11. 0=. ► to $ owl- 4Ry S s5 \An - as hn P p ', a- 4 C)V h s . 4\(?)pi,.i ay. t.. vso \ 146 Ztiei, 6; Psfmk. o . ki3 i.- rsc..c V. . g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 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. *RoT )C PE.c p '1"-(5 1W \ b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. c E 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: system other: septic • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. 1 U line- ,_Gas —x - Sbthi40-14 E.P6Y V) P'C's ? —CA—Cr csv 7i.t.e -v3 ‘L Q We-St -S\rAtI '— Cry 6r1-v..1 ,\MLA 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. Date Submitted: N- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). • • City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: M ty 15, 2-067 Applicant Name: 3— t R�1iL cF �L�1 rtiric0 Street Address: nag:Ft R;ST � 5 4 . City, State, Zip: S Rte ., \,c1 A qB I41 Telephone: Z.019"720 Ob 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. P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-6-06.doc December 4, 2006 L 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 (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 YES Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -0 -- YrTi) Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 w ill the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle al ropriate response. 13 Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt sh uld answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 P: \ Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp -6-06. doc December 4, 2006 Part B (continued) • City of TukweESA Screening Checklist 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) leContinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast - height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. N 1 - Continue to Question 2 -3 4111011 Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) 4:0 Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a w ercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) • City of TukwilySA Screening Checklist from a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 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 c' le appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, rticularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete str_ctures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) • VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE • PROJECT LOCATION trlldland Dr_` +Or�llia !1 t . ., i Q ! (f-_ E.7 i r , i p•,._. _ 17 I l • • 1 4: , r�...} _ # r } �p k ,v, d. 7I S i8�tit 5t. ,S Glyc�°2r.SC - }d; 2,gA054'itgPgu est,irte, WELLS FARGO CV OPERATIONS Tukwila, Washington crvrr a r c h i t: e C t s I 11; REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WELLS-FARGO TOC ANNEX TUKWILA, WASHINGTON _ FOR CRAFT ARCHITECTS, INC. -- ---- - - .--", ---- -- --- ---/..----29;-":-- -; - - " . ' - -- ' - " --- - • -"--. ..".,- '.."-- - ";:"...:- '.,'"' • Geotechnical Engineering Services File No. 5206 - 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Prepared for: Craft Architects, Inc. Terminal Sales Building 1932 First Avenue, Suite 408 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Kathryn Craft, Principal Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 (253) 383 -4940 GeoEngineers, Inc. D. Craig Rd er Geotechnical Engineer 4-4,(7 Garry H. Squires, PE, LG, LEG Principal DCR:GHS:tt TACO:\5\ 5206008 \00Winals\520600800R.doc Copyright® 2007 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. File No. 5206- 008 -00 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 GEOLOGY REVIEW 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 GENERAL 3 FOUNDATION SUPPORT 3 General 3 Spread Footings 4 Settlement 4 FLOOR SLABS 4 CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS 5 Drainage 5 Design Parameters 5 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK 6 General 6 Stripping and Clearing 6 Subgrade Preparation 6 Preload and Surcharge Fill 7 Temporary Excavation Support, Fill Slopes and Groundwater Handling 7 Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes 7 Surface Drainage 8 Erosion Control 8 FILL MATERIALS 8 General 8 Pipe Bedding 8 Trench Backfill 9 Use of On -Site Soil as Fill 9 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION 9 General 9 Area Fills and Bases 9 Trench Backfill 9 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 10 General 10 Seismic Design Criteria 10 Liquefaction Potential 10 File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page i GEOENGINEERSI • • TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page No. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 11 General 11 Design Assumptions 11 LIMITATIONS 12 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Settlement Plate Detail APPENDICES APPENDIX A — SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Appendix A Figures Figure A -1. Key to Exploration Logs Figures A -2 and A -3. Log of Borings Figures A-4 and A -5. CPT Logs Figure A-6. Sieve Analysis Results Figure A -7. Atterberg Limits Test Results APPENDIX B — REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page ii GEOENGINEERSci • • REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WELLS -FARGO TOC ANNEX TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR CRAFT ARCHITECTS, INC. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Wells -Fargo TOC Annex building. The project site is located southwest of the intersection of South 180th Street and Sperry Drive in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING An existing Wells -Fargo building is located between the Green River and Sperry Drive on the south side of 180th Street in Tukwila. The proposed TOC Annex will be located to the north of the existing building in a grass pasture that fronts on South 180th Street. We understand the TOC Annex will be a single -story structure of approximately 13,500 square feet, with an on- grade concrete floor slab, concrete walls, and concrete roof. The new annex building will contain a concrete vault approximately 52 feet long, 24.5 feet wide and 9.5 feet high, with 9 -inch thick walls and a steel door. Structural loads are expected to be relatively high for a single -story structure. Based on the total weight of the structure, we calculate an average ground pressure of about 535 pounds per square foot (psf), over the building footprint. We understand column loads are on the order of 225 kips, and strip footing loads are approximately 3 kips per linear foot. The proposed improvements will include a covered truck parking area, the TOC Annex building, an additional paved parking area and a new stormwater detention pond that will be located to the east of the new building. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our services is to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions as a basis for developing design criteria for geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. Our specific scope of services for this project included the following: 1. Review readily available published geologic data for existing information on soil and groundwater conditions in the project vicinity. 