Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E07-014 - FOLEY JEFF - 4 LOT SHORT PLAT AT 14011 MACADAM ROAD SOUTHJEFFERY FOLEY 4 -LOT SHORT PLAT 14011 MACADAM ROAD SO. E07 -014 1111 &V Dept. Of Community AFFIDAVIT of guliwita. Development OF DISTRIBUTION 1, 1,__U ' A -f-i A1111-T -O -P-A3 E- HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Project Name: j 5 63-(---1- P (cCC& Project Number: EiO-7 —Q i Notice of Public Hearing y Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet 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/attached on this r 0 day of > eirn b-Cli- in the year 20 (Y?- 0 I Ft-iek,5 h (`rr Nat- SE PA Project Name: j 5 63-(---1- P (cCC& Project Number: EiO-7 —Q i Mailing requested by: RQQC Ca_ 3`)(_ Mailer's signature: 44 7-7 P: \USERS \TERIWFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: Citytf 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 -014 08/16/2007 12/08/2008 APPROVED Applicant: JEFF FOLEY Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: 4 -lot short plat at 14011 Macadam Rd. S. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 14011 MACADAM RD S TUKW 1523049035 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. Art environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Jack Pace esponsi City of a 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 e Official /Z /22/x8 . The lead agency will not act 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) 14411 -: 'Je4Efe1 Foie nA c CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW /SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. ( ) NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC ( ) K.C. ASSESSOR'S OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT &T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV KDEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* FFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL " SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES -SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES ( ) FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( ) BRYN MAWR - LAKERIDGE SEWERNVATER DISTRICT ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES PROGRAM ( ) FISHERIES PROGRAM ( ) WILDLIFE PROGRAM MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES ( ) SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL ( ) DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CLEAN AGENCY ( ) SOUND TRANSIT ( ) DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN -UP COALITION "SEND NOTICE OF ALL APPLICATIONS ON DUWAMISH RIVER ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES ( ) CI.TUKWILA.WA.US.WWW H: \FOLEY -- SPECIAL PERMISSION DIRECTOR #L08- 067 \MAILING CHKLIST.DOC TENANT 120 SW 194TH ST NORMANDY PARK, WA 98166 CLENNA,RHONDA S 13765 MACADAM RD S SEATTLE, WA 98168 MILLER,STEVEN E TRUST 13 811 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 QURESHI,MUMTAZ A 13827 MACADAM RD .S TUKWILA, WA 98168 FORHAN,TIMOTHY W & ALICE F 14003 MACADAM RD S SEATTLE, WA 98168 LORENZEN,ROGER S ETAL 14038 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 14314 48TH AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 TENANT 308 140TH ST SW EVERETT, WA 98208 TENANT 401 S JACKSON ST SEATTLE, WA 98104 GOSS,GERRILYNN 4525 S 139TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 12813 53RD DR SE EVERETT, WA 98208 TENANT 13765 MACADAM RD S SEATTLE, WA 98168 SANDHU,SUKHCHAIN S 13 815 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 PARAGAS,ERNESTO & ALICE 13837 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 MERYHEW,SARAH 14006 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 CORP CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP 14120 S 44TH AVE TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 18014 NE 125TH ST REDMOND, WA 98052 TENANT 314E MERCER ST 101 SEATTLE, WA 98102 TENANT 405 S 3RD ST YAKIMA, WA 98901 HUREMOVIC,JAKUB & SUADA 4526 S 140TH ST SEATAC, WA 98168 BUDINICH,VALERIE D 13757 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 DAVIS,THELMA 13806 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 QURAISHI,A RASHID & W ANJUM 13821 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 BAGBY,FRED E 13925 51ST AVE S SEATTLE, WA 98168 FOLEY,JEFFREY R & HARMONY J 14011 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 RIVAS,ALFREDO 14239 MACADAM RD S TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 19225 102ND AVE SE RENTON, WA 98055 TENANT 4008 W LAKE SAMMAMISH PKWY NE D6 REDMOND, WA 98052 TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT 4242 S 144TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 GRIFFITH,ANNE PATRICIA 4529 S 140TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 RUPP,ELEANOR A 4611 S 140TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 TENANT 4640 S 144TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 8529 W 20TH STCT TACOMA, WA 98466 TENANT PO BOX 69043 SEATTLE, WA 98168 CENTRAL ° UG •, SOUND RTA TUKWILA, NALEW • ' ,JOHN TUKWIL • . A SCOONE TUKWIL SANTORA,EVELYN P ETAL 4617 S 140TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 SCOONES,MICHAEL 4710 S 144TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 910 MARION ST SEATTLE, WA 98104 BAU ,JEFFREY 'R • TUKWI , WA GRI PAT TUKWIL ITH,DEARL & ANNE TRUST WA PARAG • ' .ERNESTO & ALICE TUKWI • , A SCOO S ICHAEL W & ROSITA TUKWI LEISHMAN,JERRY 4627 S 140TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 SINGH,HARCHAND 4823 S 138TH ST TUKWILA, WA 98168 TENANT 9813 23RD AVE NW SEATTLE, WA 98117 BEAH� B TUKW W LEISH ,JERRY TUKWI A, A PU SO ' D TRAN AUTH TUKWI WA 410 City of Thkw Department of Comm • Jim Haggerton, Mayor nig/ Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Jeffrey Foley State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch PROJECT: Foley Short Plat FILE NUMBERS: E07 -014 (SEPA) ASSOCIATED FILES: L07- 001 —Short Plat; L08- 014 — Special Permission Director (Sensitive Areas Deviation /Stream Buffer Reduction) APPLICANT: Jeffrey Foley REQUEST: Short-plat property into four lots LOCATION: 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA 98188 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 Rebecca Fox, who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3670 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). rf Page 1 of 1 12/08/2008 6300 Southcen r le rBou v l' u e CP 0. r iu cOwEi Washington 98188 o Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLLIST Foley Short Plat File #: E07 -014 Summary of Proposed Action The applicant proposes to short plat a 1.68 acre parcel into four single- family lots. General Information Project Name: Foley Short Plat Applicant: Jeffrey Foley Location: 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA Zoning: Low Density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR) Review Process The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under Part Nine — Categorical Exemptions (WAC 197 -11 -800) Background /Proposal The proposal is to subdivide a parcel of land approximately 1.68 acres into four single - family lots. The project will include retaining the existing home on the north side of the property, reusing the foundation from an existing barn to construct a new home, and constructing two new homes, all with associated driveways and utilities. Infiltration trenches are proposed to handle storm water runoff from the hillside and future impermeable surfaces. The lot contains steep slopes on the west, two wetlands and a watercourse at the southern edge. To address site conditions, the applicant and City staff have developed an offsite wetland creation and mitigation plan, to be carried out as part of a Special Permission Director Sensitive Areas Ordinance deviation application. In exchange for filling a relatively low- Rf 1 12/04/2008 H:\Foley - -SEPA (E07- 014)\E07- 014.Foley -- SEPAstaffrept #2.doc • • functioning wetland on site (Wetland A) and reducing a watercourse /ditch buffer, the applicant will provide off -site mitigation in the form of wetland enhancement and creation, and on -site watercourse buffer enhancement. On the site, 1, 347 s.f. of Wetland A will be impacted. Off-site 1, 000 s.f. of wetland will be enhanced, and 1, 520 s.f of wetland will be created for a total of 2, 520 s.f. or .06 acres. Recommendation Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Existing Environmental Information SEPA Checklist –Bruce MacVeigh, P.E. (rev. 2/08) Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study —David Evans and Associates (2/08) Technical Information Report—Bruce MacVeigh, P.E. (7/07) Geotechnical Evaluation for 4 -Lot Residential Short Plat- -Bruce MacVeigh, P.E. (4/08) Offsite Wetland Mitigation and Stream Buffer Enhancement Plan –David Evans and Associates (9/08) Summary of Environment Impacts The following describes the impacts of primary elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project., and supplemented by the materials from the Special Permission Director application. Earth Development is proposed for the eastern half of the lot. The majority of the lot is either a Type 2 or Type 3 slope, with areas a Potential Geologic Instability Class 2, and Class 3 (See Soils Report). The existing lot is roughly rectangular, sloping downward significantly to the east and Macadam Road S. The western one -third is wooded with slopes of approximately 2:1. The eastern two- thirds is a cleared series of graveled parking areas, buildings and lawns with some localized slopes. The parcel is developed with two existing structures (i.e. house and barn.) Based on topography, significant earthwork will be required to create the new access road onto the site from Macadam Road S. A retaining wall is proposed to achieve the grading requirements to access the future house in Lot 4 (existing barn). The applicant proposes to use the existing concrete foundation of the bard for a proposed house in Lot 4. The barn currently encroaches into a wetland buffer (Wetland A —See "Water" discussion below.) Significant earthwork will be required to create the new access road into the site from Macadam Road S. Per the SEPA checklist, approximately 1, 200 cubic yards of cut (relocated on site) and 1, 500 cubic yards of fill will be needed for site development/plat improvement, primarily for the access road. (Bruce MacVeigh, SEPA checklist Rev. 2/08). This quantity is not expected to change significantly for construction, although there may be some modification to accommodate wetland filling or possibly construction of the new "barn" residence. Rf 2 12/04/2008 H: \Foley - -SEPA (E07- 014)\E07- 014.Foley -- SEPAstaffrept #2.doc • • Long -term permanent cuts and fills involving native soils should be at a maximum of 2:1 unless otherwise approved by a licensed engineer familiar with the site. Erosion control measures will be used to minimize the transport of sediment during construction. The existing slopes are considered geologically stable, and the site is considered suitable for conventional residential construction. A setback of 15 feet from the natural bottom of the slope is recommended for new structures. Air Some dust and internal combustion engine emissions associated with the use of construction equipment will occur during the grading and construction of the project. Common dust - suppression techniques shall be used during construction. Water Two wetlands (Wetland A and Wetland B) were delineated on the property (David Evans Associates, Wetland and Watercourse Delineation Study, 5/08). Both wetlands occur along the toe of the slope at the western edge of the developed portion of the property. The wetlands are considered palustrine scrub /shrub wetlands, with hydrology provided by seeps at the slope break. These wetlands are rarely inundated with water and are often only saturated to the surface. The presence of hydrology, prominence of hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence of hydric soils qualify these areas as wetland. Both wetlands are disturbed due to the proximity to human activities, including grazing, gravel stockpiling and the presence of invasive species, that have altered the site. Wetland A is considered a Type 3 wetland, which requires a 50 foot buffer and a building setback of ten feet. The wetland is south of the existing barn, which encroaches into the wetland buffer. Wetland B is less than 1, 000 s.f. in size. It is, therefore, not considered a Type 3 wetland and is not required to have a standard buffer. A Type 4 watercourse is located on the adjacent property immediately to the south. Portions of the 50' buffer are located on the subject property. As part of the Special Permission Director Sensitive Areas Ordinance Deviation application, the applicant proposes to enhance and create wetland off -site, in exchange for filling Wetland A on -site, and reducing the Type 4 watercourse buffer from 50' to 25'. The proposal calls for the following: 1. Off-site 1, 000 s.f. of wetland will be enhanced, and 1, 520 s.f. of wetland will be created for a total of 2, 520 s.f. or .06 acres of improvements. 2. In exchange, on the site, 1, 347 s.f. of Wetland A will can be filled, and will cease to exist. 3. On site, the buffer for the adjacent, offsite Type 4 stream will be reduced to 25 feet and will be enhanced to provide better function. A split rail fence and descriptive signage will be added. David Evans Associates (Wetlands/Watercourse Study, 2/08) delineated the wetlands and centerline for the watercourse /excavated ditch identified on the subject property, and Rf 3 12/04/2008 H: \Foley - -SEPA (E07- 014)\E07- 014.Foley -- SEPAstaffrept #2.doc • • prepared the Wetland Mitigation/Stream Buffer Enhancement plans (9/08). The applicant has received a Nationwide Permit 18, Minor Discharges from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the offsite wetland mitigation work (NWS- 2008 - 05999 -NO Foley, Jeff). New homes will be on sanitary sewer. Initial testing of shallow soil logs on the west side of the site showed loam mixed with clay, but deeper test holes, dug closer to the roadway, found loam with no clay that is suitable for infiltration. Therefore, it appears that drainage of impervious surfaces, including roof and driveways can be collected and infiltrated on -site in a common infiltration trench, with overflow to the adjacent street system. One final soils investigation will be needed prior to construction in order to determine the specifics of the drainage system. In the event that a detention system is required, the flow would be much reduced from what is currently on site. Dewatering procedures may be required for deep excavations adjacent to the eastern edge of the steeply sloping area. The applicant shall ensure, as part of the short plat development, that current drainage from the slope on the east side of the site, that runs through the ditch and existing wetland, continues to discharge to the watercourse channel located off -site to the south (either by maintaining an open ditch or putting the drainage into a pipe). Proposed drainage shall be approved by the City as part of the construction permit. The project shall meet all King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. All impacts associated with drainage will be mitigated as part of the construction permit by compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual requirements. The project shall also comply with the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Code (TMC Chapter 18.45). All impacts associated with wetlands and watercourses shall be mitigated by compliance with the City's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Code. Plants Deciduous trees (alder, maple, aspen), evergreens, grass and shrubs are at the site. Any trees that are removed from the steep slope area will be subject to replacement per the Tree Ordinance. Animals Songbirds have been observed on the site. This area is part of the Pacific Flyway, a primary corridor for migratory bird species. Many common species of rodents, small mammals and amphibians may be on the site on occasion. Energy/Natural Resources The completed project homes will use electricity and natural gas for heating, lighting and cooking purposes. Codes require insulation in walls, windows. Environmental Health There are no known environmental health risks on site. Construction noise will result from grading and building of individual homes. Noise levels will need to comply with City of Tukwila noise ordinances. Rf 4 12/04/2008 H: \Foley - -SEPA (E07- 014) \E07- 014.Foley -- SEPAstaffrept #2.doc • • Land/Shoreline Uses The zoning and comprehensive plan designations for the site are Low Density Residential (LDR). Adjacent uses are single family homes, vacant land and right of way. Housing Three new homes will be built. No housing will be lost. Aesthetics No views will be blocked. Recreation No recreational uses will be replaced. Transportation The site is currently accessed by Macadam Road. The nearest transit stop is approximately .3 miles away, either at S 144th and Macadam or S. 144th and 51st Avenue South. Any required traffic mitigation fees will be assessed when the building permits are submitted. Public Services The homes will generate an occasional need for police and fire service. Utilities Electricity, water, garbage service, telephone and sanitary sewer are available to serve the project site. Public Comments None received Recommendation Staff recommends a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). Rebecca Fox Senior Planner rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us 206 - 431 -3683 Rf 5 12/04/2008 H:\Foley —SEPA (E07- 014) \E07- 014.Foley -- SEPAstaffrept #2.doc l4oii RAti+Dm4 s• )T)I4it44 LEGEND SPUT RAIL FENCE STREAM CHANNEL FLOW UNE 25. STREAM BUFFER UNE SENSITIVE AREA SIGN EXISTING WETLAND CALL BEFORE YOU DIG Call: TOLL FREE ii SCALE: 1"= 20' 0 20 40 80 RC PLANT SCHEDULE BOTANICAL MAK TREES/ LARGE SHRUBS FOUND TMU.0 PUCATA VESTE PICEA SITDHENSIS SIMA FRAXINUS LAGFOUA CREGC SHRUBS /GRDUNDCOVERS CORNUS SERICEA RED 0 SYMPNORICARPOS AWLS RED LONtAERA INVOLUCRATA BLACK ROSH NUMANA NOOTX • WETLAND HYDROS KIND/VARIETY RICE CUTGRASs WESTERN MANIA GRASS CANADA REED SPIKE BEM(GRASS WOOL -GRASS APPUCATION RAW: W000 CELLULOSE FIBER MULCH: 14H- 14P -14K FERTILIZER. GUAR TACKIHER: OFF - SITE wETu4 . D PPr TI 4HT1 oN a GeeAT1 one -- NACA -t qr1 Az. r. 4 s' I it L i T :14 rim 44 014' M EXISTING WETLAND BUFFER. 1 \ • `\ '\ \ `1 r \e'4 \ `" 1 #‘ —\ J`' i\ \, ■ I i ` `\ \� III\ W v ' • 1'1 � \\,\\ k\'\ • \ \� , CALL BEFORE YOU DIG Call: TOLL FREE 1- 800- 424 -5555 20 40 80 TEMPORARY EROS SEE SHEET WM-2 GRADING NOTED SEE SHEET WM -2 LEGEND ........... CLE ST/ EL.157.0 PR, _..J EXI ,a PR EXI PRE EXI: STRAW a. 04040 01 150RE1 STAGGER JOINTS 0 0 a 0 STRAW WA rage 1 or 1 • • Rebecca Fox - Foley Short Plat From: Sandra Whiting To: Rebecca Fox Date: 05/16/2008 11:34 AM Subject: Foley Short Plat Rebecca, I met the wetland consultant out at the proposed off -site wetland mitigation location. We discussed possible wetland enhancement and wetland creation. I provided him with a topo survey that also showed the wetland boundaries and an aerial photo that shows locations for possible wetland creation. He mentioned that Jeff Foley was thinking he would only need part of the wetland as back yard and asked how the City would view that option. This would mean that there would still be some wetland and buffer in the back yard, just not right up next to the house. The issue for me would be that the wetland would be reduced to the point where its function would be significantly impaired and there would still be a strong possibility for invasion of the buffer and wetland by the future homeowner. So told him that the City would likely not approve of that option. At any rate David Evans is preparing a scope of work for Jeff for permitting wetland fill as well as developing a mitigation plan for off -site mitigation. I promised I would try and get a CAD file of the topo survey. Sandra file: / /C:\ temp\ XPGrpWise \482D7160tuk- mail6300 -po 100134633511621E 1 \GW} 00001.... 05/20/2008 r agc 1 ui 1 • • Rebecca Fox - Foley Short Plat - Corps of Engineers jurisdiction From: Sandra Whiting To: Rebecca Fox Date: 05/14/2008 4:41 PM Subject: Foley Short Plat - Corps of Engineers jurisdiction Rebecca, I spoke with Jeff Foley. Apparently the Corps has determined the wetland is jurisdictional and has said that filling would be allowed with off -site mitigation but that some additional information from the wetland consultant related to the site hydrology and off -site stream channel would be needed for permitting. David Evans Associates (wetland consultant) is working on it and will do the wetland permitting. We will get a copy of the additional information. Jeff said they don't intend to actually physically fill the wetland /ditch area because they don't need it for providing the backyard to the "barn ". But it would be like a fill, since the buffer would be wiped out and he appears to understand that off -site mitigation would still be needed. I just had a call from the wetland consultant who is working up a scope of work for the permitting and was asking about the off -site mitigation. I told him that the applicant would be responsible for developing the mitigation plan and offered to show him the site I am thinking about so he can get an idea of what is involved. I arranged to meet him out at the site on Friday morning (when I will do the delineation and characterization). He also contradicted what Jeff said - that there would actually be some filling at the development site. It may be that Jeff doesn't realize that the wetland extends beyond the actual ditch. So, things are moving. We will need to figure out how big the wetland actually is to determine how much mitigation is required. The issue will be ensuring that the applicant understands his responsibility for the design, installation, monitoring and maintenance of the wetland mitigation site (5 years), as well as the one time fee for use of City Property. More later. Sandra file: / /C: \temp \XPGrpWise \482B 162Ctuk- mai16300 -po 10013463351161 C91 \GW } 00001.... 05/20/2008 Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052 -3333 Telephone (425) 883 -0777 Fa . 5) 882 -5498 www,go • - om April 25, 2008 RE/MAX Eastside Brokers 11555 SE 8th Street, Suite 200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Jeff Foley. RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF REVISED REPORT 14011 MACADAM ROAD SOUTH SHORT PLAT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Foley, Golder Associates Our Ref.: 083 - 93237.000 Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) provided a review of the following documents for this project: "Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed 4 -Lot Single Family Residential Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road South, Tukwila, Washington," dated April 6, 2008 by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Plans: "Site Improvement Plan, Jeff Foley and Sharon. Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA 98168" dated January 18, 2008 by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. — Civil Engineer. "Steep Slope Mapping" dated April 8, 2008 by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. — Civil Engineer. Our review comments were summarized in a letter dated April 22, 2008. In response to our comments, the geotechnical engineer issued a revised geotechnical report: " Geotechnical. Evaluation for Proposed 4 -Lot Single Family Residential Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road South, Tukwila, Washington," dated April 6, 2008 /revised April 23, 2008 by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. The revised report addresses our comments satisfactorily. RECEIVED APR 3 0 2008 I PUBLIC WORKS 042508jIh2 Revised Foley Review OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA RE MAX Eastside Brokers, Inc Mr. Jeff Foley -2- April 25, 2008 083 -93237 If you have any questions about our comments, please give contact us at (425) 883 -0777. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Jo ua L. Hanson, P.E. ` -shard D. Luark, P.E., L.E.G. Senior Project Engineer JLH/RDL /jbh 042508jIh2 Revised Foley Review Golder Associates Senior Consultant - 10-7---(9,2 sloe F07---6110/1"/' ►t°i (u7- r) Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same April 6, 2008/Revis } €Are c? 47944 49 6-47.4„ Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation or Proposed 4 -Lot Single Family Residential Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA (Jeff Foley) General: The purpose of this report is to evaluate the soils on the above property for general construction considerations, for stability of existing steep slopes on the site and for erosion characteristics. The parcel is approximately 71,180 square feet or 1.68 acres, with an existing one story wood frame residence, driveway and surrounding lawn with landscaping shrubs and small trees. The existing house is approximately 80 to 90 years old, and will be retained. In addition, a fairly large old wood frame barn and associated graveled parking area exist on the site. The barn will also be retained and remodeled as a new residence. The lot is bordered on all sides by single family residences, some with larger parcels. It is located on the west side of Macadam Road S. in Tukwila, WA. The street address of the existing residence is 14011 Macadam Road S. The existing lot is roughly rectangular, varying from approximately 178 feet to 213 feet north -south and varying from approximately 366 feet to 386 feet east -west. The site slopes significantly downward to the east and Macadam Road S., with the western one- third being wooded with slopes of typically 2:1, with the eastern two- thirds being a cleared series of graveled parking areas, buildings and lawned yard areas, and some localized steep slopes. Based on the soils available in the lower elevations of the site (see Logs #4, 5 and 6), the site appears suitable for on -site infiltration. A common main trench will be used for all impervious areas on site, including new residences. Based on the topography of the site, significant earthwork will be required to create the new access road into the site from Macadam Road S. The existing residence and barn will be retained for continued use. The existing graveled driveway and parking areas will be displaced for the new access road and residences. Site Geology Information - Topographic Data: 1 A field survey topographic mapping of the site has been prepared by Schroeter Land Surveying in support of the proposed short plat. A copy of this map is provided, with areas of different slope categories indicated. Please note that the lot lines shown have since been slightly revised. A copy of the most recent lot layout with preliminary improvements is also provided, with currently proposed lot lines. Reduced and full size copies of each are provided with this evaluation. Site Geology Information - Subsurface Data: The source of information to evaluate subsurface soil information was a series of six soil logs and observations of cut banks on the site. They were located in probable areas of development, although one log was located some distance up the upper vegetated slope area. A copy of the soil logs is provided with site sketch. Soils indicated a fairly typical Alderwood association, with the outwash from the upper slope area forming a deeper layer of the loams in the lower portion of the site. The logs from the upper slope and immediately below it in the table area immediately below it reflect typically an upper layer of loam with cobbles in the upper two to eight feet, underlain by a mottled sandy clay. The soils in the lower portion of the site, from the lower edge of the table, indicated the loams to depths of up to eight feet, with no observed clay. The water table indicator noted in the logs is the mottling of the clay layers encountered. The logs were prepared during summer months and no active groundwater was encountered at that time. A perching of groundwater occurs within approximately six to eight feet from the base of the upper slope. It appears that a thin sandy loam layer exists at this level, although specific vertical limits could not be identified due to the general mixing of the surface loams at this level of the slope. During previous use of the site this water was intercepted along the base of the upper slope and directed south to a minor ravine running east on the neighboring property (which is undeveloped in that area). Along with the construction of the interception ditch, a portion of the upper slope immediately adjacent to the table area, was cut back for a distance of approximately fifteen feet to enlarge the table area and allow construction of the barn which is still located in that area. It is estimated that the construction of the ditch and barn occurred approximately 70 or 80 years ago, and with the ditch being maintained for most of that period (likely the lifetime of the owner who created it). It was observed that this cut has sloughed into the old interception ditch over the last 20 or 30 years and blocked it, allowing the formation of the "wetland" areas identified at the base of the upper slope, and especially at the rear of the barn. Collection and disposal of the perched water is an aspect of the proposed drainage measures for the future use of the site. Site Geology Information - Site History: 2 • The site reflects the general north -south glacier carving of Puget Sound region macro - topography evident in Puget Sound, the Duwanish Valley, the Kent Valley, Lake Washington, etc. The Alderwood association, of which this appears to conform, is based on the general shaping of previous soils by glacier, with the loamy overlying layer generated by weathering or final glacial outwash from the last ice age, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The underlying clay layer is likely relatively deep, as has been encountered in other evaluations in this area throughout the Tukwila/Duwanish Valley area, down basically to sea level (or the valley floor just above sea level). The topography of the major upper slope observed during site visits indicates no evidence of catastrophic slope failure in any area. Long term very slow surface movement has probably occurred historically along the steep slope, but has been un- noticed in its rural uses. Significant movement of the surface soils down the slope, especially in an undeveloped condition, would be measured in decades. No areas of obvious surface erosion or tell tale exposed surface soils were observed, except for some minor areas along the minor drop slope. A specific indicator was observed which supports the above very slow movement of the soils. Except immediately adjacent to the minor base of slope cuts mentioned above for the ditch and barn, there were no "curved trees" indicating surface movement. In the immediate area of the old cut bank by the barn, approximately six or seven trees varying from about six to 16 inches in diameter were observed. The old cut bank was about six feet high and the cut about 15 feet into the hillside, probably cut vertically. The age of the larger trees affected indicate the age of the cut (mentioned above). All trees affected were within about ten or so feet from the top of the old cut. It is the restricted limits of the affected trees, combined with the relatively long term of exposure to the distinct cut bank, which provides actual evidence of inherent surface soil stability. This stability is provided by the geometry of the undisturbed slope, and the inherent strength of the undisturbed loams at the surface. Site Geology Information - Seismic Hazard: Seismic hazards for slopes may be comprised of either general soil saturation or classic seismic liquefaction. With general saturation, failure occurs in either a direct diagonal slippage (shear failure) or at a saturated layer of loose silts which semi - liquefy and "pour" out of their original location in the hillside. The soils of this area do not appear susceptible to this mode of failure due to the generally dense impervious nature of the soils and positive slopes which prevent surcharged saturation. While the above cause of hillside failure is not limited to seismic movement, a seismic event could possibly trigger a failure which would not otherwise have occurred, however this is unlikely. As noted above, there is no indication on the site of this mode of failure occurring previously on this site or in the surrounding area. Based on the above, the possibility of hillside failure by this mode of seismic failure is low. The second mode of failure is caused by a water saturation of a uniformly graded larger grained non - cohesive soil, which in this condition is subject to seismic movement. For 3 the slope areas in question, the possibility of full saturation of any layer is not present. In addition, the soils as noted are not of the type allowing this type of movement. The possibility of seismic movement is, of course, more significant with a sloping site, however, the possibility of seismic liquefaction failure for this hillside is negligible. Based on the soils underlying future construction locations for the site, including residential and road construction, the potential for seismic liquefaction settlement is very low. No special mitigation measures are recommended for construction on this site to mitigate seismic liquefaction. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Slope Stability Studies and Opinions of Slope Stability: No previous slope stability studies are known to have been prepared for this site. As noted above, the site appears stable and not subject to long term erosion or catastrophic failure. Reference slope stability, it is the opinion of this office, based on considerations discussed above, that the existing slopes are geologically stable for the intended use. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Angles of Cut and Fill Slopes and Site Grading Requirements: Significant earthwork will be required to construct the access road for this site, and moderate to light earthwork as part of the new house construction. The following are provided for general information. It is recommended that the footing bases for the new residences be placed at or below a 2:1 slope from adjacent downhill slopes. Due to the stability of the upper slope area, and the slow rate of surface soil movement, it is recommended as a convenience to avoid having to clear the minor surface soils reaching the house site, that a setback of 15 feet from the natural bottom of slope be ,r maintained for new structures. In the area of the old cut slope area adjacent to the existing barn, a formal minor wall approximately six feet high may be desirable. The lad determination to construct this wall would be based on future guidance in the wetland N�� report for the site and the specific use of that lot determined at the time of residential s permitting. tA During temporary excavations for basements and foundations, a vertical cut face is acceptable. For deeper excavations, with potential cuts up to eight or ten feet in depth, it is recommended that cuts be backsloped at 1:1 or flatter at depths of more than four feet, per standard practice. Long term permanent cuts and fills involving native soils should be at a maximum of 2:1 unless otherwise approved by a licensed engineer familiar with the site. Site grading 4 should follow standard practice as regards erosion control, stockpiling of soils, and minimizing the areas to be cleared and disturbed to that necessary for approved construction. Significant structural fill should not be required for the proposed new residences. Should it be required, the following guidelines should be followed. Cut horizontal steps into the slope (for fills over 3 feet total), place non -clay materials in maximum 6" lifts, and mechanically compact to 95 percent. Note that for non - structural fill in yard areas, the 6" lifts and mechanical compaction may be omitted, although some settling will occur over time. Revegetation of finished slope areas should follow good landscaping practice. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Structural Foundation Requirements and Estimated Foundation Settlement:. A foundation bearing pressure of 2,000 PSF is suitable for undisturbed soils for this site. All foundations should be placed on undisturbed soils a minimum of 18" below finished grade. All foundations should be placed at a 2:1 backslope or farther from the toe of any slope. Areas found to have unengineered old fill during construction should be evaluated prior to placement of foundations or roads /driveways in those areas. Based on observed soils, a lateral resistance factor of 0.40 for lateral loading may be safely used for design of structural retaining walls and, where used, basement walls. Note that the basement floors will be cast concrete and will provide additional long term lateral resistance to movement of the walls and their footings. It is recommended that the inside of the basement wall footings be backfilled against prior to exterior backfilling as a good general construction practice. This backfilling may be omitted in shallow crawl space foundations. Based on experience with similar soils used for wood frame residential construction, a settlement of less that 1/4 inch would be expected within a 50 foot length of foundation. It should be noted that during the site visit by this office, the existing concrete foundations for the existing house and barn, which have been in place for up to 70 to 80 years, showed very little settlement. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Soil Compaction Criteria: Loan soils on site are suitable for all structural fill in a dry or damp condition. Clay soils on site are suitable only for shallow structural backfill, which would be characterized as one foot or less. Deeper fills, if required, may use an imported select granular pit run. Compaction in foundation and vehicular traffic areas for all acceptable soils should be to 95 %, uniformly and mechanically compacted. The need for structural backfill for this site, except in utility trenching, is minimal. As indicated above, backfilling of minor trenches with existing loam material is acceptable, provided it is mechanically compacted in 6 inch lifts, and that it is done in only damp or dry weather. Questions relating to the adequacy of compacted material should be evaluated by a licensed engineer inspection on site. 5 Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Surface runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and routed a common on -site infiltration system, with overflow to the adjacent street drainage system. All foundations and retaining walls will be protected by piped footing drains which lead to the common infiltration trench. Subsurface investigation indicates infiltration into the deep loam soils in the lower portion of the site is feasible. Due to the depth of the proposed_infiltrationiienti, information about soils in that level need to be investigated once the cutshe access,, road have been made. It is recommended that the soils accessible at that time be S evaluated in detail and that the design of the common infiltration trench, both its design factors and layout, be fine -tuned at that time, as necessary. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Use of On Site Sewage System(s) This site is served by public sewer and does not require the use of OSS systems (drainfields). Geotechnical Engineering Information - Lateral Earth Pressures: Due to the dense nature of the in place soils, an active design lateral pressure for retaining walls of 35 PCF is suitable, with an at rest lateral pressure for foundation walls of 60 PCF recommended. All walls over 4 feet in total height must be designed by a licensed engineer and use the 1.5 safety factor per accepted practice. All walls with either a soil or vehicular traffic surcharge will require consideration of the surcharge, to be determined as part of the specific wall design. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Vulnerability of Site to Erosion: Undisturbed bare soils on site are moderately subject to erosion. Disturbed soils are subject to significant erosion. Disturbed soils on or near the slope areas are subject to heavy erosion. For the above reasons the exposure of disturbed soils on or near the slope areas should be protected with straw or tarping if left exposed for more than one week during the wet season. All disturbed areas must have properly installed silt fencing on their downhill side. A standard stabilized rock construction entrance will be used on site to prevent mud and silt from the site entering the street drainage system. With the use of erosion control measures, as mentioned above, the proposed construction should be able to take place without significant erosion to the site, or the transporting of silts off site. 6 Geotechnical Engineering Information - Suitability of On -Site Soils for Use as Fill: The native loam materials on -site are suitable for structural fill in damp or dry weather, with mechanical compaction required in structural fill areas, as noted above. Note minor quantities of clay in the existing soils prevents their use for deep structural fills over one foot deep. Clay soils may be used for non - structural fill, with the understanding that long term settling may occur proportional to the depth of the fill. This may be evaluated on a case by case basis during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Laboratory Data and Soil Index Properties: Field testing was done of soil samples encountered. Used were both wet and dry techniques. The soils were found to be a dense medium loam and dense sandy mottled clays, in the areas and depths indicated above. Formal laboratory testing of soil samples was not deemed necessary for the evaluation of site soils for this site and type of construction. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Building Limitations: The construction of the above new residences may take place during wet weather provided the above specified erosion control measures are strictly employed. Arbitrary wet weather restrictions based on specific dates for this site and its development are not recommended. Providing the above recommendations and construction criteria are adhered to in the design and placement of the residential structure and related site work, no site related building limitations are recommended for these sites. Note that dewatering procedures may be required for deep excavations adjacent to the bottom of the upper steep slope area. Summary: The site is suitable for conventional residential construction. Drainage of impervious surfaces, including roof and driveways must be collected, infiltrated on -site in a common infiltration trench, with overflow to the adjacent street system. Statement of Risk: (Intended to comply with TMC Risk Statement Requirements) 7 While the general slope of the site is typically about 10 percent in the construction areas, some significant areas will have slopes up to 20 percent, with an existing cut area on site at 1:1. The total difference in elevation of these construction areas is up to 30 or 40 feet. The steep upper slope is vegetated and is not projected for disturbance. The level of projected disturbance, combined with the stable soils noted above, indicate that the site, and the surrounding properties (which are all similar), is not by definition a "geologic hazard" area and that additional studies and construction restrictions relating to geologic hazard areas do not apply to this project. In addition, the construction as proposed is so minor as to not pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare. The construction ma occur • • e : - • - threat to the site or to adjacent properties than if the site were level. In summiery, the plans and specifications submitted for the proposed access road construction and general specifics of proposed new residences have been reviewed and conform to the conditions and recommendations in this evaluation, specifics noted above, and provided that the conditions and recommendations are satisfied, the construction and development will not increase the potential for soil movement; and the risk of damage to the proposed development, and from the development to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal (a very low possibility of risk). Questions relating to this report and to site related problems which may arise during construction of the new residences may be directed to this office. Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer WIRES: 4124/ 0 23'9177' °06-1 foleygeo /0619 8 25 1 Found rebar w x /c17p #14023 0.05' south & 0.15' east of calc. position. SOIL LOGS ' FOLEY /MANN SHORT PLAT 28 JUL 06 SL 1 0-96" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 96- 120 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL2: 0 -84" • MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 84-96"+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 3 0-24" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 24 -72 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 4 0 -72 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COB, LES. (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) SL 5 0 -96 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) SL 6 0-48 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) v� 6" , SGIJLC Jrd :/CAN v': ;GRAPHIC SCALE "- A7 , MHOE 20 L (7(I.) "1-wielkIMEkv,,A h {IYMS 13°78' ti {:Ya(N I]d7 24711%)/07/9lNY /40A■ SECT/ON • ACTMIY, SCHEDULE: 1. STAKING BY SURVEYOR • 2. PLACE SILT FENCE AS SHOWN. 3. PERFORM ROUGH GRADING OF NEW DRIVEWAY AREA • A. INSTALL NEW CATCH BASINS AND DRAINAGE PIPE/TRENCH. INSTALL OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THIS TIME. INSTALL SILT TRAP IN NEW CATCH • BASINS. 5. PERFORM FINE GRADING OF NEW AND DRIVEWAY AREA. S. PAVE NEW ROAD AND DRIVEWAY AREAS 7. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS WITH GRASS SEED. S. REMOVE SILT FENCING AND CATCH BASIN SILT TRAPS ONCE VEGETATION L4 REESTABLISHED. EARTHWORK ESTIMATES CUT 1200 CY FILL 1.500 CY (INCL TRENCH GRAVEL) 04P01NOU5 SURFACES ORAYEL OOKRAY • 10,150 at. •/- MST0IO NOUSE - 1.514 at 4/- E9sTpi BARN - 94 al 4./- 6A43 OF 3EYAT0N: SURVEY CONTROL DATABASE P0041 ID UM BRASS MAIL IN 51ST ON CONCRETE AFO *1) -00,0 FEET SO. MON 044 INTERSECTIONS OF SO 14414 ST.. AN_ ELEY4TI0 • 160.160 FEET 14A1056 round nor 9/030 /17659 nor .es4 • 0.*3 tea el auk. (.011en. x17` arin and 12•ev T -top • 130.7 d rev *A0. /17059 0.20. soum'• • 0.15• seal el vale (0.110. SLOPE •/O'% ♦ SLOPE x10. 6 li-m :0.p �• 13:.4• m✓ . 9034.0 SLOPE. 3'L • i(//�' . 103 , 0031 • N:01 1 'k3 28.0 LEGAL 0[SCRIRIION TIC LYNO 290 O Y ADAM ROAD SOUI/ d 114E Sd1TNEAS2 1/4 Or SECTION 15. TDR$j,4 • 23 •5070. RAND • E•ST. EE9>1 THAT PORR• L0N0 ■i4o1 114E 5011Y.EAST I/4 O 111E spoHEA51 1/4 Or SECTION 15. 10404151/* 23 NORTH, ONCE 4 EAST. N.Y.. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGBiw.G AT M 07ER5ECTI04 OF THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1. N SAID SECD ON 15, SIT. 114 NEST LR2 OF THE JANES WARN COUNTY ROAD NO L T 111EA'CE NORTH 003•23. 405T ALONG SAID NEST LM 7153 FEET, 711049 SOUTH 5449'25' BEST 110.73 FEET TO A POINT O CURVE THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO 111 RICHT WITH A RAODS OF 93.32 FEEL 234 ARC DISTANCE E 24.33 FEET TO 101. TONE 2010 OF 0(414RINC OF THIS OESCRV1104; THENCE 604140140 AL0140 SAID 0.118. A ARC DISTANCE OP 24.51 FEET: THENCE 1400114 135171_T- NEST 1[067 FEET TO • PONT ON THE SMITH UNE a SAO COVERN14047 LOT 1. 3x04 O HORN 67.45531 *55) 375 FEET FROM IHE EMT OF BILONN 4 110140E SOUTH 10')•331 EST 105 FEET; 1104CE NORTH 574E51' EAST 197.110 FUT TO • PONT 1404 BEARS SOUTH 053310' GRIT FROM 12 TRUE POINT Or SEGMMOO. THENCE NORTH 063510 SCSI 61.42 FEET TO 114E TRUE PRO) CF EEO TEN* O' 1145 OE5CRO71OR ENLPT 1141 PORTION Or 112 SCAN/CAW 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST I/O 0.F SARI 5ECT01 15. DESOB9E0 AS FOLLOWS: OEDOOOVG AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH 104E O' SAID GOKRN0ENT LOT 1, x SAM =now le, %TH 111E NEST /HE CF 112 JAMES CUM 007001 ROAD N0. L THENCE NORTH 402702025• REST ALONG SAID NEST LORE 72.55 REF 110.140E SOUTH 6846.25' REST 11012 FEET TO A 0040 OF OUR& THENCE ALONG SAD WRVS TO THE RNNT MANN* A RAMIS OF 93.52 FEET. AN ARC DISTANCE O 24.34 FEET, HENCE 50)1H 0835.10' EAS1 81.42 FEET: 1)40!9 NORTH 8794.51' EAST 184.0 FEET TO APPOINT DI THE *5515010 LINE or SAID .MMES CLAW COUNTY ROAD. SOLIINERLY 72 FEET /ROA THE POINT OF 6EWonN0 THENCE NORTHERLY AL045 SAID NEST UNE 72 FEET TO 111 POINT GE 8E3989NG EXCEPT 8101410,0 Al THE 44091N8C5T CORNER O SAID NORTH TED FQT OF THE 301J114EA51 1/4 O THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 . O 5101014 15. TONSSP 23 NORTH. RANGE 4 EA5T, 1441; 1401E SOUTH 8936.431 EA53 376.6 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10144•37 EAST 135 FEE0; 01049 1401114 0956.42' REST T A POINT 125 FEET 50)Tr O GEE PONT CF &318010. THENCE 10,114 125 FEET TO 114E POINT of KM** ES0 77 1HE SOUTH 80 FEET O THE RCPT. 205 11E0 O 114E REST 4017 FEET O' SAO SO TIEAST 1/4 O' NNE 55011EAST 1/4 O SECTION 13, 73•1451' 23 NORTH. RANGE • EAST. MEP, THE 53110 75 FEET CF THE BEST 4487 1E11 OF SAID SECTOR 1'4 and le O /s OO % SL ore; m Con 3 -8) • u.1' • F {t31A05(s).'30$ 61.(1re900.130.r 4, 3. \ • * .144.6' j131AOS(S ).132.5 a-- P; SLOPE 4031 r SLOPE Fe..a w.0. ea, . a� Pm ZO' 402 402 BO' /OI' Se ALE • esouihwesterty end 24 -ADS STEEP SLOPE /LMAPP /146 N ' top = 137.6' GRAPRIC SCALE (o F071 LEGEND ® Conan% 310*3Mnt le•Co•: + •1 X Teak H 1800 e• Nag • 04 • Bann 040 • . o 514 Tabor 0 /C40 #2468* • mane N0.. es eTb= ZE 1)0•.+ '0. Paw Rao . • 0•01.500 Tn. ,{.{� K Ewr3nes Tres ■ Cate! Baaln Gas Yd. Riles 0Ns m um alar10.14 o 'slam. drain mold. 500 .4.0. m.8* -S� se .e 141 -0- Bas /Nt -.- vats, TM stern draM 411 6-+ Boer Pet* 4)10•3 Faro Tl1441 '' Prom, •4 a Pr raw.wxuawa es PrMNS. •!1» • n4u 140. ar.b, 110.00..44.4 H • at. W4. •'�• •4w P esaesW4a :N0. •Nw1enpl•s41'•0.41+ w• 440.0 mows 0 1Trw 1424,.+4141 A. M w w i a, un.. •••••014" • • 0 a PROPOSED SNORT PLAT J.N 2da7 W Sn••1 Nam 120 S.N. 1940 51 Mamma) Park Na Scnroe ter Land Surveying PROFESSIONAL (AND SURVEYORS FJL ••••• 1.60.•,p0, x0.44 00O 446436 w 0NM3 -x11 GATE (mom 0/15/06 309 4 44/16 040050 6/5/07 3/20/07 I PROJECT N0. 00)03451 J 54041 4 • 20' ONO M SC t i SEC. 1= TOUR OATS (OFFICE) M I PO Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59`h Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same April 6, 2008 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation for Proposed 4 -Lot Single Family Residential Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA (Jeff Foley) General: The purpose of this report is to evaluate the soils on the above property for general construction considerations, for stability of existing steep slopes on the site and for erosion characteristics. The parcel is approximately 71,180 square feet or 1.68 acres, with an existing one story wood frame residence, driveway and surrounding lawn with landscaping shrubs and small trees. The existing house is approximately 80 to 90 years old, and will be retained. In addition, a fairly large old wood frame barn and associated graveled parking area exist on the site. The barn will also be retained and remodeled as a new residence. The lot is bordered on all sides by single family residences, some with larger parcels. It is located on the west side of Macadam Road S. in Tukwila, WA. The street address of the existing residence is 14011 Macadam Road S. The existing lot is roughly rectangular, varying from approximately 178 feet to 213 feet north -south and varying from approximately 366 feet to 386 feet east -west. The site slopes significantly downward to the east and Macadam Road S., with the western one- third being wooded with slopes of typically 2:1, with the eastern two- thirds being a cleared series of graveled parking areas, buildings and lawned yard areas, and some localized steep slopes. Based on the soils available in the lower elevations of the site (see Logs #4, 5 and 6), the site appears suitable for on -site infiltration. A common main trench will be used for all impervious areas on site, including new residences. Based on the topography of the site, significant earthwork will be required to create the new access road into the site from Macadam Road S. The existing residence and barn will be retained for continued use. The existing graveled driveway and parking areas will be displaced for the new access road and residences. Site Geology Information - Topographic Data: RECEIVED APR 10 2006 COMMUt�NITY DEVELOPMENT A field survey topographic mapping of the site has been prepared by Schroeter Land Surveying in support of the proposed short plat. A copy of this map is provided, with areas of different slope categories indicated. ;Please note that the lot lines shown have since been slightly revised. A copy of the most recent lot layout with preliminary improvements is also provided, with currently proposed lot lines. Reduced and full size copies of each are provided with this evaluation. Site Geology Information - Subsurface Data: The source of information to evaluate subsurface soil information was a series of six soil logs and observations of cut banks on the site. They were located in probable areas of development, although one log was located some distance up the upper vegetated slope area. A copy of the soil logs is provided with site sketch. Soils indicated a fairly typical Alderwood association, with the outwash from the upper slope area ,forming a deeper layer of the loams in the lower portion of the site. The logs from the upper slope and immediately below it in the table area immediately below it reflect typically an upper layer of loam with cobbles in the upper two to eight feet, underlain by a mottled sandy clay. The soils in the lower portion of the site, from the lower edge of the table, indicated the loams to depths of up to eight feet, with no observed clay. The water table indicator noted in the logs is the mottling of the clay layers encountered. The logs were prepared during summer months and no active groundwater was encountered at that time. A perching of groundwater occurs within approximately six to eight feet from the base of the upper slope. It appears that a thin sandy loam layer exists at this level, although specific vertical limits could not be identified due to the general mixing of the surface loams at this level of the slope. During previous use of the site this water was intercepted along the base of the upper slope and directed south to a minor ravine running east on the neighboring property (which is undeveloped in that area). Along with the construction of the interception ditch, a portion of the upper slope immediately adjacent to the table area, was cut back for a distance of approximately fifteen feet to enlarge the table area and allow construction of the barn which is still located in that area. It is estimated that the construction of the ditch and barn occurred approximately 70 or 80 years ago, and with the ditch being maintained for most of that period (likely the lifetime of the owner who created it). It was observed that this cut has sloughed into the old interception ditch over the last 20 or 30 years and blocked it, allowing the formation of the "wetland" areas identified at the base of the upper slope, and especially at the rear of the barn. Collection and disposal of the perched water is an aspect of the proposed drainage measures for the future use of the site. Site Geology Information - Site History: RECEIVED APR 1 0 2 IIDEVELOPMENif 2 The site reflects the general north -south glacier carving of Puget Sound region macro - topography evident in Puget Sound, the Duwanish Valley, the Kent Valley, Lake Washington, etc. The Alderwood association, of which this appears to conform, is based on the general shaping of previous soils by glacier, with the loamy overlying layer generated by weathering or final glacial outwash from the last ice age, approximately 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The underlying clay layer is likely relatively deep, as has been encountered in other evaluations in this area throughout the Tukwila/Duwanish Valley area, down basically to sea level (or the valley floor just above sea level). The topography of the major upper slope observed during site visits indicates no evidence of catastrophic slope failure in any area. Long term very slow surface movement has probably occurred historically along the steep slope, but has been un- noticed in its rural uses. Significant movement of the surface soils down the slope, especially in an undeveloped condition, would be measured in decades. No areas of obvious surface erosion or tell tale exposed surface soils were observed, except for some minor areas along the minor drop slope. A specific indicator was observed which supports the above very slow movement of the soils. Except immediately adjacent to the minor base of slope cuts mentioned above for the ditch and barn, there were no "curved trees" indicating surface movement. In the immediate area of the old cut bank by the barn, approximately six or seven trees varying from about six to 16 inches in diameter were observed. The old cut bank was about six feet high and the cut about 15 feet into the hillside, probably cut vertically. The age of the larger trees affected indicate the age of the cut (mentioned above). All trees affected were within about ten or so feet from the top of the old cut. It is the restricted limits of the affected trees, combined with the relatively long term of exposure to the distinct cut bank, which provides actual evidence of inherent surface soil stability. This stability is provided by the geometry of the undisturbed slope, and the inherent strength of the undisturbed loams at the surface. Site Geology Information - Seismic Hazard: Seismic hazards for slopes may be comprised of either general soil saturation or classic seismic liquefaction. With general saturation, failure occurs in either a direct diagonal slippage (shear failure) or at a saturated layer of loose silts which semi-liquefy and "pour" out of their original location in the hillside. The soils of this area do not appear susceptible to this mode of failure due to the generally dense impervious nature of the soils and positive slopes which prevent surcharged saturation. While the above cause of hillside failure is not limited to seismic movement, a seismic event could possibly trigger a failure which would not otherwise have occurred, however this is unlikely. As noted above, there is no indication on the site of this mode of failure occurring previously on CI o this site or in the surrounding area. Based on the above, the possibility of hillside failure 1 by this mode of seismic failure is low. The second mode of failure is caused by a water saturation of a uniformly graded larger grained non - cohesive soil, which in this condition is subject to seismic movement. For 3 the slope areas in question, the possibility of full saturation of any layer is not present. In addition, the soils as noted are not of the type allowing this type of movement. The possibility of seismic movement is, of course, more significant with a sloping site, however, the possibility of seismic liquefaction failure for this hillside is negligible. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Slope Stability Studies and Opinions of Slope Stability: No previous slope stability studies are known to have been prepared for this site. As noted above, the site appears stable and not subject to long term erosion or catastrophic failure. Reference slope stability, it is the opinion of this office, based on considerations discussed above, that the existing slopes are geologically stable for the intended use. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Angles of Cut and Fill Slopes and Site Grading Requirements: Significant earthwork will be required to construct the access road for this site, and moderate to light earthwork as part of the new house construction. The following are provided for general information. It is recommended that the footing bases for the new residences be placed at or below a 2:1 slope from adjacent downhill slopes. Due to the stability of the upper slope area, and the slow rate of surface soil movement, it is recommended as a convenience to avoid having to clear the minor surface soils reaching the house site, that a setback of 15 feet from the natural bottom of slope be maintained for new structures. In the area of the old cut slope area adjacent to the existing barn, a formal minor wall approximately six feet high may be desirable. The determination to construct this wall would be based on future guidance in the wetland report for the site and the specific use of that lot determined at the time of residential permitting. During temporary excavations for basements and foundations, a vertical cut face is acceptable. Long term permanent cuts and fills involving native soils should be at a maximum of 2:1 unless otherwise approved by a licensed engineer familiar with the site. Site grading should follow standard practice as regards erosion control, stockpiling of soils, and minimizing the areas to be cleared and disturbed to that necessary for approved construction. Significant structural fill should not be required for the proposed new residences. Should o it be required, the following guidelines should be followed. Cut horizontal steps into the 14, N slope (for fills over 3 feet total), place non -clay materials in maximum 6" lifts, and mechanically compact to 95 percent. Note that for non - structural fill in yard areas, the 6" El a 4r4 lifts and mechanical compaction may be omitted, although some settling will occur over time. Revegetation of finished slope areas should follow good landscaping practice. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Structural Foundation Requirements and Estimated Foundation Settlement: A foundation bearing pressure of 2,000 PSF is suitable for undisturbed soils for this site. All foundations should be placed on undisturbed soils a minimum of 18" below finished grade. All foundations should be placed at a 2:1 backslope or farther from the toe of any slope Areas found to have unengineered old fill during construction should be evaluated prior to placement of foundations or roads /driveways in those areas. Based on observed soils, a lateral resistance factor of 0.40 for lateral loading may be safely used for design of structural retaining walls and, where used, basement walls. Note that the basement floors will be cast concrete and will provide additional long term lateral resistance to movement of the walls and their footings. It is recommended that the inside of the basement wall footings be back filled against prior to exterior backfilling as a good general construction practice. This backfilling may be omitted in shallow crawl space foundations. Based on experience with similar soils used for wood frame residential construction, a settlement of less that 1/4 inch would be expected within a 50 foot length of foundation. It should be noted that during the site visit by this office, the existing concrete foundations for the existing house and barn, which have been in place for up to 70 to 80 years, showed very little settlement. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Soil Compaction Criteria: Loamsoils on site are suitable for all structural fill in a dry or damp condition. Clay soils on site are suitable only for shallow structural backfill, which would be characterized as one foot or less. Deeper fills, if required, may use an imported select granular pit run. Compaction in foundation and vehicular traffic areas for all acceptable soils should be to 95 %, uniformly and mechanically compacted. The need for structural backfill for this site, except in utility trenching, is minimal. As indicated above, backfilling of minor trenches with existing loam material is acceptable, provided it is mechanically compacted in 6 inch lifts, and that it is done in only damp or dry weather. Questions relating to the adequacy of compacted material should be evaluated by a licensed engineer inspection on site. 119. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Surface and Subsurface Drainage: Surface runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and routed a common on -site infiltration system, with overflow to the adjacent street drainage system. All foundations 5 and retaining walls will be protected by piped footing drains which lead to the common infiltration trench. Subsurface investigation indicates infiltration into the deep loam soils in the lower portion of the site is feasible. Due to the depth of the proposed infiltration trench, information about soils in that level need to be investigated once the cuts for the access road have been made. It is recommended that the soils accessible at that time be evaluated in detail and that the design of the common infiltration trench, both its design factors and layout, be fine -tuned at that time, as necessary. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Proposed Use of On Site Sewage System(s) This site is served by public sewer and does not require the use of OSS systems (drainfields). Geotechnical Engineering Information - Lateral Earth Pressures: Due to the dense nature of the in place soils, an active design lateral pressure for retaining walls of 35 PCF is suitable, with an at rest lateral pressure for foundation walls of 60 PCF recommended. All walls over 4 feet in total height must be designed by a licensed engineer and use the 1.5 safety factor per accepted practice. All walls with either a soil or vehicular traffic surcharge will require consideration of the surcharge, to be determined as part of the specific wall design. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Vulnerability of Site to Erosion: Undisturbed bare soils on site are moderately subject to erosion. Disturbed soils are subject to significant erosion. Disturbed soils on or near the slope areas are subject to heavy erosion. For the above reasons the exposure of disturbed soils on or near the slope areas should be protected with straw or tarping if left exposed for more than one week during the wet season. All disturbed areas must have properly installed silt fencing on their downhill side. A standard stabilized rock construction entrance will be used on site to prevent mud and silt from the site entering the street drainage system. With the use of erosion control measures, as mentioned above, the proposed construction should be able to take place without significant erosion to the site, or the transporting of silts off site. ° z A Geotechnical Engineering Information - Suitability of On -Site Soils for Use as Fill: Ili ce 3� Lt The native loam materials on -site are suitable for structural fill in damp or dry weather, with mechanical compaction required in structural fill areas, as noted above. Note minor 6 quantities of clay in the existing soils prevents their use for deep structural fills over one foot deep. Clay soils may be used for non - structural fill, with the understanding that long term settling may occur proportional to the depth of the fill. This may be evaluated on a case by case basis during construction. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Laboratory Data and Soil Index Properties: Field testing was done of soil samples encountered. Used were both wet and dry techniques. The soils were found to be a dense medium loam and dense sandy mottled clays, in the areas and depths indicated above. Formal laboratory testing of soil samples was not deemed necessary for the evaluation of site soils for this site and type of construction. Geotechnical Engineering Information - Building Limitations: The construction of the above new residences may take place during wet weather provided the above specified erosion control measures are strictly employed. Arbitrary wet weather restrictions based on specific dates for this site and its development are not recommended. Providing the above recommendations and construction criteria are adhered to in the design and placement of the residential structure and related site work, no site related building limitations are recommended for these sites. Note that dewatering procedures may be required for deep excavations adjacent to the bottom of the upper steep slope area. Summery: The site is suitable for conventional residential construction. Drainage of impervious surfaces, including roof and driveways must be collected, infiltrated on -site in a common infiltration trench, with overflow to the adjacent street system. Statement of Risk: (Intended to comply with TMC Risk Statement Requirements) While the general slope of the site is typically about 10 percent in the construction areas, some significant areas will have slopes up to 20 percent, with an existing cut area on site at 1:1. The total difference in elevation of these construction areas-is up to 30 or 40 feet. The steep upper slope is vegetated and is not projected for disturbance. The level of projected disturbance, combin6d with the stable soils noted above, indicate that the site, and the surrounding properties (which are all similar), is not by definition a "geologic 0 L, tri 7 hazard" area and that additional studies and construction restrictions relating to geologic hazard areas do not apply to this project. In addition, the construction as proposed is so minor as to not pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare. The construction may occur with no greater threat to the site or to adjacent properties than if the site were level. In summery, the plans and specifications submitted for the proposed access road construction and general specifics of proposed new residences have been reviewed and conform to the conditions and recommendations in this evaluation, specifics noted above, and provided that the conditions and recommendations are satisfied, the construction and development will not increase the potential for soil movement; and the risk of damage to the proposed development, and from the development to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal (a very low possibility of risk). Questions' relating to this report and to site related problems which may arise during construction of the new residences may be directed to this office. -7 Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer , :4/2aD1 7 4p,? `06 foleygeo /0619 # CO Ili N so' 8 x 2po Found rebar w /clap #11023 0.05' south & 0.15' east of calc. position. SOIL LOGS FOLEY/MANN SHORT PLAT 28 JUL 06 SL 1 0 -96" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 96- 120 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 2 • 0 -84" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 84 -96 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 3 0-24" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 24 -72 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 4 0 -72 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES . (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) SL 5 0 -96 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT T ON SITE) SL 6 0-48 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) w yY mr,vcsivFD to 2000 DE Cat CANT Z'SEA77CC 57» 41._ 1 ,A 1 IPA 1\1\1111kilTA ® �W'� ` lstl i i ra k � � ww � e *�` : � 1 - 7- T< a TGC/T I elans 74 6 f t !.-' f� 6 sr�ErXV i 'r'1;i3 tea' xrm � ��V , 1 s '''''''.7"- ia prr eitilirOth < ..Y W ft W /E '''''n Clfi�jse ® ®�• I. � 4T 721.73 n -117 ti 6 W41411. Alt �. �' tit! 3.rTii L ' ' -� `• -1 %/� •oA :I. '• _ olr m.YAC y;.,,u,Yff -• IiiikWall '•k. :... lone 5 -oN rr> , o.. ■ 1,.(Ya1,(M1)I TGi 1 6 offs! -,ur za w 1ri�y p r,fl /r�e5 Gi12n. -i.T r a+ea ./w mbkb 1,41,1;:e Ma un. ACTIVITY. SCHEDULE: 1. STAKING BY SURVEYOR 2. PUCE SILT FENCE AS SHOWN. 3. PERFORM ROUGH GRADING OF NEW OW VEWAY AREA 4. INSTALL NEW CATCH BASINS AND DRAINAGE PIPERRENCH. INSTALL OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THIS TINE. INSTALL SILT TRAP IN NEW CATCH BASINS. • 5. PERFORM FINE GRADING OF NEW AND DRIVEWAY AREA. B. PAVE NEW ROAD AND DRIVEWAY AREAS. 7. REVEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS WITH GRASS SEED. 8. REMOVE SILT FENCING AND CATCH BASIN SILT TRAPS ONCE VEGETATION IS REESTABLISHED. EARTHWORK ESTIMATES CUT . 1.200 CY FILL 1.500 CY (INCL TRENCH GRAVEL) 4OJ e VICINITY MAP I. 73 Y124' O 5 tl !.of? DECEIVED APR 10 2000 4T NPERW04S SURFACES . GRAVEL DRIVEWAY • 10.150 at ./- EXISTING N85E • 1.514 at 11- COSTING BARN • See At 4/- BASS OF ELEVA0ON: SURVEY COMM DATABASE PONT 10 760. BRASS NAL N CONCRETE N CASE - 0.67 FEET BELOW RN: NTERSECTONS Of S0. 144TH ST., 5100 AVE, AND WCMAM RD 50, 4EVADON • 180.160 FEET N.3005 Forma row 6/OOP 07559 <LOT man • aa5 ent el Ma oeFnm. 40 north and Ire, a1O . ,3045 elm r.e9 5/000 07559 0.20' eeuth' 0.11.0.0 of cede. 501141011, /S 00. SLOPE 4044 a SLOPE 557'54'35'1 365 X755 south and Ina 401 ♦ .SLOPE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION • THE 50000 250 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE 50 45EA5T 0/4 OF SECTION IS, TOM4009 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. N.Y.. LYING WEST a MACADAM ROAD 504Th, EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING MT. THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOW49CP 23 WORTS, RANGE 4 EAST. W,L„ DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE LNIERSECTON OF THE 504TH LEE OF CONER.41010 LOT 4, IN SAID SECIICN 1S MTI THE WEST UNE OF THE JAMES 04.4414 COUNTY RCM N0. 2 T THENCE NOR. 4*20'23' WEST ALC410 SAID WEST LEE 72.55 FEET; TENCE SOUTH 64•45•25' WE50 110.72 FEET TO A PONT OF CURVE; THENCE ALONG A DIRK TO THE RIGHT 52111 A RADIUS CF 9351 FEET, AN ARC INSTANCE 5, 24.35 FEET TO THE. TRUE PONT OF BETNNING OF 71G5 DESORPTION; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CARVE A ARC DISTANCE OF 24.51 FEET THENCE NORTH 5517'33-PEST 160.67 FEET TO • PONT ON THE SOUTH UNE O 5A0 GOVERNMENT LOT 1. MUCH R NORTH 67'46'32' WEST 375 FEET FROM TIE PONT O BEOHNING; THENCE SOUTH 10'44'32' EST 106 FEE7 1N410E NORTH 0704'51' EAST 157.50 FEET TO A PONT WWCH BEARS 104711 053510' EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 0515'10' WEST 01.02 FEET TO THE TRUE 00047 OF BEONNNG OF 105 DESORPTION; EXCEPT MAT PC117I01 Of 040 SOUTHEAST 1/4 K THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID 6ECTON 15, INSCRIBED AS FO.L045 5E4NMNG AT THE NITER CTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID GOVERMENT LOT 1, N SAID SEMEN 15, MTH THE WEST UNE OF THE JAMES CLARK COUNTY ROM 140. 2 THENCE NORTH 4072972013. WEST ALONG SAID WEST UNE 72.53 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64.4515' WEST 110.72 FEET TO A PONT Of CORK; THENCE ALa0 SAID CURVE TO THE 5010 HAVPIG A RADIUS OF 9352 FEET, AN ARC OSTANCE OF 24.34 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 0515'10' EAST 41.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH e7114's' EAST 1690 FEET TO APPOINT 0I THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID JAMES CLANK COUNTY ROAD, SOUTHERLY 72 FEET FROI THE POINT O BEGINNING: THENCE NORTHERLY AL040 5440 WEST LINE 72 FEET TO RE PONT O 6EGIN4NF EXCEPT BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH 240 FEET Of THE SOUTHEAST 4/4 OF 111E SOUTHEAST 1/4 . 0'i £0'1104 15. T0WN96P 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, MM,; THENCE 521n4 6216'40 EAST 375.6 FEET; TIERCE 5805 401432' EAST 125 FEE:: THENCE NORTH 8916'40 WEST T • POINT 125 FEET 504TH O 111E PONT Cr BE49•310 THENCE NORTH 125 1,21 TO THE PONT O 5ECHMR4G; EXCEPT THE SOLIDI 50 FEET OF THE NORTH 205 FEET OF THE WEST 4067 FEET O SAD SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 0O' SECTION 15, TOP4121P 23 NORTH, RANGE • EAST, M.Y.; EXCEPT THE 5871 75 FEET OF THE WEST 400.7 FEET Of SAO SECTION. .0.0 5.1V.52:00 41 A ,V Sn /5=40 % SLOPE Eon 5-004 n • 133.0 H.(10MS(S }130,3 91412- CP(E)PTPI7 /S - -4O Y4 SLOPE 4.036 ♦ SLOPE o.ee 5.665 . /ap me9.6 nn o•-I en ant Fla za• oa• ao• so• /1i• APO 094 STEEP SLOPE /APP /116 era .Yn '• 134.4' m.(4YMS(N)-u2C M a• t. Of 66611 ee W.•n wr64 M .9Arcc Nan Inn Whir, Ira pat ewYwFa ecomet 4-•04-00444 Iva vim. t.a 6 or 6outtop hwesteoly end 24'ADS 137.6' GRAPHIC SCALE LEGEND • Calor.o. Maumeno In Ce• } Nomnnant O Ten In Lead 2' WE R DYX S Brenta PNN O Se4' 0.01 0 /coo 123604 • 5 Y9 Deolauen Tree Ev419ree0 Tree II WO BaNn j0 Cc. 44.. WE9 Von, PO sewer moon al o nom, 11001 manl0Y PW0 4049 meth -S- 04.66 Y• -9- 96. WW -•- nte• Orr -5D- 6•4n argil., One HH--+ 00414 pole .N9Nt Feum pipe or H4Oro. Pe.9 polo - • 176s1 6rta tor Vls m vPdMe .n.n4". Woe ^E Z We ': "' Yw.m H.«e ,..W + ` P..� M •: Fwe'r'YOre ....n woo E.6666 oto-6. Au new arepar44 fm- _ a we... 4u•...we... ,.F..HrdHtrMelw w ."'....Fa. • • egg k 3 PROPOSED SHORT PUT MN 0424 5,44 Sown Yam 120 SW. 1114th 54. 440rm0,27 Pak, WO Schroe.ter Land ® Surveying PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS • .L M 4U. l.ee•.a V4#230., 04521 004 11664.11 5'04 ¢0414564275 DATE (HELD) 6/15/05 JOB 0 490/16 5005.2 6 /5 /07 DACE (OPTIC[) 3/25/27 I - PROJECT 110. 061430420 J SCALE 1' • 20• = DWG BY Y. i 1 4 SEC. Z 5 0503- 69. • •r Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Office : - (206):242 -7665 Fax: Same November 12, 2006/Revised February 8, 2008 City of Tukwila Attn. Planning Department 0J 5/ STS %Po,.' 41- Subject: Sails-Evaluation-Torr On- Site - Storm -a o ,� JeffFoley /Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA (REVISED) Dear Sir: On July 28; 2006 a total of six soil logs were evaluated on the above site. Attached is a copy of the soil logs. The soils encountered typically had a surface layer of medium loam underlain by mottled sandy clay, typical of what is probably the Alderwood Association. The depth of the loam down to the clay varied from 24 to 96 inches. Additional soil observations in the cut bank for Macadam Road S. indicate the the soils lower on the site are comprised of silty loams. These soils have a low but calculatable infiltration rate. The use of on -site infiltration for the individual residences on the upper two parcels on the above site is not recommended. Several reasons are: 1. The depth of the surface silt loam varies widely and is not predictable in depth for designing trenches, especially for sites with area restraints. 2. The underlying clay loams do not infiltrate well. 3. The build up of groundwater above the clay loam layer could saturate soil needed for water removal from the trenches. The use of on-sitelinfiltration for the road and residences on-the lower two parcels› appears feasible due to the silty loams in the lower portion of the site. The following factors may be noted about infiltation in this area. 1. A large common trench under the private road should be designed to accept runoff from all four houses, as well as the from the private road. It would be the most dependable, convenient and cost effective method of runoff disposal. 2. Deep test excavations extending deeper than the grade of Macadam Road S. will be needed prior to preparing the final drainage plan for this site. In summ¢ry, the use of on -site infiltration for stormwater removal is not recommended for the upper portions of this site Instead, a large _scale _conventional underground`' infiltration system is recommeneed. -~ °~- - - Note that while this letter does not address other engineering aspects of the soils of the site, it may be mentioned that the soils do appear suitable for conventional paving and building construction in dry .weather. Questions relating to the above may be made directly to this office. Sinc el Bruce S. MacVeigh, .E. Civil Engineer e7PIRES: 4/24/ O .j SOIL LOGS FOLEY /MANN SHORT PLAT 28 JUL 06 SL 1 0 -96 MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 96 -120 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 2 0 -84" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 84 -96 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 3 0 -24" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 24 -72 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 4 0 -72 "+ ME- ED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) SL 5 \-7 0 -96 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) y✓ SL 0 -48 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 SPECIAL STUDY METHODS 2 1.1 Preliminary Resource Review 2 1.2 On -Site Investigation 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 1.3 Preliminary Resource Review 3 1.4 On -Site Investigation 3 1.5 Wetlands 4 1.6 Watercourses 4 4.0 REGULATION 5 1.7 Wetlands 5 1.8 Watercourses 5 5.0 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT 6 6.0 HAZARDS, RISKS, AND IMPACTS 7 7.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 8 8.0 MITIGATION PLAN 9 9.0 REFERENCES 10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Ecology classification and approximate size of Wetland A. 6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E: Vicinity Map Conceptual Mitigation Plan Photographs Wetland Data Forms Washington Wetland Classification System Rating Forms P :WEF000000001 \0600INFO\EP\EP37 Wettands\Report dons\Foley Sensitive Area Study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat February 2008 Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study Page i This page left intentionally blank P :WEF000000001106001NFO \EP\EPS7 Wetlands\Report doss\Foley Sensitive Area Study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat February 2008 Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study Page ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION At the request of Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann (applicant), David Evans and Associates Inc. (DEA) has conducted a wetland and watercourse special study for the Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat (Foley Short Plat). The Foley Short Plat, King County parcel # 1523049035, is located at 14011 Macadam Road South (Appendix A). The property is located in the City of Tukwila (City), King County, Washington, in Township 23 N, Range 04 E, Section 15. The parcel is a developed 1.68 -acre property with two existing structures (i.e. a house and a barn). This wetland and watercourse special study was conducted to obtain a "special permission" for a sensitive area ordinance deviation (i.e. wetland buffer reduction) pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (City Code) 18.45.040. Specifically, the applicant requests a 50 percent buffer reduction on Wetland A from 50 feet to 25 feet. The applicant would also request a setback waiver from 10 feet to five feet from the Wetland A buffer. Adjacent land uses and ownership include residential areas and forested hillsides. The property is located to the west of Macadam Road South. Most of the land use west of Macadam Road South is a forested hillside and a few residential lots. I -5 is located to the east of Macadam Road South. The proposed project would create a 4 -lot short plat within the existing parcel. A new entrance and associated driveway off of Macadam Road South are also proposed (Appendix B -Sheet 3). Construction of the driveway will require the removal of 2,000 cubic yards of fill from the site. The existing house (Lot 2) and barn (Lot 4) would remain and two new houses are proposed (Lot 1 and Lot 3). A retaining wall is proposed to achieve the grading requirements to access the future house in Lot 4 (existing barn). The applicant proposes to use the existing concrete foundation of the barn for a proposed house in Lot 4. The barn currently encroaches into a wetland buffer (Wetland A). Mitigation is proposed in this report and will enhance Wetland A and its associated buffer habitat. The applicant proposes to enhance Wetland A and its buffer with native wetland and upland plant species. This mitigation would be monitored for five years as required by City code. p:\ hefo00000001 \0600info \ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs\foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 1 2.0 SPECIAL STUDY METHODS Methods used for the site reconnaissance included a preliminary resource review and an on- site visit. 1.1 Preliminary Resource Review A review of existing resource information was conducted for the site vicinity in order to identify known wetlands and streams. Resources reviewed include the following: • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), Des Moines Quadrangle, 1:24,000 1988 • King County Wetland and Streams GIS data, King County, Washington, 2006 • Soil Survey — King County Area, Washington • King County — Assessor Property Characteristics Report and Districts and •Development Conditions Report accessed through King County GIS Center • City of Tukwila — Stream map and buffer provided by the City 1.2 On -Site Investigation DEA biologists inspected the site on March 8, 2007, to document any wetlands or streams on the property. Weather during the site visit was overcast with light rainfall, and rain had fallen during the two previous days. Wetland presence or absence was determined according to methods established in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) which is consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Wetland classes were determined according to the USFWS Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States manual (Cowardin 1979). p:\ j\jefo00000001\0600info\ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs \foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 2 3.0 RESULTS 1.3 Preliminary Resource Review The NWI Des Moines Quadrangle depicts no streams or wetlands on or adjacent to the property. The King County wetland and streams GIS data show no streams or wetlands on or adjacent to the property. Data from the Soils Survey for King County Washington were not available for the Tukwila area. The King County Districts and Development report describes this parcel as within the Duwamish River drainage basin in the Duwamish -Green River watershed, water resource inventory area (WRIA) 9. The aforementioned report describes no wetlands occurring on the parcel. The stream map provided by the City identifies a Type 4 watercourse with a 50 -foot buffer crossing the property from the northwest to the northeast, west of the existing barn, and traveling offsite across the southern property boundary: 1.4 On -Site Investigation The parcel is composed of mixed conifer /deciduous forest on the undeveloped slope to the west, and disturbed areas graded for the existing structures (Appendix C, Photographs 1 -3). The property currently contains one residential home built in the 1920s, one barn, and the existing gravel driveway that enters the property from the southeast corner. South of the barn is a broad flat area that was likely used for grazing livestock. The vegetation on the property east of the slope is degraded and composed primarily of invasive species including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens). Other species on the property include red alder (Alnus rubra), bluegrass species (Poa sp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), and several small planted western red cedars (Thuja plicata) east of the existing residence. The vegetation on the slope that rises on the western portion of the property is dominated by big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), western hemlock (Tsuga heterohylla), Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa), sword fern (Polystichum munitum), beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and holly (Ilex aquifolium). Invasive English Ivy (Hedera helix) is present throughout the forest floor and exists on many of the trees in this area. Observations made by DEA indicate that hydrology on the site has been altered over time. Cuts made into the slope in order to flatten and develop the area for housing and grazing exposed subsurface flows. These exposed subsurface flows appear to have been managed by p: yljefo00000001 \0600info \ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs \foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 3 the excavation of a ditch, which transported waters to the south beyond the parcel boundary (Appendix C, Photograph 4). The ditch appears to have flowed into an existing stream that begins in a small seep - wetland south of the property line. The ditch on the property was not maintained and over time ceased to transport waters south along the toe of slope. Additional observations indicate attempts to drain the exposed flows with French drains. An existing French drain directs waters accumulated under the driveway to a ditch that flows to a catch basin along Macadam Road. 1.5 Wetlands Two wetlands were delineated on the property (Appendix D). Both of these wetlands occur along the toe of slope at the western edge of the developed portion of the property. These wetlands are considered palustrine scrub /shrub wetlands, with hydrology provided by seeps at the slope break. These wetlands are rarely inundated with water and are often only saturated to the surface. The presence of hydrology, predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, and the presence of hydric soils qualify these areas as wetland. Both wetlands are disturbed due to the proximity to human activities that have altered the site including grazing, gravel stockpiling, and the presence of invasive species. Wetland A occurs south of the existing barn on the property in L -4 (Appendix C, Photographs 5 and 6). Vegetation in this wetland includes red alder, Himalayan blackberry, creeping buttercup, and velvet grass. The wetland data plot contained gleyed (4 /10Y) silty clay soil with reddish brown mottles (5YR 4/4) from 4 to 16 inches and qualifies as hydric. Waters enter this wetland from cuts made for the ditch at the slope break, and the delineated areas were saturated to the surface during the March 6 field visit. Wetland B occurs near the northwest extent of the driveway at the base of the slope in L -1 (Appendix C, Photograph 7). This wetland is less than 1,000 square feet in size and has a connection to the remnant portion of the excavated ditch that no longer extends to the area of Wetland A. Vegetation in this wetland includes red alder, Himalayan blackberry, creeping buttercup, and reed canary grass. The wetland data plot contained very dark grey (10YR 3/1) soils with strong brown (7.5YR 4/6) mottles from 4 to 16 inches and qualified as hydric. 1.6 Watercourses DEA delineated the top of spoils and centerline for the excavated ditch identified on the property (Appendix C, Photograph 4). The ditch picks up seepage from the hillside and the waters infiltrate. The spoils and ditch become less pronounced as it travels to the south and was considered terminated when the lowest part of the ditch was not distinguishable. p:\ iNefo00000001\0600into \ep \ep37 weUands\report docs \coley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 4 The ditch contained no gravel or sand substrate. Substrate was similar to the soils in the area and covered with leaves that showed no indication of water stains. DEA identified an automobile battery and muffler within the excavated ditch. Field observations indicated that this ditch formerly connected to the area at the toe of slope in Wetland A. 4.0 REGULATION City Code regulates development parameters around sensitive areas and their buffers through Chapter 18.45. The terms "watercourse" and "wetland" are defined by sections 18.06.918 and 18.06.922, respectively. Designations, ratings, and buffers for wetlands are detailed in section 18.45.080; uses, alterations, and mitigation are outlined in section 18.45.090. Watercourse designations, ratings, and buffers are provided in section 18.45.100; uses, alterations, and mitigation procedures are listed in section 18.45.110. 