Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E08-007 - BALMELLI DAN / BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS - MINKLER OFFICE BUILDINGMINKLER OFFICE BLDG 300 UPLAND DR E08 -007 To: • City ofTukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION Dan Balmelli, PE Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 George Rockwell, Andover Company, Owner 415 Baker Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (checklist and site map attached) Office of Attorney General Duwamish River Clean -up Coalition Office of Archeology Duwamish Indian Tribe King County Assessor Muckleshoot Indian Tribe: King County Transit: Cultural Resources Program SEPA Official Fisheries Program Olympic Pipeline Wildlife Program PROJECT: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Minkler Office Building E08 -007 L08 -027 Dan Balmelli, PE SEPA DNS 300 Upland Drive This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor, 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). SM Page l of 1 H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office\SEPA NODI .DOC 07/28/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206- 431 -3670 Fax: 206 -431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) E08 -007 04/24/2008 07/29/2008 APPROVED Applicant: DAN BALMELLI Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: SEPA for Office building in the TUC. SM Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township /Range: 300 UPLAND DR TUKW 8836500030 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 c.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 S 1 ©R . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. jack P e, Res ib a Official City offkwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Dat Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of actio 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) • Ciz of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E08 -007 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposal is to construct a two- story, approximately 41,468 square foot office building on a vacant, 2.74 acre site. The project includes 170 parking spaces, frontage improvements, and landscaping. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Minkler Office Building Applicant: Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers Location: The site is located at 300 Upland Drive. It is bound on the north by Minkler Boulevard, on the south by Upland Drive, and lies a few hundred feet to the west of Andover Park West. The tax parcel number is 8836500030. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated April 21, 2007. 2. ESA Screening Checklist dated April 22, 2008. 3. Architectural drawings prepared by Synthesis PC, Civil drawings prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., and Landscaping Plans prepared by WBLA Landscape Architecture. SM Page 1 of 6 H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office\E08 -007 Minkler SEPA_SR.doc 07/28/2008 3:39 PM 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 4. Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated April 22, 2008. 5. Geotechnical Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated January 11, 2008. 6. Tukwila land use files L08 -027 (Design Review for Minkler Office Building). NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: (206) 433 -7166. III. REVIEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197 -11 -800. IV. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL The proposal is to construct a two -story, 41,468 square foot office building on an undeveloped site that is a little less than two and one -half acres in size (119,157 square feet). A total of 170 associated parking spaces, landscaping, and frontage improvements along both Minkler Boulevard and Upland Drive are included as part of the current proposal. The project site, within the Tukwila Urban Center (TUC) zone, fronts both Minkler Boulevard and Upland Drive and is a few hundred feet (one parcel) west of Andover Park West. Union Pacific Railroad spurs and associated easements line the north, west, and east sides of the parcel. Currently, the site is a vacant, fairly level, grassy field. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. SM Page 2 of 6 07/28/2008 3:39 PM H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office \E08 -007 Minkler SEPA_SR.doc A. BACKGROUND: 1. Concur with checklist. 2. The applicant is George Rockwell of The Andover Company. Dan Balmelli of Barghausen Consulting Engineers signed the State Environmental Checklist as agent for George Rockwell. 