2. Locate and coordinate clearance of existing public utilities, by contacting the "One -Call Underground Utility Locate Service" prior to beginning explorations. A private locator was also utilized to check for private utilities on site. 3. Explore soil and groundwater conditions at the site by drilling one hollow -stem auger boring to a depth of 40 feet in the building area and one boring to a depth of about 10 feet in the proposed parking area using a subcontracted rubber -tired drill rig. We supplemented the information from the borings with two Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) probes that were extended to a depth of 50 feet below grade. 4. Perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate pertinent engineering characteristics. The laboratory test program consisted of moisture content determinations, Atterberg Limit tests and grain -size analyses. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2006 Page I GEOENGINEERS 5. Provide a discussion of the subsurface conditions encountered. 6. Provide recommendations for shallow foundations, including allowable soil bearing pressures, settlement (total and differential) estimates, lateral earth pressures and coefficient of friction for evaluating sliding resistance. 7. Provide recommendations for support of on -grade floor slabs, including capillary break, vapor retarder, underslab drainage, and modulus of subgrade reaction, as appropriate. 8. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, including clearing and stripping, and temporary and permanent cut slopes. We also discuss suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, constraints for wet weather construction, specifications for imported soil for use as structural fill, and fill placement and compaction requirements. 9. Provide recommendations for site drainage and control of groundwater. 10. Evaluate potential for consolidation- related settlement of structures and provide recommendations to reduce post - construction settlement by preloading the site. 11. Discuss seismic considerations, including seismic design criteria consistent with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) and our opinion of the liquefaction potential of site soils. 12. Provide recommendations for asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) design, including base and subbase requirements for the proposed parking areas. We provide typical minimum ACP section recommendations based on our experience. 13. Comment on anticipated construction difficulties identified from the results of our site studies. GEOLOGY REVIEW The geologic information we reviewed for the project vicinity includes the Geologic Map King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Investigation, scale 1:100,000 (Derek B. Booth, et.al.), May 2006, which maps the soil underlying the project area as alluvium (soil unit Qal). Alluvium typically consists of moderately well sorted deposits of cobbles, gravel, sand and fine- grained soils such as silt and clay. Alluvium may also include some lake deposits and"marine alluvium. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located in a commercially developed area of Tukwila, Washington, and is bounded by the Green River to the west, South 180th Street to the north, Sperry Drive to the east, and the existing Wells - Fargo building to the south. Site grades are generally level, except along the west boundary where there is an earth berm adjacent to the Green River. The site is currently a grass - landscaped lawn area. We observed some concrete debris in the project area at the time of our site visit. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS We explored subsurface conditions at the site on March 13 and 19, 2007, by drilling two borings on the site. Two CPT soundings were also conducted on the site on March 12, 2007, to a depth of 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). The approximate locations of the CPT soundings and the soil borings are shown on Figure 2 — Site Plan. Details of our subsurface exploration program and summary exploration logs are included in Appendix A. File No. 5206- 008 -00 Page 2 GEOENGINEERS April 17, 2007 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS We encountered alluvial soil deposits in our explorations as anticipated. In boring 1, we encountered 3 inches of sod at the surface, underlain by silty sand in a loose to very loose, moist condition that extends to about 6.5 feet bgs. We then encountered interbedded layers of very soft or loose silt, sandy silt, silty sand and organic silt with peat inclusions to a depth of 26.5 feet. From 26.5 feet to the boring termination depth, we encountered sand with silt that ranges from loose to medium dense. The CPT soundings generally correlate quite well with the soil borings. However, the probes indicate that the sand with silt layer encountered at depth is typically in a medium dense to very dense condition. We encountered groundwater in both soil borings. Depth to groundwater during exploration was about 10 feet bgs at the location of boring 1, and about 8 feet bgs in boring 2. We expect depth to groundwater will vary seasonally, generally being higher during the winter and spring months. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our review and subsurface exploration program, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements can be constructed generally as envisioned with regard to geotechnical considerations. The site is underlain by compressible soils, which will consolidate under the building loads. Settlement will likely occur on the order of 3.5 to 4.5 inches. As a result, preloading and a surcharge is recommended. A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. • Surficial duff, sod and organic -rich material should be stripped from all areas to be improved. • We recommend the site be._preloaded and surcharged to reduce the potential for unacceptable post - construction settlement. • Because of the potential for settlement resulting from consolidation bf portions of the alluvium, filling to establish proposed grades should be completed at least one month before starting foundation excavations. This would include both the preload and surcharge fill material • The site soil is not suitable for direct su••ort of spread footings or floor slabs and it will be necessary to support these structural elements on imported structural fill. • The site soil is highly moisture sensitive and will be difficult to work or compact when wet, or if earthwork is performed in wet weather. Additional importation of select structural fill to replace wet on -site soil should be anticipated if earthwork is performed during wet weather. FOUNDATION SUPPORT General Because of the soft sediments at shallow depth and the potential for differential settlement with respect to the existing structure we recommend the building addition area be preloaded and surcharged prior to foundation construction. In our opinion, the proposed structure can be satisfactorily founded on continuous wall or isolated column footings supported on structural fill after completing a preload and File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 3 GEOENGINEERSQ • • surcharge program. If subgrade soils are loose or disturbed they must be compacted to a dense, unyielding condition or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Spread Footings The proposed building can be supported on continuous wall or isolated column footings underlain by at least 3 feet of imported structural fill. Overexcavation will be required where there is less than 3 feet of imported structural fill below foundation grade. We recommend the overexcavation extend beyond the footing perimeter for a horizontal distance equal to the depth of the excavation. Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth -edged bucket to limit bearing surface disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials in footing excavations should be removed or recompacted. The exterior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The recommended mmi footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth. Interior footings can be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the to of the floor slab. It may be appropriate to protect prepared and approved footing excavations if they are to remain open in wet weather. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. Water that accumulates in footing excavations should be removed and the bearing surface reevaluated before placing reinforcing steel or foundation concrete. We understand that structural loads will be on the order of 225 kips for columns and 3 kips per foot for perimeter walls, approximately 90 percent of which is dead plus long term live load. Isolated column and continuous wall footings should have minimum widths of 5 feet and 18 inches, respectively. We recommend that footings founded as recommended be proportioned using a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This bearing pressure applies to the total of dead and long -term live loads and may be increased by one -third when considering total loads, including earthquake or wind loads. This is a net bearing pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. Settlement Provided the building area is preloaded and surcharged as recommended herein, we estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended should be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated loading conditions. Differential settlements between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing should be less than 1/2 inch. Settlements could be larger than estimated if footings are placed on loose or disturbed bearing material, or designed under the minimum recommendations. FLOOR SLABS A modulus of subgrade reaction of 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for designing the building floor slab provided that the subgrade consists of structural fill and has been prepared in accordance with the "Site Development and Earthwork" section of this report. We recommend the floor slabs be underlain by at least 18 inches of imported select fill, consisting of well - graded sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines by weight, based on the minus 3/4 inch fraction. Settlements for the floor slab designed and constructed as recommended are estimated to be less than 1 inch. We estimate that differential settlement of the floor slabs will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet providing that the fill below the slab is compacted as specified, and the preload/surcharge is completed as recommended herein. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 4 GEOENGINEERSO • • If dry slabs are required (e.g., where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab), a waterproof liner may be placed as a vapor barrier below the slab. CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALLS Drainage Pncitive draina a is imperative behind any retaining structure. This can be accomplished by using a drainage zone of free draining material behind the wall with perforated pipes to discharge the collected water. The drainage material should consist of coarse sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines based on the fraction of material passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. The wall drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. A perforated smooth- walled rigid PVC pipe having a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be placed at the bottom of the drainage zone along the entire length of the wall, with the pipe invert at or below the elevation of the base of the wall footing. The drainpipes should discharge to a tightline leading to an appropriate collection and disposal system. An adequate number of cleanouts should be incorporated into the design of the drains in order to provide access for regular maintenance. Roof downspouts, perimeter drains or other types of drainage systems should not be connected to retaining wall drain systems. Design Parameters The pressures presented assume that backfill placed within 2 feet of the wall is compacted by hand - operated equipment to a density of 90 percent of the MDD and that wall drainage measures are included as previously recommended. For walls constructed as described above, we recommend using an active lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for the level backfill condition. For walls with backfill sloping upward behind the wall at 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical), an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf should be used. This assumes that the tops of the walls are not structurally restrained and are free to rotate. The above values are for walls that retain native soil. For the at -rest condition, equivalent a fluid density of 55 pcf should be used for native soil. The recommended pressures do not include the effects of surcharges from surface loads. Appropriate factors of safety should be applied to these values with respect to bearing capacity, sliding and overturning. If vehicles will be operated to within one -half the height of the wall, a traffic surcharge should be added to the wall pressure. The traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 2 feet of backfill behind the wall. Retaining walls founded on structural fill may be designed using the allowable soil bearing values and lateral resistance values presented above in the "Shallow Foundation Support" section of this report. We estimate settlement of 'retaining structures should be similar to the values previously presented for building foundations, provided preloading and surcharging is performed as discussed above. The table below summarizes our recommended design parameters File No. 5206- 008 -00 Apri117, 