1.7 Wetlands Wetland A is considered a Type 3 wetland, which requires a 50 -foot buffer and a building setback of 10 feet (Appendix C). City Code defines a Type 3 wetland as "...those wetlands that are greater than 1,000 square feet and less than one acre in size with two or fewer wetland classes." Wetland B does not fit the description provided for a Type 3 wetland above because it is less than 1,000 square feet in size. City Code does not provide a standard buffer width in section 18.45.080(B) for wetlands less than 1,000 square feet. Wetland B occurs in L -4 at the toe of the slope and will not be impacted by this project. Because there is no impact to Wetland B and its buffer is not regulated by the City, there will be no further discussion of Wetland B in this document. 1.8 Watercourses The watercourse mapped by the City as occurring on site does not appear to fulfill the definition provided in City Code section 18.06.920. The definition describes a watercourse as "...generally consisting of a channel with a bed and banks or sides substantially throughout its length along which water flows naturally." During the site visit, DEA did not delineate the entire length of the watercourse depicted by the City due to the lack of bed and bank. No natural surface flows were identified, and indications of past flows were absent. The current status of the watercourse according to the City is a Type 4 stream with a 50 -foot buffer and a 10 -foot building setback. p:' efo00000001\0600info \ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs\foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 5 5.0 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT The Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington (Ecology 2004) was used for the functional assessment of Wetlands A (Appendix E). This methodology has been developed to evaluate wetland values based on the functions provided. Using the rating system Wetland A was classified as a Category IV slope wetland scoring 20 points (Table 1). Table 1. Ecology classification and approximate size of Wetland A. Ecology Classification Water Size HGM Quality Hydrologic Habitat Total Ecology (approx. Wetland Type Score Score Score Score Category sq ft) A S 4 3 13 20 IV 1,347 Wetland A provides minimal water quality function (4 points) and minimal hydrologic function (3 points). The primary function provided by Wetland A is wildlife habitat (13 points). Currently the habitat of Wetland A is degraded. An existing fence as well as a pasture area contributes to the degraded condition of the wetland and its buffer. Himalayan blackberry, an invasive plant species, is present in the wetland and its buffer. Fish use does not occur on -site. Wetland A has no standing water and therefore no fish use. Wildlife use of the property is likely fairly extensive and provides habitat for an array of wildlife. The property is within a forested corridor that runs from 144th Street to the end of Macadam Road South. Although the corridor has been encroached upon by various developments, it still provides suitable habitat for wildlife. The parcel includes a forested hill that provides cover, forage, and breeding opportunities for amphibians, birds, and small mammals. Efforts to enhance wildlife habitat within the buffers of Wetland A would further improve the primary function of these wetlands. p: yljefo00000001 \0600info \ep\ep37 wetIands\report docs \foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 6 6.0 HAZARDS, RISKS, AND IMPACTS There will be no permanent hazards, risks, or impacts to wetlands or watercourses from this project. We are not proposing to fill or drain any wetlands on -site. The hydrology of the wetlands comes from the hillside slope where no impacts will occur. Temporary impacts to Wetland A and its buffer are anticipated during the installation of the mitigation plan. These temporary impacts include human disturbance while installing enhancement plants. All disturbed areas will be reseeded with a native upland hydroseed mix. The mitigation plan calls for vegetation enhancement of Wetland A and its associated buffer. Wetland A and its buffer currently lack a diversity of vegetation. An increase in vegetation diversity and density will add to the habitat value of Wetland A and its buffer. Storm water runoff during construction will be managed with a temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan. This TESC plan will include the installation of a silt fence around the buffer of Wetland A to minimize the potential of any sediment from project construction that may enter the wetland. Storm water runoff from the new and existing impervious surfaces is projected for on -site infiltration in the access /utility easement under the driveway area. If further investigation indicates unsuitable soils at depths required for an infiltration trench, then runoff would be treated in an alternative manner. p:\ jlefo00000001 \0600info \ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs \fotey sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 7 7.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES The original plan has avoided filling any wetlands on -site. New areas of disturbance were avoided by using the existing footprint of the barn as a location for one of the houses. Currently the barn is located in the Wetland A buffer. The proposal avoids building any structures on the slope of the western half of the parcel. This portion of the parcel is densely vegetated and will remain undeveloped. We propose to install a temporary silt fence around the perimeter of Wetland A buffer and Wetland B during construction. This will minimize potential impacts to these areas. Also, before construction begins a split rail fence will be installed around the eastern edge of Wetland A buffer. This fence will also have sensitive area signage to deter trespass into Wetland A and its buffer. p:\ fiefo00000001 \0600info \ep\ep37 wetlands\report docs \foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 8 8.0 MITIGATION PLAN Buffer reductions for wetlands are allowed under City Code section 18.45.080(G) for both wetlands and watercourses. The applicant requests a buffer reduction for Wetland A from 50 to 25 feet and a setback waiver from 10 to 5 feet. The wetland buffer reduction would only occur on the south and east sides of Wetland A. The forested buffer north and west of Wetland A buffer would remain at 50 feet. Without the requested buffer reduction mitigation required for the proposed project, at a 1 to 1 ratio, would be approximately 3,000 square feet. However, with the buffer reduction only 581 square feet of Wetland A buffer will be impacted (i.e. a proposed house using the footprint of the existing barn). To compensate for the buffer reduction and mitigate for the impact of using the footprint of the existing barn we propose to enhance 2,749 square feet of Wetland A buffer with native upland plants and enhance 1,347 square feet of Wetland A with native wetland plants (Appendix B). Appendix B contains the objectives, performance standards, monitoring, and maintenance of the proposed mitigation. These enhancement plantings will be monitored once a year in the late summer for five years from installation. An annual report will be delivered to the City of Tukwila for review. p:\ tliefo00000001 \0600info \ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs\foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Page 9 9.0 REFERENCES Cowardin, L.M., and V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS /OBS 79/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y -87 -1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. March. Publication 96 -94. . 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington. Publication No. 04 -06 -025. Ecology, Olympia, Washington. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soil Survey of the King County Area. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. p: yljefo00000001 \0600info\ep \ep37 wetlands\report docs \foley sensitive area study_022508.doc Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat February 2008 Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study Page 10 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: VICINITY MAP 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 N Foley Short Plat Vicinity Map ez en ° "v "' " "' - Highway - Street am Parcel Boundary JFF00000 -0001 Appendix A Gay of Tukwdla February 2008 APPENDIX B: CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN 16am — P:\ j\ JEF000000001 \0400CAD \ver2004 \JEF01_M -1.dwg A PORTION OF THE S.E.1 /4 OF THE N.W.1 /4 OF SECTION 31, T27N, R5E, WM UI 5' SETBACK FROM EX. FOOTINGS TO BASEMENT RETAINING WALL NV WETLAND W W W MITIGATION WETLAND A AREA CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATION SUMMARY WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT PROPOSED MITIGATION WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT: TOTAL WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT = 581 S.F. ® 1:5 enhancement 2749 S.F (0.06 AC) 581 S.F. Additional Wetland 'A' enhancement 1347 S.F. (0 03 AC) TOTAL MITIGATION PROVIDED = 4096 S.F. (0.09 AC) INDEX: MIT1GA11ON SUMMARY SHEET MI11GA11ON REPORT SHEET MI11GA11ON LANDSCAPE PLAN MITIGATION DETAILS LEGEND: .I • EXISTING WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SENSITIVE AREA SIGN (to be placed approximately every 50') 0 20 40 80 SCALE: 1"-=20' SHEET 1 of 4 2 of 4 3of4 4 of 4 J Z O12-U �co n_o o azU 'DT '^ ZUr a/, W ° z o g QwuJ LL QJ m LL 7 zw >4 WV 00 < N 04 x REVISIONS: APPD. DATE: 2 -8 -08 DESIGN: TRS DRAWN: IRS CHECKED: JCGA REVISION NUMBER: SCALE: 1 - =20' PROJECT NUMBER: JEF00000 -0001 DRAWING FILE: JEFO_0001_M1 SHEET NO. PERMIT SUBMITTAL- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION M -1 of 4 tjs 02/13/08 9:17am — P:\ j\ JEF000000001 \0400CAD \ver2004 \JEF01_M -2.dwg 1.0 MITIGATION PLAN OVERVIEW 1.1 UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS TO WETLAND BUFFER Construction of the project will result in unavoidable impact to 581 SF (0.013 AC) of wetland buffer. The impacted wetland buffers consist of degraded posture and disturbed oreos. 1.2 MITIGATION APPROACH WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT Mitigation for impacts to 581 SF of wetland buffers will be accomplished by wetland and wetland buffer enhancement. Enhancement area is bosed on a 1:1 mitigation ratio established by the City of Tukwila. A total of 581 SF (0.013 AC) will occur in Wetland A and A buffer. Wetland and buffer enhancement areas shall be cleared of invosive weeds and plonted with native trees and shrubs to improve plant diversity and wildlife habitat. 2.0 MITIGATION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Replace lost functions from impacts to 581 SF of Category IV wetland by enhancing 581 SF of existing Category IV Wetland A and A buffer. Enhancement will occur by removing invasive weeds and installing native trees and shrubs. 3.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance standards hove been estoblished that correspond to the stated mitigation goals and objectives. These standards are the primary foctors that shall be used to judge the success of the mitigation project. It shall be exceedingly important to evaluate the development of the mitigation plan over the entire monitoring period when determining whether each individuol standard has been met or not. While specific performance criteria provide important benchmarks and shall help to direct maintenance and contingency efforts, the success of mitigation must be measured against the goals and objectives of the overall mitigation pion. By monitoring the project and comparing monitoring results to performance standards, a determination can be made for the need to implement maintenance efforts or the contingency pion. Performance standards are identified in the table below. 4.0 MONITORING PLAN Mitigation monitoring shall be conducted by a Wetland Biologist for five (5) years which includes the installation inspection (one year warranty inspection). The objective of the monitoring program shall be to assess revegetation success. Reports describing monitoring results shall be submitted to the City of Tukwila by December 31 of years 1 through 5. The monitoring results shall be related to the performance standards and if warranted, recommendations shall be mode based on these findings. 4.1 ESTABLISHMENT OF SENSI11VE AREAS Encroachment into sensitive areas sholl be monitored during each visit. The sensitive areas shall be inspected for clearing, trash dumping and other unauthorized disturbances. Any encroachments in the sensitive areas shall be noted and directed to the City's attention. 4.2 VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT All mitigation plantings shall be monitored for 5 years and shall include a total survival count. Overview photographs sholl be taken from established photopoints. All plonted trees and shrubs shall be evaluated in years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to document vegetation development. The monitoring shall be a complete census of plantings. 4.3 MITIGATION MAINTENANCE If necessary, maintenance actions shall be recommended by the monitoring biologist. Maintenance within the mitigation oreos shall be performed by the landscape contractor during the one year warranty period. Following the one year warranty period, maintenance shall be performed as necessary to ensure mitigation goals and objectives are met. Implementation of maintenance actions is the responsibility of the project proponent (Jeff Foley). 5.0 MITIGATION SEQUENCING Construction of the mitigation sites shall generally include: 1. A pre - construction meeting; 2. Marking limit of work for mitigation boundaries; 3. Removal of invasive species and installation of plants as specified; 4. Post- construction meeting between all involved parties; 5. Removal of limit of work demarcations; 6. Implementation of monitoring program; 7. On -going maintenance as necessary. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS MONITORING METHODS MONITORING INTERVAL 1. 100 percent survival of all installed native trees and shrubs one -year post installation. 2. Planted and volunteer tree and shrub species shall achieve: Year 1 - 1007. survival; Year 3 - 90% survival; Year 5 - 75% survival. 3. At the end of the monitoring period, the following species will comprise <10% of the total ' vegetative cover in the mitigation areas; Himalayan blackberry, reed conarygross, Scots broom, morning glory. Japanese knotweed, or any other invasive species as determined by the biologist. 1. Total plant count of installed trees and shrubs shall determine one year warranty and performance standards for years 1 -5. • Photographic documentation shall occur from established photopoints to provide additional documentation of plant success in each monitoring year. Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Wetland and buffer vegetation) 4. At least 1 notive tree species and 4 native shrub species shall be established in the mitigation area. Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Wetland and wetland buffer) PERMIT SUBMITTAL- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 5.1 PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING A pre- construction meeting shall be held on -site between the project engineer, all necessary construction contractors (general and landscape contractors), and Wetland Biologist and or Landscape Architect. During this meeting, site conditions, permit, specifications, and the mitigation plans shall be reviewed. This shall assist all involved parties in understanding the intent, specifications, and requirements of the mitigotion pion. 5.2 MARKING OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FOR MITIGATION AREA BOUNDARIES The limit of work boundaries of the mitigation areas shall be marked in the field prior to preliminary site preparation, earthwork, or plonting by the contractor. Boundaries shall be marked by installing orange temporary construction fencing to clearly 'delineate the mitigation area. 5.3 PLANTING PLAN All mitigation plants shall be native species. ,See plant schedule on Sheet 3 of 4. 5.4 POST - CONSTRUCTION MEETING A post- construction site review of the completed work shall be conducted between the Landscape Architect / Wetland Biologist and the contractor to verify that the plan was properly implemented. This field meeting sholl identify any discrepancies between the plan and the field plantings and if necessary, propose corrective measures. If the plan was properly implemented, the monitoring period shall commence. 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION The Wetland Biologist or Landscape Architectl(construction observer) shall be on -site periodically during the implementation of the mitigation,, area to review the plant instollation. The responsibilities of the construction observer(s) shall include: 'responding to contractor questions regarding unique construction or plonting techniques; review .of construction materiels and nursery stock, and review of plant locations. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to verify that plan specifications have been met. - - -.I • 7.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN The contingency plan shall provide remediation for the mitigation goals that hove not been' met. If the desired mitigotion goals, as measured by'the; monitoring progrom and performance standards, hove not been met and cannot be achieved through routine maintenance, then a determination by the City of Tukwila and the project proponent may be made to require submittal of a contingency plan. After written approval by the City, a contingency plan shall be implemented that compensates for the failed goals of the approved mitigation plan. If the contingency plan is substantial. the City shall extend the monitoring period. 8.0 PERFORMANCE SECURITY Certificate of occupancy shall not be completes until the mitigation plan is installed, inspected, approved and bonded. In order to ensure that the mitigation' is properly implemented, including monitoring and contingencies, the project proponent (Jeff Foley) shall provide o Performance Bond following King City procedures. The total cost, plus contingency fees, shall be the amount of the Performance Bond. The Performance Bond shall become effective following installation and approval by the City. A. MITIGATION COST ESTIMATE: BOND ESTIMATE (Includes labor, materials, maintenance and monitoring for 5 years, 30% contingency and mobilization) B. THE PERFORMANCE BOND (120% OF A) IS ESTIMATED TO BE: TOTAL COST ESTIMATE: $ 3,990.00 $ 4,788.00 Q J o-z O0- U CO o a z< Z 2 < co 'M CI W Ui 6 VJ g _Lys E W u- 1.L REVISIONS: APPD. DATE: 2 -8 -08 DESIGN: IRS DRAWN: IRS CHECKED: JCGA REVISION NUMBER: SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: JEF00000 -0001 DRAWING FILE: JEFO_0001 M2 SHEET NO. M -2 OF 4 A PORTION OF THE S.E.1 /4 OF THE N.W.1 /4 OF SECTION 31, T27N, R5E, WM LEGEND: PLANT SCHEDULE BOTANICAL NAYS TREES Thuja pficata COMMON NAME SZE HT,BH,GAL. . SPACING QUANTITY Western Red Cedar HT,'3' -4', 8B 15' -20' 0.C. 5 SHRUBS /GROUNDCOVERS Acer circinatum Vine Maple HT, 4' -6', 88 10' 0.C. 6 • Cernus sericea Red Osier Dogwood HT 15' -24'. 2 GAL. 8' 0.C. 8 Holodiscus discolor Ocean Spray HT 15' -24'. 2 GAL Lonicera involucrata Black Twinberry HT 15' -24', 2 GAL. 6' O.C. 3 Rosa nutkana Nootko Rose HT 15' -24', 2 GAL 3' 0.C. 19 Mohonio aquifalium Tall Oregon Grope HT 15-24', 2 GAL. 3' 0.C. 12 Solis scouleriana Scalier Wilow UVE STAKES 24' 0.C. 48 Solis losiandra Pocific Willow • UVE STAKES 24. 0.C. 64 NOTE: Each wtlow symbol is equal to 16 live stakes. BUFFER HYDROSEED MIX EXISTING WETLAND ENHANCEMENT WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT SENSITIVE AREA SIGN (to be placed approximately every 50') KIND/VARIETY TT BY WEIGHT MIN..% GERM BARCLAY PERENNIAL RYEGRASS RED CREEPING FESCUE HARD FESCUE • 70% 20% 10% 90% 90% 90% APPLICATION RATE- 120 LBS /ACRE CANFOR WOOD CELLULOSE ECO —FIBER MULCH: 2 000 LBS /ACRE NUTRICULTURE SEED STARTER FERTILIZER. (16- 45 -7):_ 200 LBS /ACRE CANFOR ECO —TAC GUAR TACKIFIER: 60 LBS /ACRE STAY MOIST MOISTURE RETENTION AGENT 60 LBS /ACRE PLANTING NOTES= 1. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE CLEARED AND (GRUBBED OF INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES. WETLAND AREA SHALL BE GRUBBED BY HAND. 2. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN NURSERY LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION (ANLA) STANDARDS FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z 60.1 -2004) FOR GRADE AND SIZE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN. 3. SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE AUTHORIZED BY THEIOWNER /LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. IF PLANTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE, CONTACT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR SOURCES OR SUBSTITUTIONS TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 4.-PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE INSPECTED AT THE NURSERY, OR PROJECT SITE, BY THE OWNER /LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 5. FAILURE TO MEET SPECIFICATIONS OF MATERIAIS AND OF INSTALLATION METHODS AFTER TWO INSPECTIONS SHALL SUBJECT THE CONTRACTOR TO INSPECTION FEES, PAID TIME AND MATERIALS AT THE STANDARD RATE BY THE CONTRACTOR. I 6. IN THE EVENT OF VARIATION BETWEEN THE PLANT SCHEDULE AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN. IN THE PLANS, THE PLANS SHALL CONTROL. 7. ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND AS SHOWN IN THE THE PLANTING DETAILS. 8. WETLAND BUFFER PLANTING PITS SHALL BE AMENDED WITH CEDAR GROVE 2 —WAY TOPSOIL MIX (OR APPROVED. EQUIVALENT). WETLAND PLANTING PITSISHALL BE AMENDED WITH CEDAR GROVE COMPOST (OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT). BACKFILL PLANT PITS WITH 3 PARTS EXISTING NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL TO 1 PART SPECIFIED AMENDMENT. REMOVE EXCESS EXISTING SOIL FROM SITE. 9. ALL PLANT PITS SHALL RECEIVE MULCH RINGS:. 3" DEEP X APPROXIMATELY TWICE THE ROOTBALL DIAMETER. BUFFER PLANTING PITS' SHALL BE BARK MULCH AND. WETLAND PLANTING PITS SHALL BE COMPOST MULCH. 10. BUFFER PLANTING AREA SHALL BE SEEDED 'WITH HYDROSEED MIX. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TIME RELEASE FERTILIZER TO PLANT PITS (OSMOCOTE TM OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. NO FERTILIZER SHALL BE PLACED IN WETLANDS. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL THE OWNER /LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE PLANTING INSTALLATION TO INSPECT THE METHOD AND LAYOUT, OF PLANTING USED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 13. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANTING AREAS DURING THE INSTALLATION, AND'WARRANTY PERIOD. 14. THE.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANT ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 15. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR THOROUGHLY WHEN PLANTED AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD. MAINTENANCE NOTES: � 1. ALL PLANTS SHALL RECEIVE AT LEAST ONE INCH OF WATER PER WEEK DURING THE FIRST GROWING SEASON (MARCH 15 TO OCTOBER 15) FOLLOWING MITIGATION INSTALLATION. 'CONTRACTOR WILL WATER THE ENTIRE SITE WEEKLY. EXCLUDING1SIGNIFICANT RAINY PERIODS_ 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PLIANTS AND MATERIALS DURING INSTALLATION AND THE WARRANTY PERIOD. CONTRACTOR SHALL WARRANT ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO REMAIN ALIVE AND HEALTHY DURING THIS PERIOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL DEAD OR UNHEALTHY PLANTS, PER PLANS AND AS IDENTIFIED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/ BIOLOGIST DURING THE ONE YEAR WARRANTY INSPECTION. 3. ALL MITIGATION PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED TWICE DURING THE FIRST YEAR BY WEED REMOVAL (IN EARLY APRIL /MAY AND SEPTEMBER /OCTOBER). ALL HIMALAYAN BLACKBERRY, EVERGREEN BLACKBERRY SCOT'S BROOM. JAPANESE KNOTWEED, REED CANARYGRASS, CLIMBING NIGHTSHADE, PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE, MORNING GLORY, VETCH, TANSY RAGWORT AND THISTLE SHALL BE REMOVED WITH ROOT CROWNS GRUBBED OUT. OTHER -WEEDS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT / WETLAND BIOLOGIST: PERMIT SUBMITTAL- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 20 40 ! 80 SCALE: 1 "= 2i0 -J F- g = a" WZ 0_03 w a.. O U Z a z Q mQ X129 tll O Q wa E <W m. W J co co 0 1 REVISIONS: APPD. DATE: 2 -8 -08 DESIGN: TRS DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: JCGA REVISION NUMBER: SCALE: 1 " =20' PROJECT NUMBER: JEF00000 -0001 . DRAWING FILE: WRLC6_SBRP_WM3 SHEET NO. OF '+ -3 tjs 02/13/08 9:18am — P:\ j\ JEF000000001 \0400CAD \ver2004 \JEF01_M -4.dwg ROOT CROWN 1 " -2" ABOVE PLANTING SOIL GRADE 3" BARK OR COMPOST MULCH (SEE 7- PLANTING NOTES SHEET M -3), HOLD BACK 4" FROM MAIN STEM MIN. 2 X ROOT BALL HYDROSEED W /SPECIFIED SEED MIX SEE PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET M -3 FINISH GRADE AMEND EXISTING SOIL BACK -FILL FERTILIZER EXISTING SUBGRADE SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE ROOT CROWN 2 " -4" ABOVE PLANTING SOIL GRADE 3" BARK MULCH (SEE PLANTING NOTES SHEET M -3), HOLD BACK 2 " -3" FROM MAIN STEM 3" RIM BERM HYDROSEED W /SPECIFIED SEED MIX FINISH GRADE REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET FROM ROOT BALL AMEND EXISTING SOIL BACK -FILL FERTILIZER EXISTING SUBGRADE DECIDUOUS MULTI -STEM TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE 2X2 HARDWOOD STAKE DRIVEN TO REFUSAL (24" MIN.). SECURE TO TREE WITH PLASTIC LOCK STRIP. TOP OF STAKE TO POINT TO PREVAILING WIND. ROOT CROWN 2 " -4" ABOVE GRADE 3" COMPOST OR BARK MULCH (SEE NOTES SHEET M -3) , HOLD BACK 2 " -3" INCHES FROM MAIN STEM 3" BERM MIN 2X ROOT BALL HYDROSEED W /SPECIFIED SEED MIX S E PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET M -3 FINISH GRADE REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET FROM ROOT BALL AMEND EXISTING SOIL BACK -FILL FERTILIZER EXISTING SUBGRADE EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE Sensitive Area Boundary Protection of this natural wetland area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law. Please wp the City of Fife . Department of Community Devebpment for more mtonnatbn. TRIM STAKE TO PROTRUDE 8 " -12' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE WITH A MINIMUM 01 2 LEAF NODES EXPOSED FINISHED GRADE USE CUTTINGS 20' MIN. SOIL PRE - PRINTED PLASTIC SIGN SPLIT MORTISE CEDAR POST ON SPLIT RAIL FENCE CONCRETE FOOTING SENSITIVE AREA SIGN NOTES: ATTACH SIGN TO POST WITH TWO 5/16 GALVANIZED LAG BOLTS WITH WASHERS (TYP). 1. THE SENSITIVE AREA SIGN SHALL BE POSTED AT THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER, SETBACK AREA OR SETBACK TRACT AND THE BUILDING SETBACK AREA. 2. ONE SIGN SHALL BE POSTED PER LOT FOR EVERY 150 FEET OF SENSITIVE AREA BUFFER AND SHALL BE STATIONED IN A PROMINENT LOCATION, i.e.: AT THE CLOSEST POINT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. SIGNS MAY ALSO BE ATTACHED TO FENCES. CUT END TO A PONT FOR EASIER INSTALLATION LIVE STAKE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE CUT TOP SOUARE FOR EASIER INSTALLATION, PROTECT TOP FROM SPLITTING. INSERT STAKE WITH BUDS POINTING UP TRIM OFF BRANCHES WITH CLEAN CUTS MIN. BURIAL 12" INTO SOIL NOT TO SCALE PERMIT SUBMITTAL- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION J O 6 d tl) t)1 Zw rn05 < 'Omm >< >oi? w < CIO L L O m >U) "3c E E 0.4('s1 G Z REVISIONS: APPD. DATE: 2 -8 -08 DESIGN: TRS DRAWN: TRS CHECKED: JCGA REVISION NUMBER: SCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: JEF00000 -0001 DRAWING FILE: JEFO_0001 1.1 -4 SHEET NO. M -4 OF 4 APPENDIX. C: PHOTOGRAPHS Photo 1 — Existing house, barn, and driveway looking northwest. Forested siope in background. Photo 3 — U buildings and driveway Forested buffer of Wetland A. Photo 2 — The existing grave driveway and barn looking southeast. Macadam Road in the background. Photo 4 — Ditch along the toe of the siope. The termination of the delineated ditch is Iocated near the barn. wellands\Photos.do" Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4-Lo Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study February 2008 Photo 5 — The interior of Wetland A looking north toward the existing barn. Photo 6 — Wetland A looking south toward the barn. The flag in the foreground is an upland data plot. The western wetland boundary runs parallel to the red alders. Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat Wetland and Watercourse Sensitive Areas Study P: \j JEF000000001 \06001NFO \EP \EP37 Wetlands \Photos.doc February 2008 DATA FORM 1 •(Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (VVA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) ' Project/Site :- tG9LEy :1„.,,ci(`t' Ptb.'t Applicant/owner: deg . ^c toy `, L fbv` Vict vn'^ Investigator(s): 'fe /` K. t1 k �C � �O � N'��% ` Date: te .6.' County: 16 v State: SIT/R:. 15 �'Z'� Al i1/ _ {�:E Do Normal Circumstances exist on a site? �% no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes d Is the area a,potential Problem Area? yes V Explanation of atypical or: problem area: Community ID: 5 S Transect ID`: , Plot ID: bpi_ L1 ka$ d,: k VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species Stratum... %. Cover ... Indicator ... Dominant Plant Species _ . ,Stratum_.... % cover Indicator AIKOS co 64-c, S o AL Ccxh.Nw1,5 ce 11 cit. k) IAOS d' SGOlo r 5 20 r &C 0 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in Physiological /reproductive adaptations _ areas of.prolonged inundation/saturation Wetland plant database Morphological adaptations Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Technical Literature Other (explain) ' Rydrophytic vegetation present? a no Rationale for decision/Remarks: ,HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? yes no Based on: soil temp (record temp ) . Water Marks: yes' no . on Sediment Deposits Yes' no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns yes o other (explain) Dept. of inundation: v+ovtR inches Oxidized Root (live roots) . Channels <12 in. yes . "no . Local Soil Survey: yes no . : ...% _ Depth to free water in pit: `I inches :;FAC Neutral: yes no , Water- stained Leaves yes no Depth to saturated soil::,.. ..... 0 inches.... Check all that apply & explain below: : Stream, Lake or gage data Other (explain):. fr ^�u tQ� h uQ VZ_ ' Aerial- photographs: Oiher: Wetland hydrology present? no jationale for decision/Remarks: '` t ` Il ,ru by ;� d.r;Vot, \, , 2,ati% J G ;�v S%c' — 1 �f20. ft;;� 'S t�w]c.;�� c e. SOILS Map Unit Name Io auc• (Series &Phase) Taxonomy (subgroup). `Drainage Class. Profile Description Field observations confirm Yes` No mapped type? Depth (inches) -Horizon Matrix color '(Munsell moist), Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. bYY L/l1 `c o . LOMwV�., Drawing.of soil profile (match description) 5; I1�r clay "k -1L Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Histic Epipedon Sulfidic Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions, Gleyed or Low -C a ( =1) matrix present? no soils p Rationale for decision/Remarks. Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles Mg or Fe Concretions High "Organic Content in Surface: Layer of Sandy Soils ., Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other (explain in remarks). .Wetland :Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology ;present? RationatelRemarks: 1.0A t no no no Is the sampling point :within a wetland? NOTES: DATA FORM 1 (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual)` Project /Site: Fo!el S (not'} Pmot' Applicant/owner: J e ff FDA. 7 / 5 tl arnn MA n n Investigator(s): k r t l ( , . M . o t , A c ki Me/ Date: 3/0 ?/0 County: k ,A.) (r State: w j SIT/R: i5'/ 23 nl yr . ,.,_... Do Normal Circumstances exist on ttlle site ?: yes no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes no Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes no Explanation of atypical „or,problem area: Community ID: S Transect ID: -- Plot ID: De i _ -U. A VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; Ii = herb; y= vine) Stratum ,% cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum % cover Indicator. Dominant Plant Species P0ct . Pre1eAsils yQ F IqC CIr'SiuM &Arue.na FACIA p halo r;s trend';nu(tC(; N /0 FACO Aark44u14s rePPnS N t 5 FAcl,). u(.us a( men C(ik l 44iex Cr I's pvs 5 CA,C HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION • % of dominants OBL, FACW,.& Check all indicators that apply Visual observation of plant species areas of prolonged inundation Morphological adaptations Technical Literature INDICATORS FAC , (6.... Physiological/reproductive Wetland adaptations plant database knowledge of regional plant communities (explain) &explain growing /saturation below: in Personal Other Hydrophytle vegetation present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDROLOGY,. yes (record temp p ( fr no p ) Is it the growing season? Based on soil temp Water Marks: yes no . on Sediment Deposits: yes no ... Drift yes O yes no Drainage ... es no ; Drain Patterns. ;y' .... . other (explain) , j<.. m e ear Dept. of inundation: Depth to free water in pit Depth to saturated soil: /lone inche. inches inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels 512. in. yes Local Soil Survey: yes no //1011 a yes Neutral: es no Water- stained Leaves: yes no Check all that apply & explain Stream, Lake or gage data: Aerial _photographs: below: — Other: — Other (explain): — Wetland hydrology present? . yes no i Rationale for decision/Remarks: r70 Wakrr dr” 0. \t'a 1do try Pi SOILS Map Unit Name n0 (Series & Phase) Taxonomy (subgroup; Drainage Class. Field observations confirm Yes mapped type? Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon ' Matrix color (Munsell moist) :Mottle colors (Munsell moist) . Mottle abundance size & contrast ; Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0 -y q '(olA 3IZ. ____ 5t,4d cloy loan - (1 .. r ' (oyJ J , U . yS yg q/1 SN09 /Ja m Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture. Regime Conditions' or Low- Chroma ( =1) matrix " Matrix chroma <_ 2 with mottles Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Streaking in Sandy Soils National/Local Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon Mg or Fe Sulfidic High Organic Aquic Organic. Reducing Listed on X. Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? es no Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland - Determination (circle) no no Is the sampling point yes no. yes; no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: n Frenc , dru.„:., im sfi -(kca 1(eVIA Aa - re rU (A110) & dPreo4 .. 0 o k j dti r1A �v , NOTES: Revised 4/97;: DATA FORM 1- (Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual). Project/Site: tTokQy:, 9 c t Applicant/owner: Tr e/ 1 StnGro+n Vtir4h Investigator(s) i K Vt 4Q vow Do Normal Circumstances exist on the e? Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? Is the area a_ potential, Problem Area? Explanation oi''atypical.orproblem area: VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree S = shrub; 11 = herb; V = vine) Dominant Plant Species:. 0410S cl ccAa,( Stratum Date: 3 ie to 7 County: VIv, State: •% S/T/R: 15 /23 .� Community ID: S TransectID: Plot ID: p.6 % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum %cover: Indicator' Lc CA Co v■Ur.L.0 \u DI N" la IA RYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS % of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC '2/ 3 Check all indicators that apply & explain below: Visual observation of plant species growing in areas of prolonged inundation/saturation Morphological. adaptations Technical` Literature Hydrophytic vegetation present? Rationale for decision/Remarks: x Physiological/reproductive adaptations Wetland plant database Personal knowledge of regional plant communities Other (explain)" ao HYDROLOGY Is it the growing season? Based on: soil temp (record temp X other (explain) 4; K,.e Q Dept.,of.inundation: .,:pgrkinches Depth to free water in pit: 10 . inches Depth to saturated soil: Q inches. Check all that apply & explain below: Stream; Lake or gage data: Aerial photographs: Wetland 'hydrology present? Rationale :for decision/Remarks: e c f Water Marks: yes' no `on Sediment Deposits: yes no' Drift Lines:: yes : no Drainage Patterns: yes no Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes • no Local Soil Survey: yes no FAC Neutral: yes no Water- stainedLeaves yes no Other: no %{`tAt.may ■"3 frol.t 5t? 6 Other (explain):, te w" SOILS Map Unit Name, (Series & Phase) Taxonomy (subgroup) Drainage Class Field observations confirm Yes No mapped Ann? Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist). Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast ° Texture, concretions, . .. , structure etc. , _ Drawing argon ..,profile ....:.-...-..„- (match description) ir312 ... . : 1)— I, (0 10 Y■2 3 it 7,6--YR 9/(0 CZ"VI tytov..1 14„,, • * , • : . , ; . . , . Hydric Soil Indicators: ,Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low-C a (=I) matrix Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles . ' • ... ..- Concretions _ Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils , Streaking in Sandy Soils / National/Local Hydric Soils List in remarks) .. Histic Epipedon Mg or Fe Sulfidic . High'Organic Aquic Organic Reducing Listed on Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remar . 1 \.\e't..0 A i Cr,.)v-Npt.,.i,--e- r-o..qe it/ -e.),' f ' . . - ., ..'. , , . - .. -. Wetland Determination (circle) es no no . es no - ' . . . .. , . . Is the sampling point yes no within a wetland? - Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? . • Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: \c,fiQ. (.0,2.-tle„,,c, -tt,4,-L s,•t-- e., . . . lok-ecA,V 0 Verct-tocioc.,,,„ - , . , , . . NOTES: ° Revised DATA FORM 1 '(Revised) Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual Pro, t role �/rr G f k Q I �"t 1-6\ / / s fo v\. V�G,h �, My a.^'�k„{ - Date: 3 . f' ( /�j ' �j .:.: County: ,;,; State: A t . S/1'/R: 15173'W .14 C-- Applicant/owner: Jc}..c / Investigator(s): :. .)tf \< Do Normal Circumstances exist on the; site? , yes Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? t yes Is the area a potential Problem- Area? yes Explanation of atypical or problem area : o Community ID: 5 Transect ID: Plot ID: fl S uP �� �. no VEGETATION (For strata, indicate T = tree; S = shrub; H = herb; V = vine) Stratum % cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum _ %.cover Indicator Dominant Plant Species Kt-t► ncu'us f �, 3C> A60 '' VOWS 1CoNGstU FAL A,1 u r�b(� ` S 2v rAc UrLrc d iO s(�. 1-1 ICS RI., d" culor S S FA( HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION ` % of dominants OBL, FACW, Check all indicators that apply Visual observation of plant species areas of:prolonged inundation/saturation Morphological adaptations Technical Literature INDICATORS & FAC 3%3 Physiological Wetland /reproductive adaptations plant database knowledge of regional plant communities (explain) & explain growing below: in Personal Other Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes, no Rationale for decision/Remarks:- _ !' HYDROLOGY'` yes ` (record temp. ; ;no:; :. .' • ); ... Is it the growip gseason?: Based on ;soil temp .. Water Marks: .yes no 'Sediment on - ... Deposits: yes no ' , Drift Lines: yes no ' Drainage Patterns: yes no -.other (explain) r0+2 o €t,t✓ Dept. of inundation: p ;.De Depth to free water in it: p p Depth to saturated soil: {noh G inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. :yes no Local Soil Survey: yes no 1itOtnQinches 0,04'inches FAC `Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves yes no ; Check all; that apply & explain Stream, Lake or,gage data: Aerial photographs: below: Other: - ; Other (explain):, Wetland hydrology present? yes i Rationale: for decision/Remarks: L .. P i L i cal . ] no G'�'eo -Lo S� 1 S SG 'f c, IA ,. M cL Oc SOILS Map Unit Name (Series &Phase) til�-t c41.10.1' Taxonomy(subgroup):.. Profile Description AIe 'brainage Class Field observations confirm mapped type? Depth (inches) Horizon o -Li Matrix color (Mansell moist) PITS z Mottle colors (Munsell moist) 'Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. ' 2,Kyt 9,0 Sid too s ►�11 lockw. Drawing 'of soil profile (match description)' ' 'Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol I{istic Epipedon Sulfidic.Odor Aquic Moisture Regime Reducing Conditions Gleyed or Low + a.( =1) matrix Hydric soils present? Rationale for decision/Remar Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology Resent? Rationale/Remarks: Matrix chroma 5 2 with mottles Mg or Fe Concretions High Organic Content. in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on National/Local Hydric Soils List Other-(explain in remarks) no Is the sampling point within a wetland? NOTES: A trs- myctik.. ,ris ‘‘S t, v to if P resi t. APPENDIX E: WASHINGTON WETLAND CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM RATING FORMS Wetland name or number: Wetland A WETLAND RATING FORM — WESTERN WASHINGTON Version 2 - Updated June 2006 to increase accuracy and reproducibility among users Name of wetland (if known): Wetland A Date of site visit: 03/07 Rated by: Kirk Moughamer Trained by Ecology? Yes X No Date of training: 2/06 SEC: 15 TWNSHP: 23N RNGE: 04W Map of wetland unit: Figure Is S /T /R in Appendix D? Yes_ No X Estimated size _1,347 sq ft SUMMARY OF RATING Category based on FUNCTIONS provided by wetland I II III IV X Category I = Category II = Category III Category IV Score > =70 Score 51 -69 = Score 30 -50 = Score < 30 Score for Water Quality Functions Score for Hydrologic Functions Score for Habitat Functions TOTAL score for Functions Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland I II Does not Apply X Final Category (choose the "highest" category from above) Summary of basic information about the wetland unit 4 3 13 / 20 I IV ,Wetland Unit has Special ,Characteristics,'a Wetland I-iGM'Class used for Rating' Estuarine Depressional Natural Heritage Wetland Riverine Bog Lake - fringe Mature Forest Slope X Old Growth Forest Flats Coastal Lagoon Freshwater Tidal Interdunal None of the above X Check if unit has multiple HGM classes present Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Does the wetland unit being rated meet any of the criteria below? If you answer YES to any of the questions below you will need to protect the wetland according to the regulations regarding the special characteristics found in the wetland. Check List for Wetlands That May Need Additional Protection - (in addition to:thet.protection` recommended for:its category),:, ; YES NO c P SP 1. Has the wetland unit been documented as a habitat for any Federally listed Threatened or Endangered animal or plant species (T /E species)? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state or federal database. X SP2. Has the wetland unit been documented as habitat for any State listed Threatened or Endangered animal species? For the purposes of this rating system, "documented" means the wetland is on the appropriate state database. Note: Wetlands with State listed plant species are categorized as Category I Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 19 of data form). X SP3. Does the wetland unit contain individuals of Priority species listed by the WDFW for the state? X SP4. Does the wetland unit have a local significance in addition to its functions? For example, the wetland has been identified in the Shoreline Master Program, the Critical Areas Ordinance, or in a local management plan as having special significance. X To complete the next part of the data sheet you will need to determine the Hydrogeomorphic Class of the wetland being rated. The hydrogeomorphic classification groups wetlands into those that function in similar ways. This simplifies the questions needed to answer how well the wetland functions. The Hydrogeomorphic Class of a wetland can be determined using the key below. See p. 24 for more detailed instructions on classifying wetlands. Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 2 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Classification of Wetland Units in Western Washington question do' nOt,,akily'tioi „ .. _ �. ;r, ,- r„ ...� I w ire rated, you probably; have a', unit ":with multiple .HGM classes In this case, ident fylw hydrologic criteria'in uestions-1 -7 apply, p p and go tow Question 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides (i.e. except during floods)? NO — go to 2 YES — the wetland class is Tidal Fringe If yes, is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? YES — Freshwater Tidal Fringe NO — Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is rated as an Estuarine wetland. Wetlands that were called estuarine in the first and second editions of the rating system are called Salt Water Tidal Fringe in the Hydrogeomorphic Classification. Estuarine wetlands were categorized separately in the earlier editions, and this separation is being kept in this revision. To maintain consistency between editions, the term "Estuarine" wetland is kept. Please note, however, that the characteristics that define Category I and II estuarine wetlands have changed (see p. ). 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source ( >90 %) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. NO — go to 3 YES — The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a "Flats" wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet both of the following criteria? The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any vegetation on the surface) at least 20 acres (8 ha) in size; At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m)? NO — go to 4 YES — The wetland class is Lake - fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? _x_The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), _x_The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks. _x_The water leaves the wetland without being impounded? NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3ft diameter and less than 1 foot deep). NO - go to 5 YES — The wetland class is Slope Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 3 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river The overbank flooding occurs at least once every two years. NOTE: The riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding. NO - go to 6 YES — The wetland class is Riverine 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year. This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. NO — go to 7 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding. The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. NO — go to 8 YES — The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM clases. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1 -7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within your wetland. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. • HG.M'Classes :HGMCIass: 0'Use ikRatirig Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake -fringe Lake - fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary Depressional Depressional + Lake - fringe Depressional Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE under wetlands with special characteristics If you are unable still to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 4 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A tia: Slope Wetlands '�`" _��, � � • �� WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS - Indicators that the wetland unit functions to 6 . y im • rove •water quality ,... Points (onl�) score`' Y pe )',,,, r. (see p.64) S S S S S S 1. Does the wetland unit have the 1 otential to improve water quality? S 1.1 Characteristics of average slope of unit: Slope is l % or less (a 1% slope has a 1 foot vertical drop in elevation for every 100 ft horizontal distance) points = 3 Slope is I% - 2% points = 2 Slope is 2% - 5% points = 1 Slope is greater than 5% points = 0 2 S 1.2 The soil 2 inches below the surface (or duff layer) is clay or organic (use NRCS definitions) YES = 3 points. NO = 0 points 0 S 1.3 Characteristics of the vegetation in the wetland that trap sediments and pollutants: Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fits the vegetation in the wetland. Dense vegetation means you have trouble seeing the soil surface (> 75% cover), and uncut means not grazed or mowed and plants are higher than 6 inches. Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 90% of the wetland area points = 6 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/2 of area points = 3 Dense, woody, vegetation > '/2 of area points = 2 Dense, uncut, herbaceous vegetation > 1/4 of area points = 1 Does not meet any of the criteria above for vegetation points = 0 Aerial photo ormap,with:vegetation.polygons Figure;:'_ Total for S 1 Add the points in the boxes above 2 S S S 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to improve water quality? (see p.67) multiplier 2 Answer YES if you know or believe there are pollutants in groundwater or surface water coming into the wetland that would otherwise reduce water quality in streams, lakes or groundwater downgradient from the wetland. Note which of the following conditions provide the sources of pollutants. A unit may have pollutants coming from several sources, but any single source would qualms as opportunity. — Grazing in the wetland or within 150ft — Untreated stormwater discharges to wetland — Tilled fields, logging, or orchards within 150 feet of wetland — Residential, urban areas, or golf courses are within 150 ft upslope of wetland — Other YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Water Quality Functions Multiply the score from S1 by S2 Add score to table on p. 1 4 Comments Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 5 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Slope: Wetlands YDROLOGIC FUNCTIONS lndicators;that the wetland Unit' funetioriS'io • reduce flooding and stream erosion n a s s s S 3. Does the wetland unit have the potential to reduce flooding and stream erosion? (see p.68) S 3.1 Characteristics of vegetation that reduce the velocity of surface flows during storms. Choose the points appropriate for the description that best fit conditions in the wetland. (stems of plants should be thick enough (usually > 1 /8in), or dense enough, to remain erect during surface flows) Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation covers > 90% of the area of the wetland. points = 6 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/2 area of wetland points = 3 Dense, uncut, rigid vegetation > 1/4 area points = 1 More than 1/4 of area is grazed, mowed, tilled or vegetation is not rigid points = 0 3 S 3.2 Characteristics of slope wetland that holds back small amounts of flood flows: The slope wetland has small surface depressions that can retain water over at least 10% of its area. YES points = 2 NO points = 0 0 s s Add the points in the boxes above 1 3 reduce flooding erosion? (seep. 70) S 4. Does the wetland have the opportunity to r g Is the wetland in a landscape position where the reduction in water velocity it provides helps protect downstream property and aquatic resources from flooding or excessive and/or erosive flows? Note which of the following conditions apply. — Wetland has surface runoff that drains to a river or stream that has flooding problems — Other (Answer NO if the major source of water is controlled by a reservoir (e.g. wetland is a seep that is on the downstream side of a dam) YES multiplier is 2 NO multiplier is 1 TOTAL - Hydrologic Functions Multiply the score from S 3 by S 4 Add score to table on p 1 Comments Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 6 Version 2 multiplier 1 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland A These questioirs:apply to wetlands:of all .HGM classes. HABITAT. FUNCTIONS Indicators that unit functions to provide important habitat H 1. Does the wetland unit have the potential to provide habitat for many species? Points:,. (only I :score H 1.1 Vegetation structure (seep. 72) Check the types of vegetation classes present (as defined by Cowardin)- Size threshold for each class is '/e acre or more than 10% of the area if unit is smaller than 2.5 acres. _ Aquatic bed _X_ Emergent plants X Scrub /shrub (areas where shrubs have >30% cover) _ Forested (areas where trees have >30% cover) If the unit has a forested class check if: The forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub - canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss /ground- cover) that each cover 20% within the forested polygon Add the number of vegetation structures that quay. If you have: 4 structures or more points = 4 Map of Cowardin vegetahon ctasses 3 structures points = 2 2 structures points = 1 1 structure points = 0 Figure,_ 1 H 1.2. Hydroperiods (seep. 73) Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or '/ acre to count. (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods) Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present points = 3 _ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present points = 2 Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present point = 1 X_ Saturated only 1 type present points = 0 _ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland Lake fringe wetland = 2 points Freshwater tidal wetland = 2 points Map: of hydroperiods Figure_ 0 H 1.3. Richness of Plant Species (seep. 75) Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. (different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold) You do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian Milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian Thistle If you counted: > 19 species points = 2 List species below if you want to: 5 - 19 species points = 1 < 5 species points = 0 2 Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 7 Total for page: 3 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats (seep. 76) between Cowardin vegetation unvegetated areas (can include open water or Figure Decide from the diagrams classes (described in H 1.1), mudflats) is high, medium, below whether interspersion or the classes and low, or none. c-'G` E <.::::› None = 0 points Low = 1 point Moderate = 2 points 1 [riparian braided channels] High = 3 points NOTE: If you have four or more classes or three vegetation classes and open water the rating is always "high'. Use map' of Cowardin vegetation classes H 1.5. Special Habitat Features: (seep. 77) Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points you put into the next column. _X_Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland ( >4in. diameter and 6 ft long). _X_Standing snags (diameter at the bottom > 4 inches) in the wetland Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2m) and/or overhanging vegetation extends at least 3.3 ft (Im) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the unit, for at least 33 ft 2 (10m) Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning ( >30degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet turned grey /brown) At least 1/4 acre of thin - stemmed persistent vegetation or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated. (structures for egg - laying by amphibians) Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in each stratum of plants NOTE: The 20% stated in early printings of the manual on page 78 is an error. H 1. TOTAL Score - potential for providing habitat j 3 Add the scores from H1.1, H1.2, H1.3, H1.4, H1.5 J Comments Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 8 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 2. Does the wetland unit have the opportunity to provide habitat for many species? H 2.1 Buffers (seep. 80) Figure Choose the description that best represents condition of buffer of wetland unit. The highest scoring criterion that applies to the wetland is to be used in the rating. See text for definition of "undisturbed." — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% of circumference. No structures are within the undisturbed part of buffer. (relatively undisturbed also means no- grazing, no landscaping, no daily human use) Points = 5 . — 100 m (330 ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 50% circumference. Points = 4 — 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water >95% circumference. Points = 4 — 100 m (330ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water > 25% circumference, . Points = 3 3 X 50 m (170ft) of relatively undisturbed vegetated areas, rocky areas, or open water for > 50% circumference. Points = 3 If buffer does not meet any of the criteria above — No paved areas (except paved trails) or buildings within 25 m (80ft) of wetland > 95% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — No paved areas or buildings within 50m of wetland for >50% circumference. Light to moderate grazing, or lawns are OK. Points = 2 — Heavy grazing in buffer. Points =1 — Vegetated buffers are <2m wide (6.6ft) for more than 95% of the circumference (e.g. tilled fields, paving, basalt bedrock extend to edge of wetland Points = 0 — Buffer does not meet any of the criteria above. Points =1 Aerial: photo showing buffers H 2.2 Corridors and Connections (see p. 81) H 2.2.1 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 150 ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs, forest or native undisturbed prairie, that connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 250 acres in size? (dams in riparian corridors, heavily used gravel roads, paved roads, are considered breaks in the corridor). YES = 4 points (go to H 2.3) NO = go to H 2.2.2 H 2.2.2 Is the wetland part of a relatively undisturbed and unbroken vegetated corridor (either riparian or upland) that is at least 50ft wide, has at least 30% cover of shrubs or forest, and connects to estuaries, other wetlands or undisturbed uplands that are at least 25 acres in size? OR a Lake - fringe wetland, if it does not have an undisturbed corridor as in the question above? 1 YES = 2 points (go to H 2.3) NO = H 2.2.3 H 2.2.3 Is the wetland: within 5 mi (8km) of a brackish or salt water estuary OR within 3 mi of a large field or pasture ( >40 acres) OR within 1 mi of a lake greater than 20 acres? YES =1 point NO = 0 points Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 9 Total for page: 4_ Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 2.3 Near or adjacent to other priority habitats listed by WDFW (seep. 82) Which of the following priority habitats are within 330ft (100m) of the wetland unit? NOTE: the connections do not have to be relatively undisturbed. These are DFW definitions. Check with your local DFW biologist if there are any questions. Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 0.8 ha (2 acres). Cliffs: Greater than 7.6 m (25 ft) high and occurring below 5000 ft. Old- growth forests: (Old- growth west of Cascade crest) Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi - layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 20 trees/ha (8 trees /acre) > 81 cm (32 in) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) dbh; crown cover may be less that 100 %; crown cover may be less that 100 %; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old - growth; 80 - 200 years old west of the Cascade crest. Prairies: Relatively undisturbed areas (as indicated by dominance of native plants) where grasses and/or forbs form the natural climax plant community. Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 ft), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages Oregon white Oak: Woodlands Stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25 %. Urban Natural Open Space: A priority species resides within or is adjacent to the open space and uses it for breeding and/or regular feeding; and/or the open space functions as a corridor connecting other priority habitats, especially those that would otherwise be isolated; and/or the open space is an isolated remnant of natural habitat larger than 4 ha (10 acres) and is surrounded by urban development. Estuary /Estuary -like: Deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands, usually semi - enclosed by land but with open, partly obstructed or sporadic access to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open ocean by evaporation. Along some low- energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution of sea water. Estuarine habitat extends upstream and landward to where ocean - derived salts measure less than 0.5ppt. during the period of average annual low flow. Includes both estuaries and lagoons. Marine/Estuarine Shorelines: Shorelines include the intertidal and subtidal zones of beaches, and may also include the backshore and adjacent components of the terrestrial landscape (e.g., cliffs, snags, mature trees, dunes, meadows) that are important to shoreline associated fish and wildlife and that contribute to shoreline function (e.g., sand/rock/log recruitment, nutrient contribution, erosion control). If wetland has 3 or more priority habitats = 4 points If wetland has 2 priority habitats = 3 points If wetland has 1 priority habitat =1 point No habitats = 0 points Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list. Nearby wetlands are addressed in question H 2.4) 0 Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 10 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A H 2.4 Wetland Landscape (choose the one description of the landscape around the wetland that 3 best fits) (see p. 84) There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, and the connections between them are relatively undisturbed (light grazing between wetlands OK, as is lake shore with some boating, but connections should NOT be bisected by paved roads, fill, fields, or other development. points = 5 The wetland is Lake -fringe on a lake with little disturbance and there are 3 other lake -fringe wetlands within 1/2 mile points = 5 There are at least 3 other wetlands within '/2 mile, BUT the connections between them are disturbed points = 3 The wetland is Lake - fringe on a lake with disturbance and there are 3 other lake- fringe wetland within '/2 mile points = 3 There is at least 1 wetland within 1/2 mile. points = 2 There are no wetlands within '/2 mile. points = 0 H 2. TOTAL Score - opportunity for providing habitat Add the scores from H2.1,H2.2, H2.3, H2.4 1 1 TOTAL for H 1 from page 14 6 Total Score for Habitat Functions — add the points for H 1, H 2 and record the result on p. 1 13 Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 11 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Please determine if the wetland meets the attributes described below and circle the appropriate answers and Category. Wetland Type ,., ., Check off any criteria that *apply to the wetland. Circle the Category when the :appropriate criteria:are,met. Category SC 1.0 Estuarine wetlands (see p. 86) Does the wetland unit meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? — The dominant water regime is tidal, — Vegetated, and — With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt. YES = Go to SC 1.1 NO _x_ SC 1.1 Is the wetland unit within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332 -30 -151? YES = Category 1 NO go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2 Is the wetland unit at least 1 acre in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? YES = Category I NO = Category II — The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non - native plant species. If the non - native Spartina spp. are the only species that cover more than 10% of the wetland, then the wetland should be given a dual rating (I/II). The area of Spartina would be rated a Category II while the relatively undisturbed upper marsh with native species would be a Category I. Do not, however, exclude the area of Spartina in determining the size threshold of 1 acre. — At least 3 of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un- grazed or un -mowed grassland. — The wetland has at least 2 of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. Cat. I Cat. II Dual rating I /II Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 12 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A SC 2.0 Natural Heritage Wetlands (see p. 87) Natural Heritage wetlands have been identified by the Washington Natural Heritage Program/DNR as either high quality undisturbed wetlands or wetlands that support state Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species. SC 2.1 Is the wetland unit being rated in a Section/Township /Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? (this question is used to screen out most sites before you need to contact WNHP /DNR) S /T/R information from Appendix D or accessed from WNHP/DNR web site _X_ YES — contact WNHP/DNR (see p. 79) and go to SC 3.2 NO _X SC 2.2 Has DNR identified the wetland as a high quality undisturbed wetland or as or as a site with state threatened or endangered plant species? YES = Category I NO _X_ Cat. I SC 3.0 Bogs (see p. 87) Does the wetland unit (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below to ident if the wetland is a bog. If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. 1. Does the unit have organic soil horizons (i.e. layers of organic soil), either peats or mucks, that compose 16 inches or more of the first 32 inches of the soil profile? (See Appendix B for a field key to identify organic soils)? Yes - gotoQ.3 No -go to Q.2 2. Does the unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks that are less than 16 inches deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on a lake or pond? Yes - go to Q. 3 No - Is not a bog for purpose of rating 3. Does the unit have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND other plants, if present, consist of the "bog" species listed in Table 3 as a significant component of the vegetation (more than 30% of the total shrub and herbaceous cover consists of species in Table 3)? Yes — Is a bog for purpose of rating No - go to Q. 4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16" deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the "bog" plant species in Table 3 are present, the wetland is a bog. 1. Is the unit forested (> 30% cover) with sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Englemann's spruce, or western white pine, WITH any of the species (or combination of species) on the bog species plant list in Table 3 as a significant component of the ground cover (> 30% coverage of the total shrub /herbaceous cover)? 2. YES = Category I No_X_ is not a bog for purpose of rating Cat. 1 Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 13 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 14 Version 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A SC 6.0 Interdunal Wetlands (see p. 93) Is the wetland unit west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? YES - go to SC 6.1 NO X not an interdunal wetland for rating If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: • Long Beach Peninsula- lands west of SR 103 • Grayland- Westport- lands west of SR 105 • Ocean Shores - Copalis- lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 SC 6.1 Is the wetland one acre or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is once acre or larger? YES = Category II NO — go to SC 6.2 Cat. II SC 6.2 Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 acre, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 acre? YES = Category III Cat. III Catego'ryof wetland, based on Special Characteristics '' Choose th'e r `lugltest " rating if wetland fags into 'several categoi tes and record on , P.3 Y N/A '' If you,answered NO for all types enter "Not Applicable" on p Wetland Rating Form — Western Washington 15 Version 2 • Op/ D �8 F�i3 iog , so t I zIOQ g - JCKLIST GDNNaTs A -Potosi OFFSITe 417g Thco Agency omme s tit & Ff Ti ot) 012- SI (Oro STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: .> /t� C Z' y : —Lc. -r S1o�7' Pe "0 7 2. Name of Applicant: T�,� F.E, Y /o G E 3. Date checklist prepared: 2 e9 • ,Tu L ' d 7 //ee S.1) 6' 'ca b 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): z--/49,/t/ SUN ,'U.e (,PE 1'.) 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 7A /// /� S/D ,-'c. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been 4 prepared, or will be prepared, directly related-to this proposal. W T 1, }.4r, 5-7"4.44) / ,?„y i)is' 1/4.15 AIS5 c--_) 2 00 ! r Zoo i 43 it- LT/ g - v 6 7 f06"Ce r-t' f ee"--rr,j1 /! o A Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, of other 7/ 66,4-0-7,? explain. 0- re ell €-A4 /.'iw1.gS..4, Rs , /j'- C Sn144. "Lc V°''( 7. 7) t e•kcAni c.•t. es04000,4 '.+ $ - /.t Redo .$4W' 1 A.4-P /.w Coss- Nocrti�Is se/. to /LA% •2/. P: \Planning Forms \Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Agency Comments 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. (' o'/ x, ms' s, ' mil'. �, / /J/ -7) 7 t.. /z. 7'- C --7Si e 7im.1t, 7o ?,0z Sf /2sJ Inc�'"S 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site.plan, vicinity snap, 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. // /9f �.D. � 7v.4lLt/ /L/% /2'/V ; /5$2 3a — 9v3S 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designatedlon the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? y�„S S7F � SL oar E S , �o-SS LF PVF7Z#A" -D .S . / o G o / S 7 / / 7 ' 4 - 7 4 7 , r /t/ v j? r 4/L/; 2)/7e./. / S'7.9.0/1-7 /s is s/ 74 , r-R.E14 ) • • 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): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Agency Comments k/o b,D E/Q vf' F 4'}' 4.4/.2 p — ."5 '7 1/4 d 2.) r , 2/4 A/ /7o dSFI Ez L' ,47,2 .&mss + 2?4 M/ /114? 7.7e y b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2 „Po a/ r-/ 70 FtAr , J//15- 7 /147-i 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. - /'�E1�, 7v SL7->' /o -'/8.1 s il›.1Z7 /: Al OT 577E , 5%47- A /..,5 Fo c�.c.•,r /,'," c, P").ffi ... Pc)/2 i 0,-e.5 o )Z / /v'c'L lib j f, .S^r Ls E r) 52 c saw .leE.4 . /Av /o, /N 7-,'X Phi 7Ep svt z 8 '07. Svs'. -RC S-S /A/Fo. . P47E0 Nov /e--- 1426) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. .� �-- p e„,.J ,E02 oS/ v'..E /1'J.E:v O/' 4_ , e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. /zoo L'L#T liP c, „tZ 1,0 y " S % Y1 / A C (.4 A.i t�1 �/7 ..� `°�`9a�j ex/v..1-e./ .%•"�_../ �/ +" ?/�I. -7; ` ✓t r�la A.e( � ,i / /J fj -tf �'4? L •Chi Ti`s I {��t ?� 41.4./.:4,' /g e vc .e. /1 e 1'! r't /?• c /SS, �'� Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Pl />e /r, L90�1S7.�1i G' a'''/ v ; 5-; 'ice' //:5-7/2 . ,9-7, '/I /7e r` . 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. D(/.P / /t/ C� G e, 5 7-0e r ,Z.G% v //a L�c� //1 r/ 5 �/, V S 7 /7",471-_ v sue-/' o,e 7,9,,2)D 2. I/ r' ;7;e, �. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. 2-- / t 0 / 7cD 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 ,i2> .s 7 y X"?,r,lg 7 ,4J .A2:3€4, I 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. /7 //-/ ,e 71/J/LeO5 /1/9 9,s' E. vFjQ Y 52,-v L v$- %Mort — v e. r EIS rt- D7.)1 /Na/2 /3' 7".#1 /41--/2 As A7 !3A -f.�`. A. S'7 P _52." o ia .eli.47/ -/ S &- A-S'soc-, /s f'/e /°/432' /N l 4 ■&•olzly.q-e-- 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. .L3 9 R iY 1,7i C/ 7 E-D 4s 45-1/ "./ . W/!/ e E 7`o c/ / /// fir 7//.€ / ',4' ' ."- / 7s ,c3' ' E/a / £ /t/ T 6,��v�. /VD v�,Q -S & Y ,4/ /T2 c �- ,E/ 7//6 2 , X02 7.5/ /.P Wc' /Z le 70 8.' P.5 /2 ,/94,0 s' E S7vo 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. A/0 As /15>c-two /U L> A8 v,�'.. 'T /� c2- / �,��� ' 7 b 7 4 ' Wit L E6 4 0 7Ec7e U f to Z3'./C) cC) 6 /S-YS ? P- 6711/.1"r/ sr', Are f.. (.7-Keg:.. fir, / h% et../5 �y-r y; ice) 5)�► G�1 /fir' el? CZ r l-0-cZ- iv' C'x' c/e mac... ()" J/i (A. r e- A*14.�i:• /17).k /2�� ��J . C.7) 7 /n Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. /V2 . 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. /V(2 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. //p 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. /i ', /L 774--4% /o ,L02 ,44L J, -fA ,e 1/, ,4#'' S 1 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: AI Q iv E , 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? Ifs so, describe. //y'', L s) cce, ' < fQI4P 4 /. e jj (2 X /.S'. 3 (be/ E,Vc ^ 1 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. .1 Pig diL S 5 L,// %G €S L4 /./e 4 7v /ie.s O' 7y /S_ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: /oo ,% /ivy /e.:7,' 7;.0#-/ 01 / Si 7E . '=-S- 4 -fi•t.r %..u�r .i' 7r7 Ali ���-•� 51- tg/f/2•'7"✓ /1.-c:..� . S' ✓, /T %/r -t/` An "r. A1,-v", / c t/L' /% /2 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check9r circle types of vegetation found on the site: `� 9Aciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other (/.....E4ergreen t tree: fir, cedar, pine, other s Pasture Cro r grain et soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? P S2 s) c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: K.g 7 /C/zz- ■e S O# 7/ oJ/J • • 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: ? (/, rya //o T Birds: aw , heron,glie, ongbirds other: //f. -/ ?/ E /J 1,-� 7"/" /S .S/ Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: 0 ay./ /.? Fish j(/ 4 Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shell is , other: Other Agency Comments b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. /ice ( c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. /y /‹.41 U d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife if any: .Z>17, D. 7 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy electric atural gas, il, ood stove, . olar) will be used to the completed project's energy nee • s. Describe w et er it will be used for anufacturing, etc. • • 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: 7/ CA/ 4- l/2 "709 e°.E C' /1am/`71 e % - 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: A/o /P/P0 D . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? DAt' ,P2> S", —7 s _s- T�' -7 5 t/ 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. / P 7- )6/o i .l%1//eiA 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Ale' 2/c 'S-7- /z/C '7 (.,V}' /6 //-7 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. yes -- ti /2 s . ,vA 5 7 v,�� - s77,5117t • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. "c2 \1 !� /� b s. L /992C):.) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? /Po.�h, e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? A/VX h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. 60'.e S' 7 72_ �s7� -gip S o �,�' s Sc� • Tivzz. 7-12te ive fitr rt-A. 7�9w tI/ (,7 )ti/.5 , Y .42 �� /21"1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people woul — /Z work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? A/ fri 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: /"1.74-- L°O b. ?L- gv /L 9. Housing a. Appoximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle r low - income housing? / �o • • 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, middle, or low - income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: /\•//4 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? 30 — 3 s' ' X02 2G�.,�• lv 4 cJ b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: "1).) S 7p. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? / / -4 vSf - 49,e /yEArb G /li //7',S b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? /S'© c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? / r / U d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: /, 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal r vicinity? b p _4) • ni ies are �F- 77Z e 7/z/ G a / /t %/ L /7 kr " '" V , . ii ?i /r 1 ��� ���✓✓J . /ix • • 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. /</2, c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided 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. /1/29 /1E / -f_ b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. /'o/YE. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: /V/, • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identi public streets d highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? %..S — O •y ,4' r�" < t:A-rt,e y„ /y y r . / 1-- 17 s' /y/--rt5if. err ^X i"nit f /L /4 t# c. How many parking spaces would. the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? /ys /t, ,fix 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). /VO, e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g• Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services a. Agency Comments / ;) G' ..f.f 9et 1.-.41p,„ E'a r l 5 PR /t/ r Would the project result in an in protection, e Qrote, /"7 / .y© /4-/�i� -.4-s 475 �4 -'Z ,e?s-- ervices (for example: ther)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: fuse servi Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 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 o S ,9 ,G7v 4/4") ,'/v 2 . C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: 8 (0 /R5-- O Agency Comments /9,lClj/� /e //, (NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). /VoiJ 7' '`-'` slYe,c.,.. Pis-,A4rGe- Pne,tfr-- -4ic/5`h Geo.— 7S)( iz /o 8 ONiOnCLLA. ftbsaMatrwarme"....1.11.1.1c11 1 • Snetonn Pb. 1» 141 SectiOn bra ••••••••• www.mi.... ma • /minnow mom 111.1111111111111 assiimaimmi■ - law ennn n •nn* Elenrotlen 7.4 .1 Ur 2.00 • MVO/ IMI•11. •—•m1.50•44Zgar.•• ■••••I entnerrortee onenewee Rock Faclng VUOLLVIDCOMMICIMIMMUMCB • •■•••• .•••••■•••■•••a• • • ■••••••■■•.•••••11 .,••••••••••■•••a osok•MI■avaa• - •www.11•0•11•■■••••••••••• • ..lowca.....ma. • • .........s•••■•■•••••■•••*•■,.••• ••■•••• sw•••■•■••.1. /11.11.1.1.6N .1111111M1111.1 11.7•••••••••■■•■ ••••7 ••■••••.••.fte ■•••••••■■••*.■ •••••••±••■•••■■••••••• •••••••••••■••■•1::. .•••bw•••••■■• .• •••■••••••••••■■••■•••••■••■■•••=0. •■■■••• 0•••• • 0.•••■••••••••••••1•••■••••••••=.• •••=41===••".;•===.:r.......• ■•••••••■■....•••■••■•••••■•••••••■•••• Sma.••••■la YO.1••••■=m..........a.•••■•••■••■••••• •• • •••••■■••■••••••••■•••■•••■•■••••■•••*=.•■••••••■■•••• • ......ro•••■••■•■•••■•••••=.■,•••■•••••••••■•. ••■••■•• Mit IIIKL=Cale M111110.11.11Mailua. so& rablimiarli Ina meat • Inane 4•■•••••••■• ••••...T••••■•••••••■•••■••7 sat.. • .......N7....1•••••■ • ••••■•••■•••■•■•*•...... •••••••••••■ r■•■••••••••••110 OW.* •■••••■ •11•■•■•■•.111.••••••• .••■::::„.•••••••■•■ n. nen. MM.% • ••••••■■••••■•••■••••••••••••■••••••••••••... •••••••••■•• ••■•••••••■••••••••■••••■•.•■•• • ••,*••■••■••••••••■.•••••■•• • ••••••■•.••••■••••••••• • ••••■•••••••••••••101.6........■■•■■••.4■011•0 r••••••moymmprnimaso*.••■•1••••■• C/Z /1611"/ZE /••••• .2•1. "V • i• •-•• 4.1•0 ASC. menu*. moon •1112.106111411101t me•nroni seansnoto worn noon. Aalkithati 11= .•••■• • —Mworam061 Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. — Civil Engineer A 1 2 111 ,1 a t? x 1 of 2 Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same F lira y 8;- 20:68 City of Tukwila Planning Department Attn: Rebecca Fox Subject: Zeubmttal of SEPAInformation,: leff Foley /Sh ion Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA (REVISED) Dear Ms. Fox: The following infoonationswill help clarify our response to your letter reference the above, dated - November 27, 2007 copy attached). Paragraphs 1 throughh 7 have been addressed by revising the SEPA Checklist. Five revised copies are attached. Paragraph 8 has prompted a revision of the geotechnical evaluation of 2007. A copy of the revised geotechnical evaluation is attached clarifying the use of some portions of the site suitable for runoff infiltration. !Ape 6,74 Paragraph 9, the showing of sensitive area buffers on the survey and engineering plan, will be done upon receipt of the site report presently being prepared by David Evans and Associates. A copy of the Evans report will be provided your office at that time. Paragraph 10 is clarified by noting that the TIR for the site indicates that infiltration is feasible. Previous discussions about the site not supporting infiltration have been revised, as mentioned in the Paragraph 8 discussion, above. Paragraph 11 notes that an (horizontal) sight distance evaluation must be made of the proposed entrance to the site on Macadam Road S. The requirement has been discussed in person with Dave McPherson of Public Works, and specific evaluation criteria are being verified. Following that, the necessary field measurements will be made, the data evaluated and a report issued to the City. Paragraph 12 indicates the clarification of the number of residences proposed. In summery, it is that one existing residence will remain, one existing barn will be remodeled for use as a residence, and two new residences will be built. The total future number of residences on the site will be four. RECEIVED MAR 0 4 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Questions relating to the above may be made directly to this office. Sincerely, ruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer foley05 /0619 Ci! t of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director Jeff Foley 120 SW 194th St. Normandy Park, WA 98166 November 27, 2007 RE: Foley Short Plat #L07 -001 Dear Mr. Foley: As we discussed with you and Sharon Mann, Tukwila staff will require additional information in order to proceed with review of your project. This letter supplements the one sent to you on November 27, 2007. We will discuss these additional comments at our meeting on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at the City of Tukwila offices. Fire Department: 1. Provide angle of departure at drive entrance on Macadam Road 2. Provide water velocity. Water availability shows 1149 GPM, but no velocity. 3. Access road shown at 15% grade i.e. maximum allowable. Contact Fire Marshall. 4. Location of nearest hydrant? 5. Fire turnaround needed? Planning: 1. Where is access for "barn?" There appears to be a 6' rockery /wall to the east. 2. Ditch or stream? 3. Describe railroad tie wall. Sincerely, ebecca Fox Senior Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Jeff Foley I20 SW 194th St. Normandy Park, WA 9816 November 27, 2007 RE: Foley Short Plat # 7 -001 Dear Mr. Foley: . As we discussed with you . d Sharon Mann, Tukwila staff will require additional information in order to proceed with review of your project. Comments on the environmental review and short plat have been combined for s document We will discuss these comments at our meeting on Wednesday, November 28, 2 i 07 at the City of Tukwila offices. SEPA: The following comments pe . into the environmental analysis. They are based on a review of the SEPA checklist, the relat • letter report by David Evans and Associates (wetlands) and the reports prepared by Bruce M Veigh (evaluation for on -site stormwater infiltration). Specific notations refer to the SEPA ecklist. Lk Part A, Item 6. The hecklist (attached) states that 2 new residences are proposed, but one version of the sit, plan shows 3 new residences. The checklist should clearly describe what the p • •osed project is. Part A, item 12 (map ing of environmentally sensitive sites). The City's Sensitive Areas Map shows an interm ttent watercourse on the property (see also response to Item h in Part B8.h). Even tho gh David Evans and Associates has identified two wetlands on the site, no mention is in • e of a possible watercourse, although one of the topographical maps shows a "swale' and a "ditch ". This issue should be addressed in the checklist and in supporting docume tation. art B, Item 1.c., stat - . that there are medium to silty foams. However, the geotechnical engineer's report also shows underlying sandy clay (this is important because it affects sit ydrology). Part B, Items 3a, rand wetland consultant h proposed project will Information provided which suggests that th David Evans and Ass rationale for this is not submittal for a Sensiti The consultant should guidelines (attached). Sensitive Areas Study Rf C:1Documenls and Settiogs\Administrato; vd E1793- Iii -90Z Both of these responses are incorrect, as the applicant's own reported 2 wetlands on the site. It is not at all clear if the pact wetlands (or a potential watercourse) or their buffers. the City to date shows a house site located in "Wetland A ", wetland will be filled. The two -page letter report submitted by fates recommends a buffer reduction for this wetland, but the explained. The David Evans letter report is insufficient . as a e Areas Study. repare a Sensitive Areas Study in accordance with the City's e full delineation report should be provided as part of the port. 1 1112!2007 wnenlslfoley short *Why—comments _1- 11.20.07[1 ].doc UU81/1 u01e48 dZ6 :O. LO LZ noN Once this inforrnati boundaries in the fi states that one of th size of the wetland wetland ( "Wetland applicant from obta' ology if this or th art B, Item 3a.3. T or wetlands. This a footprints. The appl b , and the pro .. 6 /Part B., Item 3b. 1. ' However, the engine B, Item 3d. The However, this is con that infiltration is not report (July 26, 2007 should be explained L . "fie Geotechnical November 12, 2006 f• this required geotec staff has requested ow nnY n is received, the City's biologists will confirm wetland/watercourse Id. It should be noted that even though David Evans and Associates wetlands is below the size threshold for regulation by the City, the to be confirmed in the field by the City's biologist. Even if the ") is below the City's acreage threshold, it does not exempt the g permits from the Corps of Engineers and Department of other wetland is proposed to be filled. e response states that no fill material will be placed in surface water ars to be contradicted by the site plan that shows the house cant should provide a site drawing that shows the wetlands, their sed locations of houses and site infrastructure. e checklist states that no groundwater will be .---- s report recommends dewatering of the site. ,C�P�27 checklist states that surface runoff will be 100% i on • • icted by the engineer's report dated November 12, 2006 stating recommended for this site. The same engineer stated in a later that infiltration was appropriate for the site. a inconsistencies gineering Reports, by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E., dated & July 26, 2007, shall require a peer review. The cost for � peer 1eview shall be at Owner's expense. Public Works price quotation from Shannon & Wilson, Inc uffers on a site map per e t FotecEutai --e. . �L-,4' f 7? P 7 23. � "1'4 /e >/P �! c p allow - ' : • on- er-a unty Surface Water Design Manual shall be required 10. If storm dra mph per '98 King 11. Pride-sight-di -study prior to re are being 9 'oQ z./ 4 . How many residenc proposed for the ` : II Please contact meat 206-43 -3683 or rfox @ci.tukwila.wa.us if you have questions prior to our meeting. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Rf C:iDocuments and Settings\Administrator 2 Y Docurnentslfoiey short plat\City— comments I —I 1.20.07[1l.doc 11/27/2007 i • • MEMORANDUM September 19, 2007 TO: Rebecca Fox FROM: Sandra Whiting RE: Comments on SEPA Checklist for Foley Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Rd. S (E -07- 014) I have reviewed the SEPA checklist, the related letter report by David Evans and Associates (wetlands) and the reports prepared by Bruce MacVeigh (evaluation for on -site stormwater infiltration). I have the following comments and concerns. 1. Part A, Item 6. The checklist states that 2 new residences are proposed, but one version of the site plan shows 3 new residences. The checklist should clearly describe what the proposed project is. 2. Part A, Item 12 (mapping of environmentally sensitive sites). The City's Sensitive Areas Map shows an intermittent watercourse on the property (see also response to Item h in Part B8.h). Even though David Evans and Associates has identified two wetlands on the site, no mention is made of a possible watercourse, although one of the topographical maps shows a "swale" and a "ditch ". This issue should be addressed in the checklist and in supporting documentation. 3. Part B, Item 1.c., states that there are medium to silty loams. However, the geotechnical engineer's report also shows underlying sandy clay (this is important because it affects site hydrology). 4. Part B, Items 3a, 1 and 2. Both of these responses are incorrect, as the applicant's own wetland consultant has reported 2 wetlands on the site. It is not at all clear if the proposed project will impact wetlands (or a potential watercourse) or their buffers. Information provided to the City to date shows a house site located in "Wetland A ", which suggests that the wetland will be filled. The two -page letter report submitted by David Evans and Associates recommends a buffer reduction for this wetland, but the rationale for this is not explained. The David Evans letter report is insufficient as a submittal for a Sensitive Areas Study. The consultant should prepare a Sensitive Areas Study in accordance with the City's guidelines (attached). The full delineation report should be provided as part of the Sensitive Areas Study report. Once this information is received, the City's biologists will confirm wetland/watercourse boundaries in the field. It should be noted that even though David Evans and Associates states that one of the wetlands is below the size threshold for regulation by the City, the size of the wetland has to be confirmed in the field by the City's biologist. Even if the wetland ( "Wetland B ") is below the City's acreage threshold, it does not exempt the applicant from obtaining permits from the Corps of Engineers and Department of Ecology if this or the other wetland is proposed to be filled. • • 5. Part B, Item 3a.3. The response states that no fill material will be placed in surface water or wetlands. This appears to be contradicted by the site plan that shows the house footprints. The applicant should provide a site drawing that shows the wetlands, their buffers, and the proposed locations of houses and site infrastructure. 6. Part B., Item 3b.1. The checklist states that no groundwater will be withdrawn. However, the engineer's report recommends dewatering of the site. 7. Part B, Item 3d. The checklist states that surface runoff will be 100% infiltrated on site. However, this is contradicted by the engineer's report dated November 12, 2006 stating that infiltration is not recommended for this site. The same engineer stated in a later report (July 26, 2007) that infiltration was appropriate for the site. These inconsistencies should be explained. STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukpIan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us CONvilu DE I OPI T AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at Rte, S� 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 Toss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non - responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 20 Print Name Address Phone Number Signature On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF , 20 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My Commission expires on P: \Planning Forms \Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 J O gi q en1.- STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: •— L -r S /e, . Pe A r 2. Name of Applicant: T�,GFe ie. /oGEy 3. Date checklist prepared: Z 8 ,J-vL Id-7 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 1%c. Z -ao 7 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. /7v.13 L 1 /S1 DL »— f 2 .E fry 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • V,/, 7— /4',y) s7v.' y ,8y 2),51 • c. 2 00 7 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. //oy� . Agency Comments P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. G Applicant Responses: Agency Comments. 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. e /7y 4-°4 (//4 S;/ovI , rili] ///z .J %7,e5/,p, W7 /AIL 7'.5 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. 70 �lv /U Gam' 73 /90 S� A'. .s, 257,5f#,, ,J.�� 7v .7.4e4... z 6 -75 lam/ 74/ v Z 7//9-2,s0 >--"e y 7o 7,erL 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should,,submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. /Zjt/ ; /f2 3' 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? SLo00E"S Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Agency Comments I. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: kVa b.t) F. Q -- WZ-S /47,,f? .&.mss �,��e / /"l a b. What is the stee est slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? m "1D o ,p o elf Ai `/o 1/4 S7 .442-2 'c Si y� . 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. "7-c, Sit -?--j, /c) #9 ,i4 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. �a cv „Zfe a s/ p'-742 • /k7 D /= .S�v.2� Ac S-o1 c. S 49/l e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. /Zoo Cv% f/P Lac, O/-7 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: /7l�>e L0,s$7:P',' ?i o ' 5> '7 '? i 4"$ 7/2 f ,'' frf /z, ; 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. .2> (/.P /� /l G an -S7'„e . , L�X� /�9vST %JvS%' b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. 2-- -3 Leo #v2 / D o ,2 76 • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 's 7 y � ' e°�f�. s ;#4J -✓cZ' 4b vt- bx/c? .6 ;tea 3 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. /VO 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. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill 'material. '°A. Agency Comments - Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. /v//im. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. A/C' , 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. //o• 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. 77P/4770,/ /rO/e ,4 LL //`IAE e U, /42 s Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. /c.9 o ,Z7,9 7 c: �Go4 5 (.b x /5- 3 (w Q /6 o v, . = a, X 75' 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. /27i9 `%, /`lam' /yam O/G 5 l'J 5-22 /3S/ l'a ' S G// 7"4FF S Itc// z G .e■ /yo s 0/ 7ti /S_ d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: /DO 7" Oft S/ 7.e"-, Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments . Plants a. Checkgr circle types of vegetation found on the site: `.-- D iduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other C/ sergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other e-s s Pasture Cro r grain et soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other 7- �,, ,c9-. Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation s2 /, s) b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? J© at.-/A!' /W/,/et, %.� '/' J ,L/ —5° c. List threatened or endangered species known to b'e on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: -,Vw /lc, 0wys 1A//« �' K,527 /V S 'P7 /c2NJ 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: � ? (> jeo- c/o �l ,// o -- Birds: aw , heron, songbirds other: / f// E 6.-,/ 7J/ /S S> 7j Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: o �5 �,4� evvi/�_P J Fish AX4- Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shell other: Other Agency Comments b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of migration route? If so, explain. /.11/7/e--A/ U 4.—/ IL/ d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife if any: -7 (52. o /0.4"-s- 4 sc / 72) 7'— b. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds -of energy electric atural gas, il, , ood stove; . olar) will be used to the completed project's energy nee s s. Describe w et er it will be used for anufacturing, etc. Z‘.17/-7'5 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. /Vd , 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: 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. AYv. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. /1/2 A %,GFL / c F 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: A/c7 /2/P D /E" , s Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? pL 27O E / ci- 4 ,/ /.L .,a _ 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. / 7- Ho 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Ai o 2 /e /tz; 's7-, /C �-,c lJ ?v Gic //7 /--/D /2 S _ 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. VE — ./L.%2 v1;7,4 S 7 C ', "4- s'7.v17 L, Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. 9.70) C/17,1,41-)Al) Z �/�� }2� f�c C // 9¢c3) d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? //o ,�", e. What is the current zoning 'classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? 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. .e 5 -7 72_ .52 5 °7/— ,e7 7- // 7 L! ._ c Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people woul �— /Z work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 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: /t45 e 17 b G- /"z'lr 1).g. S 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle r low- income housing? / /Yo 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, middle, or low - income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: /Y/,4 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? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? /V0 �° 7._ 5 , c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: % —', QJ .S `7°0 . Z- ,'c—,¢ . Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? /-7/0 U S - 441,e b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? /70 d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 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 project or applicant, if any: A/� 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. /10 ri1E ,e/c/ cu b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. a /YE. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: /V/, Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 14. Transportation a. Identi public streets d highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. /2 '% /225, b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? — D "9 O V .S-n4Q c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? ( Ex, /4/sf,) o si 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). o. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. /V 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. / y. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services 7,y/5 15- Pk?iv)9--PC � . a. Would the project result in an inc -„ eed • i. services (for example: protection, ce rotecti , '• ealth car , hools tther)? If so, generally describe. /`2 / /rvw ��r�5J ,L74t ,c37Y b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. /(/ / . 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: fuse serve e, y other: 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. ?. o S. /51,0 v,� /`x/.4/'2. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: `r�C (0 S /'_/' /I (NON- PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). GRAPIRC sci L2 Brace S. MacVeigh, P.E.— Civil Engineer ei cgs. 341. wY rA. mlS M%'• 841171' MT PMnLIDI O. I®DAAR V1AM rT0 I YTl. 8OA MT 440121.414 lT 71ilID1 1f'• PO DARRLOAMWAA�EL 0071110 DMtI'ATM Q4443l4N1. ON Mg A.{ DNn L103 047.10414 44O0711443 170014.101 WY4AY M1341.0O,MLM1 ON OIEI NY• MHIDAp(IAALIrA410WF.0 Ie■OTRq DMV[vAY M £14344404:4104 T11p C9 n 'm oi, ACTNITY SCHEDULE: 1. STAKING BY SURVEYOR • 2. PLACE SLLT FENCE AS SHOWN • 3. PERFORM ROUGH GRADING OF NEW DRIVEWAY AREA 4. INSTALL NEW CATCH BASINS AND DRAINAGE PIPE nRENdi INSTALL OTHER UNDERGROUND UTLLITIES AT THIS TIME. INSTALL SILT TRAP IN NEW CATCH .ES. 5. PERFORM FOE GRADING VE OF NEW AND DRIVEWAY AREA S. PAVE NEW TE DI AND ED AREAS AREAS. 5. REMO E SILT FENCING AND C AS WiM GRASS SEEP. R REMOVE DIED FENCING AND CATCH BASIN SILT TRAPS ONCE VEGETATION IS REESTABLISHED. EARTHWORK ESTIMATES CUT 1•ZOQ CY ALL 1,500 CY (INC. TRENCH GRAVEL) VIOM/TY N, nice MAP z JO z <I° ;t flit Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. — Civil Engineer • sr M/- SPX o, /- 1 acsa.v.. xoarranura .m,.na...a....as.mu 1 •s .../ M .oz..r '7/jiJ I 7/7 -.S7/ TT/ -ST/ or/ -may./ _ _SS/ o•... a.. 1. • wr.r.w....�.e... -� rte.... —. r Oulpod rya M.O.L6f0 IGLILiW W)] VISCID* IO LIJ TZAR' '1.44F Y0,taao tPt Ott wd /Gz L-44)11° lo\i' �vo City of Tukwil`ESA Screening Checklist �GGE7' G-7 T /4 7 City of Tukwila 0-9-0/7 // -1 D,7"-1 Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist w 4-.)/ Date: 2 7 Applicant Name: • Street Address: v/ .s`ss— S..E , f::-."/ Szz Za o City, State, Zip: w. 76? c, &4 , Telephone: .2c ) 7 79' — 376 Directions • This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to •result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes " or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans; critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. January 25, 2001 ii Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 CIO ontinue to Questi at, 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 YES Continue to Questio 0 age 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, P. e 18 -15). Please circle a s 1 opriate response. Continue to Questio 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 . ,; 1 1 1 riate response. 'NO - ' ontinue to Questi n 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 answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. N - Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 P: \Planning Forms \Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 Part A (continued) City of Tukwill. SA Screening Checklist 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the ishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water s covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Questio YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate rpspgnse. - Continue to Question YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. N - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) ontinue to Questi4 t Part B (continued) • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to question. Please circle appropriate response. ontinue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2 -1 Will'the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a w e course or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - ontinue to Questio 3 -0 : age 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. NO - Continue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 'Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) • City of Tukw SA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please - circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross- sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green /Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created-to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) 50pcfCedts' 5.o i L5 e 'i'J )44 Citiodgo4) Subject: Tiecheical■tnformatio'n1Re ortx(aPIRTfor. Jeffery Foley 4 -Lot Residential Short Plat 14011. Macadam Road S. Tukwila, WA 98168 (Tukwila, WA) use' -rots Nee' Bruce S. MagVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer/Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same RECE JE RUG 01 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,: 44'01/ 0 % Z� Tli` (a-7 1 Table of Contents: Project Overview Conditions and Requirements Summery Off Site Analysis Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Conveyance System Analysis and Design Special Reports and Studies Other Permits ESC Analysis and Design Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries and Declarations of Covenant Operations Manual Project Overview: The purpose of this report is to evaluate the soils on the above property for suitability for on -site infiltration, sizing of a detention system as required, and stability and erosion characteris i'iics `fhe parcel is approximately 71,180 square feet or 1.68 acres, with an existing one story wood frame residence, driveway and surrounding lawn with landscaping shrubs and small trees. The existing house is approximately 90 years old, and will be retained. In addition, a fairly large wood frame bam and graveled parking area exist on the site. The bam will also be retained and remodeled as a new. residence. The lot is bordered on all sides by single family residences, some with „larger parcels. It is located on the west side of Macadam Road S. in Tukwila, WA. The street address of the existing residence is 14011 Macadam Road S. The site slopes significantly downward to the east and Macadam Road S., with the western one:-half being wooded with slopes of typically 2:1, with the eastern one -half being a cleared series of graveled parking areas, buildings and !awned yard areas. This report will evaluate the suitability of the site for on -site infiltration relating to future residential development. Based on the soils available in the lower elevations of the site (see Logs #4, 5 and 6), the site is suitable for on-site-in-filtration. -6” mmon mainirench will b used for all impervious areas on site, including residences. Design details are given below. _ Based on the topography of the site, significant earthwork will be required to create the new access road into the site from Macadam Road S. The existing residence and barn will be retained for continued use. The existing graveled driveway and parking areas will be displaced for the new access road and residences. The existing lot coverage is as follows: Total lot area 73,180 SF 2 Existing Conditions Residence Barn Driveway Parking area Total Area of wooded hillside Net lawn area Future conditions Residence (ex) Residence (barn) Driveways for above New residences, 2 ea. Access road (new) 1,530 SF 1,008 SF 1,800 SF 9,450 SF 36,900 SF 22,492 SF 1,530 SF 1,008 SF 1,000 SF (est.) 8,000 SF 4,800 SF Total 15,538 SF Note that some areas of the site will not be directed into the site's storm system due to topography. The western hillside vegetation will be unchanged, and any new impervious areas generated will come from the existing (awned areas. Upon completion of the short plat and residential construction, all impervious areas will be captured and directed to the site's storm system. The resulting managed flows will result in a net decrease of runoff from the site, whether runoff is infiltrated or detained and released to the adjacent street system. As such, the sizing of the site's storm system may be considered inherently conservative. Themetiadditiori al fullydevelopmentrvehicularsimperviousisurfacesaremis so estimated toabe ■1n100.square feet;iwhich will not require formal water quality measures as it does not exceed the 2,000 square foot threshold. Drainage measures Will use the KCRTS methodology due to the total future impervious areas. Erosion and sediment control measures will be use the Small Site Criteria of the KCSWM Manual Appendix C methodology. There are identified steep slopes and wetlands associated with this project. Conditions and Requirements Summitry: Core Requirements from the current KCSWM Manual are discussed within this report at appropriate sections. The Core Requirements will be identified by number and title. The first is Core Requirement #1, Discharge at a Natural Location. This requirement is met by the use of on site infiltration for runoff from all future impervious areas on site. The KCSWM Manual requires infiltration where feasible. Soil studies of the site indicate infiltration is feasible for disposing 3 of flows collected from all full development impervious surfaces. Infiltration rates for soils at depths of approximately 3 to 5 feet were found to be 15 to 20 minutes per inch. A rate of 20 minutes per inch will be used, with an additional safety factor of 2.0, giving a design rate of 40 minutes per inch. Overflow to the existing street . system is provided. Since the full development net new impervious area is greater than 2,000 square feet, a Level 1 Drainage Review is required. This review requires a formal Technical Information Review (this document). The design storm used is the 100 -year event. The sizing is done using the "black box" KCRTS computer modeling program. Calculations are attached. The calculations and conceptual design include considerations for the roof area of the new residences, and the new access road. Off Site Analysis: This section discusses Core Requirement #2, Off Site Analysis. Since all runoff collected from equivalent new impervious surfaces is infiltrated on site, no off site analysis would usually be required. However, a walking tour of the site and adjacent downhill properties and rights -of -way found no apparent existing drainage problems. Note that the infiltration of all future impervious surfaces will in fact reduce the surface runoff leaving the site. A full one - quarter mile distance from the site was investigated. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design: This section discusses Core Requirement #3, Flow Control. As discussed above, all or most of the runoff generated by new impervious surfaces on the site will be infiltrated. A common trench will be used. Impervious area for the two new residences is estimated conservatively at 4,000 SF per residence. The infiltration trench is sized by KCRTS using a 100 year storm event. • . The soils found on site were silty loams. No water was found in any of the test holes. A minimum percolation rate of 20 minutes per inch was found at depths of 3 to 5 feet. With a safety factor of 2.0, the design infiltration rate of 40 minutes per inch is used. As noted above, overflow is provided to the street system. An impervious surface area of 15,538 square feet, or 0.357 acres, is used for the KCRTS calculations. Attached are calculations for sizing the common trench. The dimensions of the calculated trench are 6 feet deep by 15.3 feet wide by 80 feet long. The following discusses Core Requirement #8, Water Quality. 4 Since the net new impervious vehicular surface area is Tess than 2,000 square feet greater than the existing, water quality measures are limited to tees in the system's catch basins. Conveyance System Analysis and Design: This section discusses Core Requirement #4, Conveyance System. Due to the short nature of the drainage lines serving the infiltration trenches, the lines capacity are considered adequate by inspection. Special Reports and Studies: Wetland and Watercourse Reconnaissance, David Evans and Associates, March 15, 2007 Other Permits: Residential permits will be required for the construction /remodel of new and existing residences. ESC Analysis and Design: This section discusses Core Requirement #5, Erosion and Sediment Control. As noted above, the ESC measures required for this site will consist of a stabilized construction'entrance and down slope silt fencing. Criteria will be per Appendix C. Specific placement will be determined at the time of residential construction. Bond Quantities, Facility Summery-and Declarations of Covenant: This section discusses Core Requirement #7, Financial Guarantees and Liability. A City of Tukwila cost estimate form is provided as an attachment to this TIR. Operation and Maintenance Manual This section discusses Core Requirement #6, Operation and Maintenance. An Operation and Maintenance Manual for the infiltration system will be provided at the time of permit/occupandy. 5 Questions relating to this report may be directed to this office. Bruce S. MacVeig , P.E. Civil Engineer foleysptir/061 9 6 7 ® No: 937 811E. 7 STAEDTLER Engineer's Computation Pad 3/7 5.2600 5.3600 5.4600 5.5600 5.6600 5.7600 5.8600 5.9600 6.0000 6.1000 6.2000 6.3000 6.4000 6.5000 6.6000 6.7000 6.8000 6.9000 7.0000 7.1000 7.2000 7.3000 7.4000 7.5000 7.6000 7.7000 7.8000 7.9000 8.0000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.308 0.871 1.60 2.39 2.67 2.93 3.16 3.38 3.59 3.78 3.97 4.14 4.31 4.47 4.63 4.78 4.93 5.07 5.21 5.35 1934.0 1970.8 2007.5 2044.3 2081.1 2117.8 2154.6 2191.4 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1 2206.1' 1225.6 1225.6 1225.0 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 1225.6 0.00 Base Facility Elevation 40.0 Minutes /Inch: Average Perm -Rate 64 Facility Type 6.00000 Depth (ft) 0.00000 Slope - Horizontal Component - 1.00000 Tank Diameter /Rise (ft) 0 Number of Orifices 6.00000 Riser Head (ft) 12.0000 Riser Diameter (in) F Bottom Permeable (logical) F Sides Permeable (logical) F Notched riser (logical) T Triangular Notch (logical) - 1.00000 Notch width (in) - 1.00000 Notch angle (degrees) (specify) riser ouflow rating curve filename 612.800 Facility Length (ft) 1225.60 Facility Bottom Area (sq ft) 0 Primary Hydrograph dev.tsf Hydrograph & inflow TS file rdout.tsf outflow TS file 7 Year 2411 Hour 0.00000 Target peak discharge rate 5 Year 2638 Hour - 0.999990E +15 Target peak discharge rate 9/7 R/D Facility Definition File Stage Discharge Storage Perm -Area (Ft) (CFS) (Cu -Ft) (Sq -Ft) 0.0000 0.000 0.0• 0.0 0.0600 0.000 22.1 1225.6 0.1600 0.000 58.8 1225.6 0.2600 0.000 95.6 1225.6 0.3600 0.000 132.4 1225.6. 0.4600 0.000 169.1 1225.6 0.5600 0.000 205.9 1225.6 0.6600 0.000 242.7 1225.6 0.7600 0.000 279.4 1225.6 0.8600 0.000 316.2 1225.6 0.9600 0.000 353.0 1225..6 1.0600 0.000 389.7 1225.6 1.1600 0.000 426.5 1225.6 1.2600 0.000 463.3 1225.6 1.3600 0.000 500.0 1225.6 1.4600 0.000 536.8 1225.6 1.5600 0.000 573.6 1225.6 1.6600 0.000 610.3 1225.6 1.7600- 0.000 647.1 1225.6 1.8600 0.000 683.9 1225.6 1.9600 0.000 720.7 1225.6 2.0600 0.000 757.4 1225.6 2.1600 0.000 794.2 1225.6 2.2600 0:000 831.0 1225.6 2.3600 0.000 867.,7 1225.6 2.4600 0.000 904.5 1225.6 2.5600 0.000 941.3 1225.6 2.6600 0.000 978.0 1225.6 2.7600 0.000 1014.8 1225.6 2.8600 0.000 1051.6 1225.6 2.9600 0.000 1088.3 1225.6 3.0600 0.000 1125.1 1225.6 3.1600 0.000 1161.9 1225.6. 3.2600 0.000 1198.6 1225.6 3.3600 - 0.000 1235.4 1225.6 3.4600 0.000 1272.2 1225.6 3.5600 0.000 1308.9 1225.6 3.6600 0.000 1345.7 1225.6 3.7600 0.000 1382.5 1225.,6 3.8600 0.000 1419.2 1225.,6 3.9600 0.000 1456.0 1225.6 4.0600 0.000 1492.8 1225.6 4.1600 0.000 1529.5 1225.6 4.2600 0.000 1566.3 1225.6 4.3600 0.000 1603.1 1225.6 4.4600 0.000 1639.9 1225.6 4.5600 0.000 1676.6 1225.6 4.6600 0.000 1713.4 1225.6 4.7600 0.000 1750.2 1225.6 4.8600 0.000 1786.9 1225.6 4.9600 0.000 _ 1823.7 1225.6 5.0600 0.000 1860.5 1225.6 5.1600 0.000 1897.2 1225.6 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) • . (CFS) Period 0.090 6 2/09/01 2:00 0.175 1 100.00 0.990 0.076 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.130 2 25.00 0.960 0.107 3 2/27/03 7:00, 0.107 3 10.00 0.900 0.089 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.106 4 5.00 0.800 0.106 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.092 5 3.00 0.667 0.092 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.090 6 2.00 0.500 0.130 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.089 7 1.30 0.231 0.175 1 1/09/08 6.00 0 076 8 1.10 0 091 Computed Peaks 0.160 50.00 0.980 s/7 Area -- Till Forestl 0.00 acres? Till Pasture: 0.00 acres, Till Grass! ;; 0.00; acres,:. Outwash.Foresti 0.50, acres; Outwash Pasture 0.00 acres; Outwash Grassi 0.08 acres!. Wetland(S- 0.00 acresl Impervious' 0.36 acres! 1- Total - ` 0.94 acres' Scale Factor 1.00 - Hourly Reduced dev Compute Time Series Modify User Input File for computed Time Series [.TSF] 7/7 ;Land Use Type ---- Till Forest Till Pasture .........:. Till Grassi; Outwash Forest, Outwash Pasture:: Outwash Grass Wetland Impervious Scale Factor Time Step - !r Hourly'. ;.r. Data Type.,��,_:_ Reduced 0.000 0.000 0.496 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.357 1.000 ' .15- minute Historic Compute Total Area Enter area for this land use .type, 0.0 if NONE Operation and Maintenance Manual for Stormwater Collection and Infiltration System (Private System) Foley 4 -Lot Residential Short Plat 14011 Macadam Road S. Tukwila, WA Table of Contents: Operations of System Inspection Checklist July 26, 2007 Prepared by Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same Operation and Maintenance of Short Plat Storm System This entire drainage system is located within the private access and utilities easement located within the boundaries of this short plat. The operation of the common portions of the system is generally simple and requires only occasional inspections and maintenance procedures. These items are the joint responsibility of the owners of the four lots within the short plat. The system consists of two Type 2 catch basins of 48 inch diameter located in the above easement and lying within the private roadway. Between them is an 80 foot long gravel infiltration trench, with a 6 inch diameter perforated pipe connecting the two catch basins, and running through the trench. The gravel in the trench is 6 feet deep and 15.3 feet wide. A 6 inch over flow line runs from the lower catch basin to the ditch in front of the property, and relieves water in the trench during very heavy storm events. An important periodic inspection is of the large catch basins with the their tee outlets. Regularly, according the to attached checklists, the catch basins should be opened and inspected. The tees should be in place, and the sumps should not have significant collections of silt. Floating debris and oils should be checked. Should significant silts (one foot or'more at the bottom of the catch basin) or significant floating debris or oils be found, a commercial "vactor" truck will have to be contracted to remove the material. Attached within this manual is the detailed set of checklists with scheduling and maintenance requirements for all portions of the common drainage system. Questions about inspection and maintenance of this facility may be directed to the Public Works Department of the City of Tukwila. foleyonm01 /0619 26 TUG '27 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF MAINTENANCE CHECKLISTS The following pages contain maintenance needs for most of the components that are part of your drainage system, as well as for some components that you may not have. Ignore the requirements that do not apply to your system. You should plan to complete a checklist for all system components on the following schedule: 1. Monthly from November through April 2. Once in late 'summer (preferable September) 3. After any major storm (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline), items marked "S" only. Using photocopies of these pages, check off the problems you looked for each time you did an inspection. Add comments on problems found and actions taken. Keep these "checked" sheets in your files. Some items do not need to be looked at every time an inspection is done. Use the suggested frequency at the left of each item as a guideline for your inspection. REQUIRED ACTIONS: The following actions shall be taken to ensure that pollution generated on site shall be minimized: 1. Warning signs (e.g., "Dump No Waste - Drains to Stream ") shall be painted or embossed on or adjacent to all storm drain inlets. They shall be repainted as needed. Contact the Municipality regarding availability of stenciling supplies. 2. Parking Tots shall be swept when necessary to remove debris and, at a minimum, twice a year. Use of newer model high - velocity vacuum sweepers is recommended as they are more effective in removing the more harmful smaller particles from paved surfaces. 3.-. Sediment removed from detention vaults shall be disposed of in a proper manner. Contact the Municipality for instruction prior to completing this task. 4. No activities shall be conducted on site that are likely to result in short-term high - concentration discharge of pollution to the stormwater system. Such activities may include, but not be limited to, vehicle washing, vehicle maintenance, and cleaning of equipment used in the periodic maintenance of buildings and paved surfaces. ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Catch Basins and Inlets Frequency Drainage System Feature / Problem Conditions To Check For Conditions That Should Exrd M.S. General Trash, debris, and sediment in or on basin Trash or debris in front of the catch basin opening is blocking capacity by more than 10% No trash or debris located immediately in front of catch basin opening. Grate is kept clean and allows water to enter. M • Sediment or debris. (in the basin) that exceeds 1/3 the depth from the bottom of basin to invert of the lowest pipe into or out of the basin. No sediment or debris in the catch basin Catch basin is dug out and clean. . . M,S • Trash or debris in any inlet or pipe blocking more than 1/3 of its height. Inlet and outlet pipes free of trash or debris. Structural damage to frame and /or top slab Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past curb face into the street (f applicable). Frame is even with curb. • M • Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure all material is running into the basin). Top slab is free of holes and cracks. M • Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. Frame is sitting flush on top slab. • A . Cracks in basin walls/bottom • Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer • than3 feet, any evidence of soil panicles entering catch basin through cracks, or . maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Contact a professional engineer for evaluation. A Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer • than 1 foot at the joint of any inlet/outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles entering catch basin through cracks. s. No cracks more than 1/4 inch wide at the joint of inlet/outiet pipe. Contact a professional engineer for evaluation. A Settlement/ misalignment Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated more than 2 inches out of alignment Basin replaced or repaired to design standards. Contact a professional engineer for evaluation. M,S • Fre hazard or other pollution Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil, and gasoline. Obnoxious color, odor, or sludge noted. No color, odor, or sludge. Basin is dug out and clean. M,S Outlet pipe is clogged with vegetation Vegetation or roots growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is more than six inches tall and less than six inches apart No vegetation or root growth present If you are .unsure whether a problem exists, please contact a Professional Engineer. Comments: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M= Monthly (see schedule) S =After major storms (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline) ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Infiltration Systems f you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact a Professional Engineer. Comments: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M= Monthly (see schedule) S=After major storms (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline) Frequency Stem Feature N( Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Est M,S General Trash 8 debris buildup in pond See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. See Maintenance Cheddist for Ponds. M Poisonous vegetation See Maintenance Cheddist for Ponds. See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. M,S Fire hazard or pollution See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. M Vegetation not growing or is overgrown . See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. M Rodent holes See Maintenance Checklist for Ponds. See Maintenance Checidist for Ponds. M Insects See Maintenance Checldist for Ponds. See Maintenance Checidist for Ponds. A Storage area Sediment buildup in system A soil texture test indicates tarty is not worldng at its designed capabTrties or was incorrectly designed. Sediment is removed and/or facility is cleaned so that infiltration system works according to design. A sediment trapping area is installed to reduce sediment transport into infiltration area. A Storage area drains slowly (more than 48 hours) or overflows A soil texture test indicates :facility is not working at its designed capabilities or was incorrectly designed. Additional volume is added through excavation to provide needed storage. St is aerated and rototifled to improve drainage: Contact the Municipality for information on its requirements regarding excavation. . M Sediment trapping area My sediment and'debris idling area to 10% of depth from sump bottom to bottom of outlet pipe or obstructing flow into the connector pipe. Clean out sump to • P design depth One Time • Sediment trapping area not present Stormwater enters infiltration area directly without treatment Add a trapping area by Ong a sump for settling of solids. Segregate settling area from rest of facility. Contact the Municipality for guidance. M Rock filters Sediment and debris By visual inspection tittle or no water flows through fitter during heavy rain storms. • Reptace gravel in rock fitter. f you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact a Professional Engineer. Comments: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M= Monthly (see schedule) S=After major storms (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline) ATTACHMENT "A" (CONTINUED) Maintenance Checklist for Conveyance Systems (Pipes, Ditches, and Swales) Frequency Drainage Feature Problem Conditions to Check For Conditions That Should Exist M,S Pipes Sediment & debris Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the diameter of the pipe. Pipe cleaned of all sediment and debris. M Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water through pipes. All vegetation removed so water flows freely through pipes. A Damaged (rusted, bent, or crushed) Protective coating is damaged: rust is causing more than 50% deterioration to any part of pipe. Pipe repaired or replaced. M • Any dent that significantly impedes lbw (Le., decreases the cross section area of pipe by more than 20%). Pipe repaired or replaced. • M Pipe has major cracks or tears allowing groundwater leakage. Pipe repaired or replaced. M,S Open ditches Trash & debris • • Dumping of yard wastes such as grass ebppings and branches into basin. Unsightly accumulation of nondegradable materials such as glass, per, metal, foam, and coated paper. Remove trash and debris and dispose as prescribed by the Municipality. M Sediment buildup Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the design depth Ditch cleaned of all sediment and _ debris so that it matches design. A Vegetation Vegetation° (e.g.. weedy shrubs or saplings) that reduces free movements of water through ditches. Water flows freely through ditches. Grassy vegetation should be left alone. M Erosion damage to slopes See Ponds Cheddist. See Ponds Checklist. A Rock fining out of place or missing (d applicable) Maintenance beneath the rode see native soil Repbee rocks to design standard. Varies Catch basins See Catch Basins Checklist. See Catch Basins Checklist. M,S Swales , Trash & debris See above for Ditches. See above for Ditches. M Sediment buildup See above for Ditches. Vegetation may need to be reptantec after cleaning. M Vegetation not growing or • overgrown Grass cover is sparse and seedy or areas are overgrown with woody vegetation. Aerate soils and reseed and mulch bare areas. Maintain grass height a a minimum of 6 inches for best stormwrater treatment Remove woody growth, recontour, and reseed as necessary. M,S Erosion damage to slopes See Ponds Checklist. See Ponds Checklist. M Conversion by homeowner to incompatible use ' Swale has been filed in or bbeked by shed, woodpile, shrubbery, etc. If possible, speak with homeowner and request that swale area be restored. Contact the Municipality to report problem if not rectified voluntarily. If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact a Professional Engineer. Comments: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M= Monthly (see schedule) S =After major storms (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline) A Swale does not drain Water stands in Swale or flow velocity is very stow. Stagnation occurs. A survey may be needed to check grades. Grades need to be in 1-5% range if possible. If grade is less than 1% underdrains may need to be installed. If you are unsure whether a problem exists, please contact a Professional Engineer. Comments: Key: A= Annual (March or April preferred) M= Monthly (see schedule) S =After major storms (use 1 -inch in 24 hours as a guideline) • P717 7rvED IIP SEPA CITY OF TUKWILA AUG o 1001 .De arinient o Commuiti Develo :. ENVIRONMENTAL P f h' P�f}��i,o�iJrvt rr 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 1�LOPZIENT REVIEW Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan@ci.tukwilama.us APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: /.' / 4 - L 0 7" ,_57/4 ,e 7 //57 7 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. /¢b // / /fe,i ),9 ri ,PG.€7D*" S. 7v,C-v-‘, /z,9, W LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax' statement). 5-Z _3c. 4 - l'0.3.5— 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: �% f� G Z y ��� /V,PX ,g;957f /0 F 15/2a.L,�" 5 yf�G��f Address: //SSS -S E, 8 >/ 57.e��7 #Zo ��LGl.�!/v•� Phone: (zo 0) 7 7? - 3 7,5? / E -mail: Signature: Date: FAX: P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: -0- 01 — Q 1 LT Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT /DEVELOPMENT: /.' / 4 - L 0 7" ,_57/4 ,e 7 //57 7 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. /¢b // / /fe,i ),9 ri ,PG.€7D*" S. 7v,C-v-‘, /z,9, W LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax' statement). 5-Z _3c. 4 - l'0.3.5— 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: �% f� G Z y ��� /V,PX ,g;957f /0 F 15/2a.L,�" 5 yf�G��f Address: //SSS -S E, 8 >/ 57.e��7 #Zo ��LGl.�!/v•� Phone: (zo 0) 7 7? - 3 7,5? / E -mail: Signature: Date: FAX: P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SEPAAPP.doc April 4, 2006 5jrc1) e a 1 (111-41") Bruce MacVeigh P.E. S. , T1F Civil Engineer /Small Site Geotechnical 14245 59'h Ave. S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Office: (206) 242 -7665 Fax: Same - 7 /13 /og RECEIVED 'JAN 17 2001 November 12, 2006 City of\Tukwila Attn: Planning Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Soils Evaluation for On -Site Storm Infiliration, Jeff Foley /Sharon Mann 4 -Lot Short Plat, 14011 Macadam Road S., Tukwila, WA Dear Sir: On July 28, 2006 a total of six soil logs were evaluated on the above site. Attached is a copy of the soil logs. Th soils encountered typically had a surface layer of medium loam underlain by mottledlsandy clay, typical of what is probably the Alderwood Association. The depth of the loam down to the clay varied from 24 to 96 inches. The use of on -site infiltration for the above site is not recommended. Several reasons are: 1. The depth of the loam varies wi`ely and is not predictable in depth for designing trenches, especially for sites with area restraints. 2. The loam itself does not infiltrate w ell. 3. The build up of groundwater above the clay layer could saturate soil needed for water removal from the trenches. 4. The proximity of the embankment along side Macadam Road S. indicates that it is better to de -water the soils in the embankmentOan to add groundwater. 5. Soils from the slope above the useful part ofithe site perch groundwater. As mentioned, it is better to de -water the soils of thesite in the buildable area so that any perched water will have minimal affect. In summery, the use of on -site infiltration for stormwater removal is not recommended for this site. Instead, conventional underground detentions recommended, with release of the existing roadside system. Note that while this letter'd`es not address other engineering aspects of the soils of the site, it may be mentioned that the soils do appear suitable for conventional paving and building construction. Questions relating to the above maybe made directly to this office. Sincerely MacVeigh, .E. Civil Engineer D(PIRES: 4/24/ 0 -7 �Z Q4)" � 6 RECEIVED 1JAN 17 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 7 SOIL LOGS FOLEY/MANN SHORT PLAT 28 JUL 06 SL 1 0 -96" MED DARKKLOAM W /COBBLES 96- 120 "+ SANDY /CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 2 0 -84" MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES 84 -96 "+ SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 3 0 -24" MED DARK LOAM,W /COBBLES 24 -72 "+ SL 4 0 -72 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON SITE) SANDY CLAY (MOTTLED) SL 5 0 -96 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMEIeON SITE) SL 6 0 -48 "+ MED DARK LOAM W /COBBLES (EXISTING DRIVEWAY CUT EMBANKMENT ON STYE) RECEIVED 'JAN' 17 2007 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 41, ,\-R\\ Dv 4‘4, RECEIVED JAN 17 2001.' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ZSU� G� ItA//R emd ..e.. /e0. P70511 am WW1& 0.,T mg et oft /maim s..r tee. .Am PTSS. ner MP. OAT geM esc pmtb. Awl /A:./ /ei• . /0.D_rGwsn K6•. /W OlA)ON. IN/74e 5057 .426 5 0/ y • x .+ iernis• ir/We. 4r /U7/F3 SiC:cNS.H ova i� c � ien EX 0/774' P /L) •>YIC L WV. /is- j/50... /Werra tr. •Gwi7ce /.{War /ri °e .mtmr .xvarl 1 f•D /T.l� W �'- erSz. oe /04.3 0/nM • 17t7 FGNIaC seed mt., 0.0T gooey t 0,0 West oak. pmipp. yNA7 C AN/OtN/e ...e s-ax ne . 1117' 1 .brAce(s) -,xis k.Oreo0O.,xir /-'a d / ..-0s0 / 44'T ,32Y S{17_ „7,y 1lJ*TA/NO1iK3TTMl DAAN 0.10. YED DAtc LOAM 10O SS NNNW WOTMVOOR1E) wF ..®CA.c1OA■00Cee018 4M- t00. MT,7.O.Rl9J 64' p..• Y ®waLOAMI ylr. WmYMT MAMBO WT. M®MN[IOA IWOOCOMH 0005,0cr.,vurAT OJT LICLUODOW ON MID Sit (OTIDa CAM WATCUTIOAW.0NIONtRp M'. IlEDIMIZ AM..meaae (COSMO MM.AT CUT pOAND@IT01TRA Zmz %Ne3L IlIgLN> rood a!W . /eq .+.A.t NM ee 6eN A . ACTIVITY Sp EDIAe 1. SUMO BY SURVEYOR • 2.P(ACE 6ILi FENCE AS SHOWN. S. PERFORM ROUGH GRADING OF NEW DRIVEWAY AREA 4. INSTALL NEW CATCH BASR/5 AND DRAINAGE PIPERRENCH. INSTALL OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AT THIS TOME. INSTALL SILT TRAP M NEW CATCH BASINS. S PERFORM FINE GRAMM OF NEW AND DRIVEWAY AREA S. PAVE NEW ROAD AHDOIRIVEWAY AREAS. 7. REVEGETATE D AREAS WRN GRASS SEED. S. REMOVE SILT FENCING NCING AND CATCH BASIN SILT TRAPS ONCE VEGETATIONS REESTABLISHED. EARTH/ARK ESTIMATES CUT 1200 CY FILL 1.500 CT OHCLTRENpNGRAVEL) RECErV- 'AUG 01 PO/ CONiNiui\+, DEVELOPUENT Bruce S. MacVeigh, P.E. — Civil Engineer 8. j 1Q et 2! 7!L '07 wori/TY /•. w MILL N� MAP jig* R Iva g 71 0 g2 11 A 3 0 tl iof 2 Stoma P.m 1.4C, 141 ten — Sec •.a Rock Facing • r a•.�..4rr.•.+. asotrowita ▪ • .•Y..�.Yrrr•...•*61.•sr• l• _r. y.� •r yrr.r�4�.rr ...r... _ _ •�� may+ .1� ▪ r.rr...rr•.r....•••■•■ 2. Vet abistejno.tait ttsta1;....wars.emstmmt• • IMSNISt 1 or..■■••■■•• :...�.•:...r_.. • AL /cs r•20. C/L /eIF /[E /"' °• 1 wo.u.... rn.r.L..no eaw•.mi wen. 1 AUG 01 2007 EVELONNIENT 2 s J.ti •a d C Bruce S. MacVeigh, RE — Civil En X ti S DATES /.M'r10L' 2 of. 2 CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHORT PLAT FILE NO. DECLARATION Know all men by these presents that we, the undersigned, owner(s). in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a SHORT PLAT. The undersigned further declare this SHORT PLAT to be .a graphic representation of said SHORT PLAT of said and same is mode with the free consent and in accordance with the deslre of the owner(s). IN WITNESS' WHEREOF we set our hands and seals. Name Nome Name Nome Name Name. State of Washington County of On this day personally appeared; be fore me to me known to be the individual who executed ,the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned. therein. GIVEN under my hand a seal this day of Signature Name as commissioned Title My appointment expires State_ of Washington County of On this day personally appeared be fore me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged the he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. GIVEN under my hand a seal this day of Signature Name as commissioned Title My appointment expires APPROVALS: •• Reviewed and approved by the Short Subdivision Committee and hereby certified for filing this ____day of Chairman, Short Subdivision Committee DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS and approved this. — day of 20 Assessor Deputy Assessor Account Number 1523049035 1 \L\,VI \VIIYV . PORTION OF _SE _1/4 of _SE _1 4 S._15_ T._23 N., R._4_E., W.M. EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION . THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF . SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., LYING WEST OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST • 1/4 OF SECTION: 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST; W.M.,. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF - GOVERNMENT LOT 1,. IN SAID SECTION 15, WITH THE WEST UNE OF'THE JAMES CLARK COUNTY ROAD NO. 2; T • THENCE NORTH 40'20'25" WEST ALONG SAID WEST LINE 72.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64'46'25" WEST 110.72 FEET TO A • POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ALONG A . CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH • A RADIUS OF 93:52rEET, . AN. ARC DISTANCE IF 24.35 FEET' TO THE TRUE' POINT OF BEGINNING CF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE . CONTINUING ALONG: SAID CURVE, A ARC DISTANCE OF 24.51 .FEET; THENCE NORTH 8597'33" WEST 180.67 FEET TO A POINT:ON THE SOUTH UNE• OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1, WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'32" .WEST 375 FEET FROM THE • POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE. SOUTH. 10'44'32" cST 106 FEET; • THENCE NORTH . 87'04'51" EAST 197.60 FEET T0• A POINT WHICH .BEARS SOUTH 08'55'10' EAST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 08'55'10" WEST 81.42. FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; • - ' . .. . EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST:1 /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 "OF. SAID SECTION 15; 'DESCRIBED AS :FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION'. OF •THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID'IGOVERNMENT LOT 1, IN SAID SECTION ITH 15, W• THE WEST UNC OF THE JAMES CLARK' COUNTY ROAD NO. 2; THENCE NORTH 40%5D20'25". WEST ALONG SAID WEST • UNE 72.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64'46'25' WEST 110.72 FEET.ITO A POINT OF CURVE; THENCE ALONG SAID, CURVE TO THE RICHT HAVING A RADIUS. OF 93.52 • FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 24.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 08'5510" EAST. 81.42 • FEET; THENCE NORTH 8T04'51" EAST 169.0 FEET TO APPOINT ON THE WESTERLY UNE OF SAID JAMES CLARK - COUNTY ROAD, SOUTHERLY 72.4FEET FROM THE POINT. OF BEGINNING; - THENCE NORT}- RLY -ALONG SAID WEST UNE . . 72 FEET' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID. NORT:' 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST' 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, ;TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST;. W.M.; THENCE SOUTH E9'56'42" EAST 378.6 -FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10'44'32" EAST 125 FEET; THEN :'.;.E NORTH 89'56'42" •WEST T A POINT 125' FEET SOUTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 125 • FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; • EXCEPT THE SOUTH 80 FEET OF THE -NORTH 205 FEET - OF'TH WE. EST 408.7 •FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST-1/4: OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; EXCEPT THE SOUTH 75 FEET OF THE WEST 408.7 FEET OF SAID SECTION. z Lot 2 zm° wf N86 1'32'E o �70_00�-- m• o Ng62�'32_E fO p0'. 204.94' 1 _N86'21'32'E C J i __...o. 58.00 7p a,. New 20' access and 'oo� utilities easement Lot 1 R -50.00 L -5.91= L- 29.15_ R =10.097 N86'21 32_E Lot 3 DETAIL: ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT SCALE: 1" = 30' I Z I. m 20. 0' N8.536'45'E S,41. '2'32_W_ N 0.067.--- 60.23 • pl N86' 1'3rE a 43.54'. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for record this day of 20 at M in book of at page at the request of fCi, L +..'Y'/ d"vV ✓I %J., . LAND SURV�YOR'S CERTIFICATE 1. r;,; c A =r ., / < . 4 vo r' registered as a land surveyor by. the State of Washington ;. certify that this plat is based . on an actual survey of the land described herein, conducted by me or under my supervision; that the distances, courses and .angles: are) shown thereon correctly, ,and•.that monuments other than +knew mnrinmeintq'nnorovec..4or seftRl9!Ar.a.later date, SURVEY FOR: Jeff Foley and Sharon Mann 120 S.W. 194th St. Normandy Park, Wo 375.00' (Deed — Held) 0.57 (Ref. ROS 109/11) N87'48'48'W (Ref. ROS 109/11) 589.10' Ref. ROS 109 1 _ Detail: eon trot • nts • Found brass nail N concrete in • case In case — 5/25/06 • u, 1 ' rn LA OI. \ • • aJ 4 n tti N el Southeast comer Section 15, T23N, R4E. W.M. Found 2'. brass disk w/"X' In concrete In case — SCHROETERZLAND SURVEYING.` PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS . PA. Box 813, Seahurst, Washington 98062 (206) 242 -6621 FAX (206)243 -9679 OWN. BY . IAW,. CHKD.: BY DATE 12/6/06 DATE FIELD 6/15/06 SCALE. JOB NO, 49.0./18, PROJECT NO. 06143 Sp SHEET .. CITY OF TUKWILA KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHORT PLAT FILE, NO PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS" LOT 1 THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION- 15. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., LYING WEST OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:. BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER. OF THE SOUTHEAST. 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48 ": EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 370.58 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'48" WEST 375.00 FEET FROM. THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SAID SECTION AND AND THE WEST LINE OF THE JAMES CLARK COUNTY ROAD NO. 2 (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE SOUTH 10'44'47" EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 254.81 FEET TO THE TRUE' POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 111.27 FEET TO THE WESTERLY. MARGIN OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 0810'34" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 78.16 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86'21'32" WEST 111.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 08'30'34" WEST 79.56 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH UTIUTIES EASEMENT RECORDING NO. ___ LOT 2. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; LYING WEST OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 370.58 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'48 WEST 375.00 FEET FROM THE. INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SAID SECTION AND AND THE WEST. LINE OF THE JAMES CLARK. COUNTY ROAD NO. 2 (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE SOUTH 10'44'47" EAST. 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 15.70 FEET TO THE EAST .LINE 'OF THE WEST. 408.7 FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 239.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 08'30'34" EAST 79.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86'21'32" WEST 253.26 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE' SAID WEST 408.7 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01•30'54° EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 82.61 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT. RECORDING NO. AND TOGETHER MTH UTILITIES EASEMENT. RECORDING NO. LOT 3 THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE. SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH; RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., LYING WEST OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH, DESCRIBED AS. FOLLOWS: THAT BEGINNING .AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23. NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48" EAST, - ,ALONG' THE NORTH UNE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4; 370.58 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'48" WEST 375.00 FEET FROM THE .INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SAID SECTION AND AND THE WEST LINE OF THE JAMES CLARK. COUNTY ROAD NO. 2 (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE SOUTH 10'44'47" EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 15.70 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF . THE WEST 408.7 FEET • OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 01'30'54" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 82.61' FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 86'21'32" EAST 292.55 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04'23'15" EAST 126.02 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 280 FEET THEREOF; THENCE NORTH 87'48'48" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE 304.35 FEET TO THE EAST UNE OF THE WEST 408.7 FEET THEREOF;. THENCE NORTH 01'30'54 ". EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 95.49 FEET TO THE. TRUE POINT • OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER. WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT RECORDING NO. _; AND TOGETHER" WITH AND SUBJECT TO A UTILITIES EASEMENT. RECORDING NO PROPMED LEGAL DESCRIPTION (CONT.) LOT 4 'RECORDING' NO; VOL. /PAGE PORTION OF SE -_1./4 of SE _1./4; S._15 T. 23'N., R. 4 _E., W.M. THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE. SOU THEAST • 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST /4 OF SECTION' 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M:, LYING WEST OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST. 1/4 OF. SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48 I EAST. ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 370.58 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'48" WEST 375.00 FEET_ FROM . THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH' UNE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SAID SECTION 'AND ANO THE _WEST .UNE OF THE JAMES CLARK COUNTY ROAD NO.' 2 (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE SOUTH 10'44'47° EAST 106.00 FEET; (THENCE NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 15.70 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 408.7. FEET OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 01'30'54° EAST, ALONG SAID EAST UNE, 82.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86'21'32" EAST 292.55 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH, 86'21'32• EAST. 71.85 FEET TO THE EASTERLY .MARGIN OF MACADAM ROAD SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 08'30'34 °EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 132.99 FEET TO THE THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTH 280 FEET THEREOF ;.: THENCE NORTH 8T48'48' WEST, ALONG .SAID' SOUTH LINE, 82.08. FEET; THENCE NORTH 04'23'15 ". WEST 126.02 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT IF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO AN ACCESS AND UTILITIES EASEMENT RECORDING N0. • AND TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO A UTIUTIES EASEMENT RECORDING NO..' EASEMENT FOR ACCESS AND • UTIUTIES RECORDING NO. THAT•PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET •OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION' 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, .RANGE 4EAST, W.M., 'LYING •WEST..OF MACADAM ROAD . SOUTH, DESCRIBED AS • FOLLOWS:. . THAT 'BEGINNING AT THE • NORTHWEST CORNER• OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 /4•OF THE SOUTHEAST. 1/4 CF •SECTION 15,. TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST. • W.M.; :THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48" EAST,1ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, 370.58 FEET. . TO A POINT WHICH IS NORTH 87'48'48 ". WEST 375.00 .FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF• THE • SOUTH UNE -OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN SAID SECTION 'AND AND THE .WEST LINE. OF THE JAMES - CLARK. COUNTY ROAD NO. 2 (MACADAM .'ROAD SOUTH);:THENCE'SOUTH:10'44'47° EAST 106.00 FEET; "THENCE NORTH 87'04'36'; EAST 15.70' FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE. WEST .408.7 FEET j OF SAID. SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF • SECTION-15; THENCE SOUTH 01'30'54' EAST,' ALONG SAID EAST UNE, $2.61. FEET; THENCE' NORTH 86'21'32" EAST. 204.94 FEET TO ' THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;I THENCE NORTH 0318'28• EAST 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH- 86'21'32" EAST •58.00 FEET TO POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT • WITH A • RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET„ AND ARC OF 31.22 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; • • THENCE -ON• A CURVE TO THE UEFT;WITH. A RADIUS •OF 20.00. FEET, AN ARC OF 15.43 FEET; • THENCE NORTH 86'21'32" EAST '60:23 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID MACADAM ROAD SOUTH; THENCE: SOUTH 08'30'34" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY - MARGIN, 20.07 FEET; • THENCE SOUTH 86'21'32" WEST 43.54 FEET TO •A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A•CURVE 1 TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, AN ARC .OF 31.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH - 04'23'15" .EAST 54.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85'36'45" WEST 20.00 FEET THENCE NORTH - 04'23115" WEST 71.79 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVA1IJRE; THENCE ON A .CURVE .70 THE LEFT WITH A. RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET, AN ARC OF .31.16 FEET; THENCE. SOUTH' 86'21'32" WEST 58.00 FEET. ' NORTH 03'38'28" WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE TRUE •POINT OF BEGINNING. - • `NEW 10 FOOT UTIUTY. EASEMENT. RECORDING NO- . THAT. PORTION OF THE NORTH 280 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE. SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF. SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE. 4 EAST, W.M., LYING WEST OF. MACADAM • ROAD SOUTH, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAL.BEGINNING.AT THE 'NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4. OF. THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE. 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE SOUTH 87'48'48" EAST, ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID..SOU.THEAST,1 /4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4; 370.58 FEET TO A;POINT WHICH IS NORTH' 87'48'48" WEST 375.00 FEET FROM • THE INTERSECTION OF THE • SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 IN' SAID SECTION AND AND THE WEST UNE OF THE 'JAMES CLARK COUNTY ROAD 'NO. 2 (MACADAM ROAD SOUTH); THENCE SOUTH' 10'44'47° EAST 106.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87'04'36" EAST 15.70 FEET. TO' THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 408.7 FEET - OF SAID SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 01'30'54" EAST,( ALONG SAID. EAST ;UNE; 82.61. FEET; THENCE NORTH • 86'21'32" EAST' 204.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0318'28" WEST 10.00 FEET. Td THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING •NORTH' 03'38'28" 'WEST 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86'21'32" EAST • 70.00 FEET. TO.ArPOINT IF CURVATURE; THENCE.ON A'CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A' RADIUS OF: 50.00 FEET, AN ARC OF • 29.15 'FEET TO A .POINT IF REVERSE CURVATURE; :THENCE ON ,A CURVE TO . • THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS 'OF '10.00 FEET, AN ARC OF 5.91 .FEET;• THENCE NORTH 86'21'32" EASTi55.45.FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF MACADAM. ROAD SOUTH; THENCE SOUTH 08'30'34" EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 17.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH.. 86'21.'32° WEST 60.23 FEET • TO A,POINT IF . CURVATURE; THENCE: :ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH •A RADIUS OF 20.00 FEET; AN. ARC .OF 15.43 FEET. TO•A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON'A CURVE TO THE (.EFT WITH A •RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, AN ARC OF 31.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86'21'32" • WEST '58.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF' BEGINNING. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE filed for- record this day of 20 at M in book of at page at the request of r' icy yr c.. -a -4 DAAA.AA LAND ,SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE I, srrC/iOere,- , registered as a land surveyor by .the State, of Washington, certify that, this plot..is bosed on an . actual .survey of the land described herein, conducted by me or under..:myf supervision; that the distances, . courses and. anglei are -shown • thereon correctly; :and ' that rrionurhents: other•than • those monuments•approved. O ate; hove. been set and lot corn d. as ,lnAlnie,l nn to nnln#. SURVEY',FOR: Jeff Foley ond Sharon Mann' • 120 S.W. 194th St. Normandy' Park, Wo w C O SCHROETEROLAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS • P.O. Box 813, Seahurst, Washington' 98062•. (206) 242 -6621 FAX (206)243 -9679 ' DWN: BY. LAW DATE 12/6/06 '. DATE FIELD :6/15/06 JOB NO 490/18 PROJECT NO. 061430. CHKD.: 8Y . revise:: 6/5/08' • SCALE •SHEET 2 OF Page 1 01 1 Foley Short Plat #L07-001 N Cit Copyright © 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained contributor supplied under license and may not be apprcived excel http://maps.digitalmapeentral.com/production/CoreG1S/ver 1 761/index.html 01 /23/2007 14011 Macadam Rd S Copyright 02006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. Water Course = 2 ® 2pipe ® 3 m 3pipe ° 4 ® 4pipe �j Buffer2 Buffer3 ❑ • Buffer4 Wetlands 1 2 3 ❑ Bufferl Buffer2 ❑ Buffer3 Landslide 2 f j Li 0 o 3 ft 4 Transportation 46 Interstates Freeways ,100ft CityGIS Page 1 or 1 Foley Short Plat #L07-001 A NEN N Cit Copyright @ 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained contributor supphed under licerce and may not be approved excet http://maps.digitahnapeentral.com/production/CoreGIS/verl 7611index.html 01/23/2007