3. The checklist was prepared on April 21, 2008 rather than April 21, 2007 as stated. 4. Concur with checklist. 5 -6. The construction will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and Design Review and after obtaining all required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. 7 -12. Concur with checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -h. - Concur with checklist. 2. Air: a. Concur with checklist. b -c. Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a. Concur with checklist. b. Concur with checklist. c(1). 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. c(2). Best Management Practices must be followed to ensure that no construction debris enters the storm drainage system. All impacts related to construction debris will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. SM Page 3 of 6 07/28/2008 3:39 PM H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office \E08 -007 Minkler SEPA SR.doc d. The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. All impacts associated with drainage will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. 4. Plants: a -d. Concur with checklist. 5. Animals: a -d. Concur with checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c. Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a(1-2). Concur with checklist. b (1). Concur with checklist. b(2 -3). The project must meet City of Tukwila noise ordinance requirements. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts associated with the project. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -1. Concur with checklist. 9. Housing: a -c. Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. The project is subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review and aesthetic impacts will be mitigated as part of that review process. 11. Light and Glare: a -d. Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a. The Green River trail is located one -half mile to the east with access off of Minkler Boulevard. SM Page 4 of 6 H : \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office \E08 -007 Minkler SEPA SR.doc 07/28/2008 3:39 PM b. Concur with checklist. c. In the City's Walk and Roll plan, currently pending adoption, the Union Pacific rail spur along the north and west sides of the property are envisioned as a ped/bike path through the Urban Center. One owner, George Rockwell of the Andover Group, has informally agreed to consider a ped/bike path if these tracks are abandoned. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. Applicant will comply with all local, state, and federal laws in the case that archaeological or paleontological artifacts are encountered. 14. Transportation: a. Site design and access shall be reviewed as part of the design review application process. b. The application incorrectly states that the nearest transit stop is one mile away. The site is within a half a mile of a bus stop serving one route and within a mile of five bus stops and five bus routes. The Sounder Commuter Rail Station is also less than a mile away. c. The number of parking spaces provided shall meet the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.56 Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations. d. Frontage improvements will be required per TMC 11.12. e. Concur with checklist. f -g. The applicant will need to apply for a traffic concurrency certificate. The certificate will determine the amount of traffic mitigation fees required for this project. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 15. Public Services: a -b. Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: a -b. Concur with checklist. SM Page 5 of 6 07/28/2008 3:39 PM H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office \E08 -007 Minkler SEPA_SR.doc VI. COMMENTS: On June 5, 2008, notice was posted on the site and mailed to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project on June 5, 2008. No comments were received during the fourteen day comment period that followed. VII. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -340 a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project. This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist File No. E08 -007, and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Date: July 29, 2008 SM Page 6 of 6 07/28/2008 3:39 PM H: \L08 -027 E08 -007 Minkler Office \E08 -007 Minkler SEPA_SR.doc UP Cif* at guliauta" Dept. Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I,`/� �4 ''' I k 42,)' / HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing , Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non- Significance Project Name: 6_,,r) 66t_, �yfx, 6(.2 Inc) k (e4 Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Mailing requested by: Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Mailer's signature: 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 Other: re j`te /hOz&10,4),,crii ( `X/ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed /attached on thi day of in the year 20 0e/ C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \TERI- S\DESKTOPWFFIDAVITOF D TRIBUL11O 1.DOC v Project Name: 6_,,r) 66t_, �yfx, 6(.2 Inc) k (e4 Project Number: , ` C)() Mailing requested by: 2-6 ifiaZ&11") Mailer's signature: /-m- 7/ 7 /' 41 ,--1 C: \DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS \TERI- S\DESKTOPWFFIDAVITOF D TRIBUL11O 1.DOC • CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION Project Name: Public Hearing Design Review and SEPA Environmental Review for the Minkler Office Building. Dan Balmelli of Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. has filed applications• for development of a new 41,468 sf office building on a 2.47 acre site along with associated clearing and grading, paved parking, landscaping, and site design. The project is located at 300 Upland Drive between Upland Drive and Minkler Boulevard. The site is currently a vacant lot. Permits applied for include: L08 -027, Public Hearing Design Review and E08 -007, SEPA Environmental Review. :FILES :AVAILABLE FOR. PUBLIC REVIEW The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD within fourteen days of this notice to the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., June 19, 2008. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review. You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431 -3670. A decision related to Design Review is made by the Board of Architectural Review and may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council. The Department will provide you with information or appeals if you are interested. For further information on this proposal, contact Stacy MacGregor at (206) 431 -3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Application Filed: 4/24/08 Notice of Completeness Issued: 5/22/08 Notice of Application Issued: 6/05/08 • i1 MINKLER BOULEVARD FREESTANDING SIGN 1 /'4 TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SETBACK cA / • 9 0 1 D ❑21 o ° If1111 II IIII� ny UPLAND DRIVE ®0 SITE PLAN • u -4- BUILDING AREA 41,468 SF 151 FLOOR 21.028 SF 2ND FLOOR 20,440 SF PARKING PRONGED 170 STALLS PARKING RATIO 4.1:1000 SF RECEIVED APR 2 4 M 200g� COMMUNITY OEVELOPME SYNTHESIS PC THE FUSION Or ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN TECHIOLOG, s PEOPLE E 1Y 80.31. 8004 100 0__. WA 86005 4256461818 (80)4256484141 GEORGE ROCKWELL 415 BAKER BLVD, SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98188 REVISIONS 111 it [190 WSW PROFESSIONAL STAMP sn SIAK •98•6101 PROJECT INFORAIATIOIJ MINKLER BLVD OFFICE TUKWILA, WA SHEET II:FORMATION MI. Pia Of,. RENEW 44... SRI PIAN mom . 41.1. wv,w.synlhesispc.com Page 1 of 1 r CityGIS 650ft Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary property of the contributor supplied under license and may not be approved except as licensed by Digital Map Products. http: // maps. digitalmapcentral .com /production/CityGlS /v07 01_036 /indexA.html 05/28/2008 MEMORANDUM www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: July 11, 2008 SUBJECT: Minkler Office Building 300 Upland Drive SEPA, Design Review, and Miscellaneous Comments. SEPA — E08 -007 SEPA meets Public Works requirements. Project to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 11, 2008; and subsequent geotechnical reports /evaluations. Design Review — L08 -027 Design Review meets Public Works requirements. Miscellaneous Comments Verify that proposed North access driveway across railroad track, is permitted by the Railroad. Provide a copy of railroad easements (K.C. recording nos. 7707220771 & 784270035). Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Drainage should be revised as part of future Public Works (or) Building Permit — see redlined plan sheets C2 & C3 of 5 — enclosed. Plan sheets 5 & 6 of 18 (Minkler Boulevard) and plan sheet 1 of 2 (Upland Industries) are enclosed for your information. Provide a completed Traffic Concurrency Certificate Application as part of the future Building Permit — see enclosed. Transportation Impact Fee shall apply to the future Building Permit — see bulletin A3 enclosed. All utilities including power, are required to be underground; per City ordinance. • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number —0 27 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building '• Planning Public Works De P t. Police Dept. _ Parks /Rec Project: � \lRkL D c u�U�yxc Comments Update date: Address: `m UP L ccssb Z\ J2..