2007 Page 5 GEOENGINEERSD Recommended Design Parameters Active Earth Pressure (Ka) = 35 pcf At -Rest Earth Pressure (Ko) = 55 pcf Passive Earth Pressure for Design (F.S. = 1.5) = 270 pcf Coefficient of Friction for Design (F.S. = 1.5) = 0.40 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND EARTHWORK General We anticipate that site development work will include clearing and stripping, placing fill to establish design grades, excavating for utility trenches, preloading and surcharging the building area, and placing and compacting excavated or backfill materials. We expect that the majority of site grading can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The following sections provide recommendations for earthwork, site development and fill materials. Stripping and Clearing The sod and organic -rich soil should be stripped and removed from proposed pavement and structural areas. Stripped material should be transported off site for disposal or processed and used in landscaping areas. Required stripping depths should be evaluated based on observations during the stripping operation. We estimate stripping depths could be on the order of 6 inches to remove the surficial organic material. Greater stripping depths may be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic soil and tree roots near the western edge of the project area. Additional stripping may be required if subgrades become disturbed during stripping operations. Subgrade Preparation We recommend compacting the exposed soil to a uniformly firm and unyielding condition prior to placement of fill. We recommend that prepared subgrades be observed by a member of our firm, prior to placement of fill, including the preload and surcharge fill discussed below. Our representative will evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and identify areas of yielding, which are indicative of soft or loose soil. The exposed subgrade soil should be proof - rolled with heavy rubber -tired equipment and/or probed with a 1/2- inch -steel rod, as necessary. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas are revealed during proof - rolling or probing that cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: 1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or farmer's disc), aerated and recompacted; or 2) the unsuitable soils be removed and replaced with structural fill, as needed. Soils encountered in the explorations contain a significant percentage of fines. This material may be sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Site soil may be difficult, if not impossible, to work and compact when wet or if construction occurs during wet weather conditions. Soil with high fines content is susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic when wet or if earthwork is performed during wet weather. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 6 GEOENGINEERSO • • Preload and Surcharge Fill We recommend that a minimum of 3.5 feet of temporary surcharrg-e_ fill be placed in the building area. The surcharge fill height should be measured relatively to finish floor elevation and should be increased — to 4 feet in the areas of the isolated column footings and below the vault area. The preload/surcharge area should include the entire building footprint ands Sieet beyond the outside ed e of footings; then slope down at the angle of repose. The preload must not be placed within 5 feet of the existing bui ding because of the potential for inducing settlement . enea+ - . , uildings footings. • Settlement of the preload fill should be monitored at several locations. This can be accomplished by setting settlement plates in the fill (see Figure 3) and taking survey elevation readings referenced to a benchmark well away from the surcharge fill. We recommend that the surcharge fill be left in place until most of the settlement has occurred. Based on our experience, we estimate this could take approximately 3 to 4 weeks. We are available to review settlement data and recommend when the surcharge can be removed. Temporary Excavation Support, Fill Slopes and Groundwater Handling Excavations deeper than 4 feet should be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring and temporary slope inclinations must conform to the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." Regardless of the soil type encountered in the excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). The contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and structures. In general, temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1.5H:1V. This guideline assumes that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant seepage occurs or if large voids are created during excavation. Some sloughing and raveling of the cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering with heavy plastic sheeting should be used to protect slopes during periods of wet weather. Groundwater was encountered in the borings completed for this study. Some perched groundwater may also occur in the near - surface soil depending on the time of year of construction. We anticipate that the groundwater handling needs will generally be lower during the late summer and early fall months. We anticipate that perched groundwater encountered in shallow footing or trench excavations can be handled adequately with sumps, pumps, and/or diversion ditches, as necessary. Temporary dewatering will be necessary for deeper excavations. Ultimately, we recommend that the contractor performing the work be made responsible for controlling and collecting groundwater encountered. Permanent Cut and Fill Slopes Based on our review of the plan documents, we do not expect that permanent cut and fill slopes will be necessary. However, if plans change and they become a part of the construction, we recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be constructed at a maximum inclination of 2H: 1V. Where 2H:1V permanent slopes are not feasible, retaining structures should be considered. Cut areas should be re- vegetated as soon as practical to reduce the surface erosion and sloughing. We recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt slightly and subsequently cut back to expose well compacted fill in order to achieve uniform compaction. Temporary erosion protection should be used until permanent protection is established. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 7 GEOENGINEER567 Surface Drainage Surface water from roofs, driveways and landscape areas should be collected and controlled. Curbs or other appropriate measures such as sloping pavements, sidewalks and landscape areas should be used to direct surface flow away from the buildings and erosion sensitive areas. Roof and catchment drains should discharge to an appropriate collection system. Erosion Control Based on existing site grades and the proposed development, we anticipate that erosion control measures such as silt fences, straw bales and sand bags will generally be adequate for the proposed development. However, if construction and grading is staged, slopes may be created and additional erosion control measures may have to be implemented. Temporary erosion control should be provided during construction activities and until permanent erosion control measures are functional. Surface water runoff should be properly contained and channeled using drainage ditches, berms, swales, and tightlines and should not discharge onto sloped areas. Any disturbed sloped areas should be protected with a temporary covering until new vegetation can take effect. Jute or coconut fiber matting, excelsior matting or clear plastic sheeting is suitable for this purpose. Graded or disturbed slopes should be tracked in -place with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track grouser marks provide a texture to help resist erosion. Permanent measures for erosion control should include reseeding or replanting the disturbed areas as soon as possible and protecting those areas until new vegetation has been established. Permanent site grading should be accomplished in such a manner that stormwater runoff is not concentrated and surface water is not directed to sloped portions or into excavated areas of the site. This can be accomplished by grading to direct the flow to appropriate collection points away from the slopes or excavations. FILL MATERIALS General Material used for fill should be free of debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. If construction is performed during wet weather conditions, we recommend using fill consisting of well - graded sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines by weight based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork phase of construction, a somewhat higher fines content may be acceptable. Pipe Bedding Trench backfill for the bedding and pipe zone should consist of well- graded granular material with a maximum particle size of 3/4 inch and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. The material should be free of roots, debris, organic matter and other deleterious material. File No. 5206- 008 -00 Apri117, 2007 Page 8 GEOENGINEERS. Trench Backfill We recommend that all trench backfill consist of material of approximately the same quality as "gravel borrow" described in Section 9- 03.14(1) of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), 2006 Standard Specifications. All fills should be constructed in horizontal lifts at the appropriate thickness for compaction. For compaction recommendations refer to the "Fill Placement and Compaction" section of this report. Use of On -Site Soil as Fill Based on our subsurface explorations, it is our opinion that inorganic mineral native sand, sand with silt and silty sand on the site may be considered for use as structural fill, provided they can be placed and compacted as recommended. The silt and sandy silt are not suitable for use as structural fill. The majority of the native materials have a high fines content, which may make it difficult or impossible to compact them during periods of extended wet weather. FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION General Structural fill should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The optimum moisture content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. Silty soil and other fine granular soil such as silt, sandy silt, silty sand, and sand with silt may be difficult or impossible to compact during persistent wet conditions. Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and uniformly densified with vibratory compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 10 to 12 inches in loose thickness. Area Fills and Bases Structural fill placed to raise site grades and aggregate base materials under foundations, slabs and pavements should be placed on a prepared subgrade that consists of uniformly firm and unyielding inorganic native soils or compacted fill. Structural fill (including the preload) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor). Surcharge fill will not remain below proposed structures and so it does not need to be compacted as structural fill. However, the surcharge may need to be compacted in order to meet the unit weight requirement described in the "Foundation Support" section of this report. Trench Baclll For utility excavations, we recommend that the initial lift of fill over the pipe be thick enough to reduce the potential for damage during compaction but generally should not be greater than about 18 inches. In addition, rock fragments greater than about 1 inch in maximum dimension should be excluded from this lift. In building areas, trench backfill should be uniformly compacted in horizontal lifts to at least 95 percent of the MDD (ASTM D 1557). Fill placed below a depth of 2 feet in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD (ASTM D 1557). In nonstructural areas, trench backfill should be File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 9 GEOENGINEERS . • • compacted to a firm condition to allow mobilization of construction equipment. Suitable native soils or select granular soils should be acceptable in non - structural areas. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS General The site is located within the Puget Sound region, which is seismically active. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific, Juan de Fuca, and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American plate. It is thought that the resulting deformation and breakup of the Juan de Fuca plate might account for the deep focus earthquakes in the region. Hundreds of earthquakes have been recorded in the Puget Sound area. In recent history, four of these earthquakes were large events: 1) in 1946, a Richter magnitude 7.2 earthquake occurred in the Vancouver Island, British Columbia area; 2) in 1949, a Richter magnitude 7.1 earthquake occurred in the Olympia area, 3) in 1965, a Richter magnitude 6.5 earthquake occurred between Seattle and Tacoma, and 4) on February 28, 2001, a magnitude 6.8 occurred at Nisqually near Olympia. Research is currently underway regarding historical large magnitude subduction- related earthquake activity along the Washington and Oregon coasts. Geologists are reporting evidence that suggests several large magnitude earthquakes (Richter magnitude 8 to 9) have occurred in the last 1,500 years, the most recent of which occurred about 300 years ago. No earthquakes of this magnitude have been documented during the recorded history of the Pacific Northwest. Seismic Design Criteria Seismic design for the building area may be performed using the equivalent static force procedure outlined in the 2006 IBC using the parameters provided below. Seismic Design Parameters 2006 IBC Spectral Response Accel. at Short Periods (Ss) = 1.39 Spectral Response Accel. at 1 Second Periods (Si) = 0.48. Site Class = D Site Coefficient (FA) = 0.9 Site Coefficient (Fv) = 2.4 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense "clean" to silty sands that are below the water table. We evaluated liquefaction potential at the site using conventional methods based on SPT values converted from our field data. Based on empirical correlations it is our opinion that portions of the sand and silty sand could liquefy, most likely in isolated and discontinuous zones. We anticipate liquefaction would result in settlement at ground surface due to the depth of the overburden overlying the liquefiable soils. We estimate that total and differential settlements on the order of 2.5 to 3 inches could occur across the File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 10 GEOENGINEERS • • site due to liquefaction. We recommend that the structure be designed to withstand this level of differential settlement without catastrophic collapse. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS General Pavement subgrades and structural fill should be prepared and placed as previously described. The crushed rock base course should be moisture conditioned near the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD determined in accordance with ASTM D 1577 test procedures. An appropriate number of in -place density testing should be conducted on the compacted base course to check that adequate compaction has been obtained. Crushed rock base course should conform to applicable sections of 4 -04 and 9- 03.9(3) of the WSDOT, 2006 Standard Specifications. Design Assumptions The pavement sections described below must be supported on a subgrade that comprises recompacted native soil overlain by a layer of imported select fill. We recommend a minimum select fill thickness of 18 inches in the truck loading and unloading area, and 12 inches in the vehicle parking areas. Subbase fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD determined in accordance with ASTM D 1577 test procedures. Subgrades below the subbase fill must be firm and unyielding. Hot mix asphaltic concrete should conform to applicable sections of 5 -04, 9 -02 and 9 -03 of the WSDOT 2006 Standard Specifications. The recommended pavement sections assume that final improvements surrounding the pavement will be designed and constructed such that stormwater or excess irrigation water from landscape areas does not infiltrate below the pavement section into the crushed base or subbase fill. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Automobile Parking Areas) • Surfacing: 2 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58 -22. • Base: 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. • Subbase: 12 inches of select granular fill placed as previously recommended. • Subgrade: Recompacted native soil. Asphaltic Concrete Pavement (Truck Loading ! Unloading Area) • Surfacing: 3 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58 -22. • Base: 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. • Subbase: 18 inches of select granular fill placed as previously recommended. • Subgrade: Recompacted native soil. The recommended pavement sections may not be adequate for heavy construction traffic conditions such loads imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks, or crane loads. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction, and/or repair of damaged pavements should be anticipated. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 11 GEOENGINEERSO • • LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use by Craft Architects, Inc. and their authorized agents for the Wells -Fargo TOC Annex project located at South 180th Street and Sperry Drive in Tukwila, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Please refer to the Appendix B titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page 12 GEOENGINEERS.. 0 0 L. a) co o_ ca 2 SW27th'S ---Strander-Blvd ----S 166th.St S 168th•St SW-34th,St Renton SW.30th•St S CO SWdSt ESA.. cc SW 41st St as >c E th co co 0 co 0 0 co co 0 0 CD 0 CO 0- Office: TAC S.187thipt; • .7* • • • SA 871b-St go—S-190th St.;— !Iks-lsznciAst: S 192nd,SP. S-190th•St :,.S.190thSt S•196th.St S198th.St-60 S 200th•St S 200th St Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. Geo Engineers, Inc cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and wit serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: Interstates, state routes, and roads from TIGER 2000. County boundaries, cities, and waterbodies from Department of Ecology. USGS topo map provided by TerraServer (DRG-Scale4m). Lambert Conformal Conic, Washington State Plane North, North American Datum 1983 Pierce Pacific fi Lewis amen Yakima Ben 2,000 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Wells-Fargo TOC Annex Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 1 0 0 0 (f) 0 0 : \5206008 \00 \CAD \520600800F2.dwg 0 0 S. 180TH STREET PROPOSED TO .ANNEX BUILDING PROPOSED TRUCK LOADING /UNLOADING AREA onlcrot CPT-2,L r =1■1 B -1 ate. PROPOSED DETENTION POND A CPT -1 EXISTING BUILDING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Reference: Drawing provided by ? ?? Legend B -1- Boring number and approximate location CPT-1A Cone Penetrometer Test number and approximate location 30 0 30 Feet Site Plan Wells -Fargo TOC Annex Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS /// Figure 2 as 0 0 0 TACO:\5\ 5206008 \00 \Finals \520600800Figure3.ppt DCR:GHS:tt • Coupling welded to plate Existing Ground Surface Settlement Plate, 16 "x16 "x1 /4" Measurement Rod, 1/2" diameter pipe or rebar Casing, 2" diameter pipe (set on plate, not fastened) Yv33vv i:/:/v J \J \4. ♦ \ \ • \\ • /'4 • �N CRT/ C�\°\ ��l '� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \C \ \\\ \\c• \ \\�\\ \\ \• Sand Pad if necessary Not to Scale NOTES: 1. Install markers on firm ground or on sand pads if needed for stability. Take initial reading on top of rod and at adjacent ground level prior to placement of any fill. 2. For ease in handling, rod and casing are usually installed in 5 -foot sections. As fill progresses, couplings are used to install additional lengths. Continuity is maintained by reading the top of the measurement rod, then immediately adding the new section and reading the top of the added rod. Both readings are recorded. 3. Record the elevation of the top of the measurement rod in each marker at the recommended time intervals. Each time, note the elevation of the adjacent fill surface. 4. Read the marker to the nearest 0.01 foot, or 0.005 foot if possible. Note the fill elevation to the nearest 0.01 foot. 5. The elevations should be referenced to a temporary benchmark located on stable ground at least 100 feet from the embankment. GEOENGINEERS SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL FIGURE 3 • • GEOENGINEERS APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING • APPENDIX A SUBURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS We explored subsurface conditions at the site on March 13 and 19, 2007, by drilling two borings on the site. Two CPT soundings were also conducted on the site on March 12, 2007, to a depth of 50 feet bgs. Our representative located the explorations in the field by hand - taping and pacing from existing site features such as buildings and roadways. Exploration locations should be considered approximate and are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A key to the symbols used on the boring logs is included as Figure A -1. The boring logs are included as Figures A -2 and A -3. The CPT logs are included as Figures A-4 and A -5. SOIL BORINGS The test borings were advanced by Holocene Drilling, using a truck - mounted hollow -stem auger drill rig under subcontract to GeoEngineers. The soil borings were advanced to a depth of 41.5 feet (boring 1), and 11.5 feet (boring 2), below existing site grade. Soil samples were obtained from the borings using a standard split -spoon sampler driven into the soil using a 140 -pound hammer, free - falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance is recorded on the logs as the blow count. Our representative continuously monitored the borings, and maintained a log of the subsurface conditions at 2.5 -foot and 5 -foot depth intervals. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the system described in Figure A -1, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D 2488. CPT SOUNDINGS The CPT soundings were advanced by Northwest Cone Explorations Inc. under subcontract to GeoEngineers, Inc. The CPT soundings were each advanced to a depth of,50 feet below existing site grade. The electric CPT sounding involves pushing an instrumented steel probe into the ground and continuously recording soil friction, tip resistance and dynamic pore pressure. No soil samples are obtained during CPT soundings. Soil types are interpreted based on empirical relationships between measured CPT parameters described above. The CPT method generally provides more detailed information on soil layering than conventional drilling and sampling methods. LABORATORY TESTING General Soil samples obtained from the boring were transported to GeoEngineers laboratory. Representative soil samples were selected for laboratory tests to evaluate the pertinent geotechnical engineering characteristics of the site soils and to confirm our field classification. The following paragraphs provide a description of the tests performed. Moisture Content The moisture content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The test results are used to aid in soil classification and correlation with other pertinent engineering soil properties, and are presented on the boring logs. File No. 5206- 008-00 April 17, 2007 Page A -1 GEOENGINEERS • • Sieve Analysis Laboratory testing included grain -size analysis conducted in general accordance with ASTM C 136. The grain -size analysis results are shown in Figure A -6. ATTERBERG LIMITS The Atterberg is used to classify the soil as well as to aid in evaluating index properties and consolidation characteristics of the fine- grained soil deposits. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. Atterberg limit tests were completed on two soil samples, one in each of the two borings conducted on site. The selected samples chosen for the Atterberg Limits test were from a silt layer encountered at an approximate depth of 10 feet bgs. Testing on the sample from boring 2 revealed the silt at that location was non - plastic. The results of the test conducted on the sample from boring 1 are summarized in Figure A -7. File No. 5206- 008 -00 Apri117, 2007 PageA -2 GEOENGINEERS) SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE RETAINED ON NO. 1 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS (UTrL0 NO MI • U O Qo o GW WELL- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL• SAND MIXTURES O O O O • o O GP POORLY•GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL • SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES AMOUM OF FINES) J GM SILTY I MIXTURES GRAVELS, GRAVEL • SAND • GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND CLAY MIXTURES SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN SANDS (mtE OR NO FINES) SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, SAND-GRAVEL MIXTURES SP SAND - GRAVEL MIXTURES SANDS WITH FINES .. (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) SM SILTY SANDS. SAND - SILT MIXTURES SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND • CLAY MIXTURES FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN PASSING ND. mL SIEVE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND LESS THAN 50 CLAYS ML INORGANIC SILTS. ROCK FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS CL SUN ILAC OF OWP STILITY SILTS LIQUID LIMIT LIM AND U GREATER R THAN SD CLAYS I 1 I I 1 MH INORGANIC OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY 500 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICT' I OH ORGANIC CUPS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Shelby tube Piston Direct -Push Bulk or grab Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER -7-r- • CC Cement Concrete AC Asphalt Concrete Os mg • �': CR Crushed Rock/ QuarySpalis TS Topsoil/ Forest Duff /Sod C 7 Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer • Groundwater observed at lime of exploration Perched water observed at time of exploration ▪ Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Loq Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units /Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit %F AL CA CP CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PP SA TX UC VS NS SS MS HS NT Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Laboratory / Field Tests Percent fines Atterberg limits GLhemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Pocket penetrometer Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GEOENGINEERS� FIGURE A -1 1 Date(s) Drilled 03/19/07 • Logged By DCR •hecked GHS Drilling Contractor Auger Data Holocene Drilling Method Rotary Auger Sampling Methods SPT Total Depth (ft) Vertical Datum 4.25 -inch ID Hollow -Stem Continuous Flight 41.5 Hammer Data 140 lb hammer /30 in drop Drilling Equipment B -65 Truck - Mounted Surface Elevation (ft) Groundwater Level (ft. bgs) 10 Datum/ System Easting(x): Northing(y): o Depth feet SAMPLES To a d Recovered (in) 0 0 o E E 3 (.0 co o .6 E u) 12 6 5 —§ 18 2 107 18 1 2 20 7 18 2 Sample Number 2 3 Water Level MATERIAL DESCRIPTION no o E 0v) SOD -13 inches sod SM Brown silty fine sand, trace organics (loose, moist) Brown silty fine sand (very loose, moist) OTHER TESTS E w AND NOTES c C C t in C 01 0 0 0 50 c ML - Brown to orange mottled silt with fine to medium sand (very soft, wet) ML Brown -gray sandy silt (very soft, wet) 4 5 — 53 — 36 SM Dark gray silty fine to medium sand (very loose, wet) OL/PT - Gray organic silt with peat inclusions (very soft, wet) 251 8 2 6 SP -SM - Black fine to medium sand with silt (loose, wet) 30718 7 357 18 11 40 18 31 7 8 9 — 90 27 Note: See Figure A -1 for explanation of symbols. AL SA MC SA 1 LOG OF BORING 1 GEOENGINEERS Project: Wells Fargo TOC Annex Project Location: Tukwila, Washington Project Number: 5206 - 008 -00 Figure A -2 Sheet 1 of 1 w 0. 