- prepared by: Date transmitted: 5 -- gi). -(fie Response requested by: (0 -5 -- . ) Staff coordinator: at I\C`i M b- (c c Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: May 22, 2008 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Dan Balmelli Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc 18215 72nd Ave S Kent, WA 98032 Subject: L08 -027 Minkler Office Building Design Review E08 -007 Minkler Office Building SEPA Dear Mr. Balmelli: The Department of Community Development received you applications for a Public Hearing Design Review and SEPA Environmental Review for the property located at 300 Upland Drive. You applications are considered complete as of May 22, 2008 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. As the next step, the City will coordinate the required public notice for your project. Please contact Julie at FastSigns (206- 757 -2110) to prepare your sign. Information was provided with your application. The posting and notice of land use application will occur by June 5, 2008 and continue until the date of your public hearing. Upon posting, the public comment period will start and will continue for fourteen days. SM H:\Minkier NOC.DOC Page 1 05/22/2008 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431 -7166. Sincerely, Stacy ac regor Assistan lanner cc: E08 -007 L08 -027 SM Page 2 05/22/2008 H:\Minkler NOC.DOC RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APR 24 2000 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT comma EY DEVELOPMENT Proposed Minkler Office Building SWC - Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Andover Company, Inc. 415 Baker Boulevard, Suite 200 Tukwila, WA 98188 April 22, 2008 Our Job No. 12961 GHAV i S CO `heir Z CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251 -6222 (425) 251 -8782 FAX Z 2 BRANCH OFFICES • OLYMPIA, WA • TACOMA, WA • SACRAMENTO, CA • TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com tig ENGVN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 — Vicinity Map Figure 3 — Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 — Soils Map 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 12961.002.doc 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The proposed Minkler office building is an approximate 2.78 -acre site located within a portion of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. More particularly the site is bound on the north by Minkler Boulevard, on the south by Upland Drive, and Andover Park West lies a few hundred feet east of the project site. The site is bound on the east and west by existing railroad tracks. Please refer to the attached Figure 2 for the exact location of the project site. The proposal for this development is to clear and grade the existing pastureland and construct parking, drive aisles, sidewalks, and a large office building located in the central portion of the project site. All runoff from the project site will be routed to a wet/detention vault located near the northeast corner of the property, which will then drain to a pump system where it will be pumped into a large diameter pipe located on the north side of Minkler Boulevard, which courses in an easterly direction, ultimately discharging into the P17 Pond as owned by the City of Tukwila and acts as a regional detention and water quality facility. The proposed flow control requirements for this project site are to utilize Level 1 Flow Control with Basic Water Quality as dictated by the City of Tukwila for projects in this location of the City. This is not a redevelopment project since the project site is undeveloped at this time. The entire site consists of grass pasture area. Under developed conditions, the site will consist of 80 percent impervious surfaces with the remaining 20 percent being landscape areas. 12961.002.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT 'ENGINEER'' Project Owner Andover Company, Inc. Address 415 Baker Boulevard, Suite 200 Phone Tukwila, WA 98188 Project Engineer Ali Sadr Company Barghausen Consulting Engineers, In Address /Phone 18215 — 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 / (425) 251 -6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ Short Subdivision ® Grading ❑ Commercial ❑ Other Part 2 PROJECT .LOCATION= AND` DESCRIPTION : - Project Name Proposed Minkler Office Building Location Township 23 North Range 4 East SE '4 Section 26 Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ COE 404 ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ FEMA Floodplain ❑ COE