0) 0 5 SAMPLES l0 0) d Recovered (in) I 14 14 0 0 _o m 4 3 101 18 1 15— 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — E m rn Sample Number 2 3 0) J 0 L 0 m rn 03 ° T C7 CO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ---r= SOD -N2 inches sod SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand (loose, moist) - Grades to very loose ML - Brown sandy silt (very soft, wet) C ay N C 2U OTHER TESTS AND NOTES Note: See Figure A -1 for explanation of symbols. LOG OF BORING 2 GEOENGINEERS Project: Wells Fargo TOC Annex Project Location: Tukwila, Washington Project Number: 5206 - 008 -00 Figure A -3 Sheet 1 of 1 , Date(s) Drilled 03/13/07 • Loogged DCR •necked GHS Drilling Contractor HOIOCene Drilling Method Rotary Aug er ry Sampling Methods SPT Auger Data 4.25 -inch ID Hollow -Stem Continuous Flight Hammer Data 140 lb hammer /30 in drop Drilling Equipment B -65 Truck- Mounted Total Depth (ft) 11.5 Surface Elevation (ft) Groundwater Level (ft. bgs) 8 Datum Datum Datum/ System Easting(x): Northing(y): w 0. 0) 0 5 SAMPLES l0 0) d Recovered (in) I 14 14 0 0 _o m 4 3 101 18 1 15— 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — E m rn Sample Number 2 3 0) J 0 L 0 m rn 03 ° T C7 CO MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ---r= SOD -N2 inches sod SM Dark brown silty fine to medium sand (loose, moist) - Grades to very loose ML - Brown sandy silt (very soft, wet) C ay N C 2U OTHER TESTS AND NOTES Note: See Figure A -1 for explanation of symbols. LOG OF BORING 2 GEOENGINEERS Project: Wells Fargo TOC Annex Project Location: Tukwila, Washington Project Number: 5206 - 008 -00 Figure A -3 Sheet 1 of 1 , Halts /o7 may 04/17/07 0 u) 0 0 , Q I C.9 I o co O CD 0 0 N O 0 0 00 0 co 0 co 0 o 0 N 6 a Tip Resistance Qc TSF 0 0 -N 1 1 1 35 40 -T-1- 45 — 50 Friction Ratio Fs /Qc ( %) 200 0 6 r -1 --1 -- - 1- -1 --4 - 1 1 I 1 I 1 I Pore Pressure -10 Maximum Depth = 50.03 feet 1 sensitive fine grained • 4 silty clay to clay ® 2 organic material ® 5 clayey silt to silty clay ▪ 3 clay 1 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 Not to Scale Pw PSI �Joil Behavior Type* SPT N* Zone: UBC -1983 60% Hammer 35 0 12 0 40 1 11 11 II 11 11 II r-1 a++ II 111 111 111 I I 1 III II 111 Iii III III 11 I 1 J 1 1 1 J-1 .111 I 11 11 11 I1 111 II 1111 1111 JJ J 11 III 111 I I 111 111 111 II 1 1�1 p Y 1 �1F1 I.9. F{ 1 I1lI11; Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand Northwest Cone Exploration I I 1 I J- ti J L1J_L1J- _L1 J _ L --I- T rr1-r 1 -rr -4 — • 10 gravelly sand to sand • 11 very stiff fine grained (1 ▪ 12 sand to clayey sand (7 CPT -1 Wells -Fargo TOC Annex Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERSig Figure A-4 04/13/07 rev 04/17/07 Tip Resistance Qc TSF 0 0 5 10 15 20 Depth 25 (ft) 30 35 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Fs /Qc ( %) Pw PSI 200 0 6 -10 40 , 45 50 — 'r- - - --- -7 r - -I -T -+— _ 1 r r - J -1- Maximum Depth = 50.03 feet lig 1 sensitive fine grained II 4 silty clay to clay 12 organic material • 5 clayey silt to silly clay 3 clay • 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Soll behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 Not to Scale 35 -4 J J J -T - 1 -+-1ti- __L 11 _ -1- _L 11J_ _L - moil Behavior Type* Zone: UBC -1983 0 12 1;111111111 r 4. 4- L L 1L r r SPT N` 60% Hammer 0 40 71 -r —1 1 -H +-1— J J LJ_LLJ- _L _L1J- - -r i rT-1— Depth Increment = 0.164 feet • 7 silty sand to sandy silt • 10 gravelly sand to sand 8 sand to silty sand • 11 very stiff fine grained (") 9 sand 1 12 sand to clayey sand (1 Northwest Cone Exploration CPT -2 Wells -Fargo TOC Annex Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERSO Figure A -5 TACO: \5\ 5206008\ 00 \Finals\520600800FigureA6.ppt DCR:MES:tt 041707 9-v 3211101A S11fS321 SISA'1YNd 3A3IS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40. #60 #100 #200 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES RA DEPTH (ft) DI SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER DEPTH (ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION 1 1 15 35 Sandy silt (ML) Sand with silt (SP -SM) ■ • TACO: \51 5206008 \00 \Finals \520600800FigureA7.ppt DCR:MES:tt 041707 m 0 m z G1 Z m m 73 c L-V 3111191. ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST. RESULTS 60 50 x 40 w 0 z r 30 0 H a 20 10 0 0 P LASTIC fTY C HART 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 70 80 90 100 SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT ( %) LIQUID LIMIT ( %) PLASTICITY INDEX ( %) SOIL DESCRIPTION • 1 10' 53.0 38 12 Silt (ML) CH or OH J OH or MH CL orOL ML or OL CL -ML V 10 20 30 40 50 60 LIQUID LIMIT 70 80 90 100 SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT ( %) LIQUID LIMIT ( %) PLASTICITY INDEX ( %) SOIL DESCRIPTION • 1 10' 53.0 38 12 Silt (ML) • • GEOENGINEERS APPENDIX B REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE • • APPENDIX B REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Craft Architects, Inc. and their authorized agents. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open -ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS This report has been prepared for the Wells -Fargo TOC Annex in Tukwila, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project- specific factors when establishing tl scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. I Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page B -1 GEOENGINEERS • • • • If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or ground water fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. TOPSOIL For the purposes of this report, we consider topsoil to consist of generally fine- grained soil with an appreciable amount of organic matter based on visual examination, and to be unsuitable for direct support of the proposed improvements. However, the organic content and other mineralogical and gradational characteristics used to evaluate the suitability of soil for use in landscaping and agricultural purposes was not determined, nor considered in our analyses. Therefore, the information and recommendations in this report, and our logs and descriptions should not be used as a basis for estimating the volume of topsoil available for such purposes. MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page B -2 GEOENGINEERSO • • A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre - bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on -site personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page B -3 GEOENGINEERS • • GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention, or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants in or around any structure. Accordingly, this report includes no interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions for the purpose of detecting, preventing, assessing, or abating Biological Pollutants. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. i File No. 5206- 008 -00 April 17, 2007 Page B -4 GEOENGINEERV3