Wetlands ❑ Shoreline Management ❑ Rockery ® Structural Vaults ❑ Other Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Tukwila Drainage Basin Green River -Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑ River ❑ Stream ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Depressions /Swales ❑ Lake ❑ Steep Slopes ❑ Floodplain ❑ Wetlands ❑ Seeps /Springs ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Other 12961.002.doc Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE 0 ❑ Additional Sheets Attached LIMITATION /SITE CONSTRAINT Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION ® Sedimentation Facilities ® Stabilized Construction Entrance ® Perimeter Runoff Control ❑ Clearing and Grading Restrictions ❑ Cover Practices ® Construction Sequence ❑ Other MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION • Stabilize Exposed Surface • Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ❑ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined Channel ® Pipe System ❑ Open Channel ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Wet Pond ❑ Tank ❑ Vault ❑ Energy Dissipater ❑ Wetland ❑ Stream ❑ Infiltration ❑ Depression ❑ Flow Dispersal ❑ Waiver ❑ Regional Detention Method of Analysis KCRTS Compensation/Mitigation of Eliminated Site Storage Level 1 Flow Control Brief Description of System Operation Catch basin collection to pipe conveyance to wet/detention vault to discharge by pump off site. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation 12961.002.doc 'Part 11 . STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ® Cast in Place Vault ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Other Part12 =. EASEMENTS/TRACTS ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Access Easement ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Tract ❑ Other Part 13 .SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER- I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowled a the information provided here is accurate. 0d� Signed/Dated 4/ 131 12961.002.doc dSti,9 _ L .,iv iqi\,••'•> • 4 4;W:7)N • . • FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS Job Number 12981 Sb.et 1 1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES O..igned Drown BDC Checked EMS Approved Q15 Dote 1 23 08 Re:V: \12000s \1796 \ survey \I2961T001.dog Dateirim6. /23/2008 10.35 AN Scale 1..30' JAKE JACOBS Xref. B(OEIVAR•77) Seale: Horizontal l 3O' V. 0coI N/A For: ANDOVER COMPANY, INC. 415 BAKER BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 TUKWILA, WA 98188 ATTN: GEORGE ROCKWELL No. I Doh I By I Civil AP, I Re.lebn 0 2 �w. mC Z A Ojii 0 r� A O • m0 0 O z 0 r;) y' > Zz n Z 0 co C z C rn m D Title: BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SEC. 28, TWP. 23 N., RGE. 4 E., W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING CO., WASHINGTON 1-30' 0 15 30 60 N 01•49•213" E 11.92 roal, Wt.j, , !7* 11-rr•POC-... - — _ •-- At+ PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ..,:.72: 8.0.S: S3 ..,6, ?%■-::...., i: 5.‘ 1 ,• 'Vc1;42,,... 1 ./ /..-,31.rW1.52 ' b 2 .._,„.,....:„: _i, „...v,,,,,, 4_,_ ... ._..,...,,..__ ._ _ , . - IL,1..,_31: ;;,....,.. 7: 77._ _ t., ; 3: ,r,,,,,C us.:1:y:74/,...-F,4,77.8,:woil,_ __.....i_x_. 15.:....wi.7.44_ c...,....,......t ii;?..C.'':7,eRw.1720.. 1 &N., .1,t,....< .),,s, , <1,, ::211.1M1111.1211M MI I NO a II raMilailill AMEBA KM Orrill g bl INI MG NSF Minfit.-§ki_ _ _, •: •,.^ i • . - t OKI 1:0 rn. . .- - a • • ...-:Em.,:e.), i .11•111.111111•11•111111MMEINN:MMO MIN ININIMMAINIMIIIMIIIIIIIMMIINCINIIIBINIIIIIII/1■:!=:Ei-mmINIMINIIIIIMMI I ellIMMICSX111111111•MMIN11111111111111-111111IIMIIIIII IN11.11.1011...ainim NPIIIIIIM51aaMillm:"VENEIIIIIIIIIIIIIF_,ftr....-..- ....____ Ret.“17. '4 --... ... ,..... 4rpV.MI. Nia 7 1- •_VC .^1, . ic ../'---... 011 ili SW ..." . • Oa Mg , , - — ".,": , `, • . 23 -IIIIIIIe.ev,A Ihillt,s:11.1.' ...-------- / , • 5 V.: ' a i - / -- 44 -wt.: w., :. ' -,5 ,,„ te- .- ' • • .q,,,t • .,...A.Z..„Poe.5.5....2.79‘';4- .., ' 3.b ...r ■ er 23.0 ' 22,0 •,,,,, ' t. .2. 1.,- zy 40, -1,st 5:90. .903* '••• -WPM. 7 STORM ORNMOE PUMP STATION 0.,.<1.0003 2,N 0A5,10)0 150 5F OF GRAllED ACCESS / uP < 1.151.011111 %C '3411).:.• I1416=111;;ITIIIIIIIIiii*,0111211.11111.2mgam . '. sieruignewwnewirmarartouliFi- t INT 17 1 lilt Illi ., 111 .54 ) 0 • - ::;:E7 oUP. (LA:A) 8099 D.R(mtAi N 875.5.04. W -----rf.7 , •• ,... i It1-7-----‘7----- - - Carr STO NI ..] ''. 'TWAY PER I 1 ,m'y.," k s:,< ,.. :: : ,',i.f,, *'.,,.i •:: ,r,+ S . ..X:.4 f ., ...... ..P-..F<,,:q-.' - ...... I .....---- A•Ar,4 5 11 11 / il - ToBE lAt .- • : 11.4 : , 11 - ...- ,t4 ACCESS R.900 (ToICAL) o ,144. • 110 )0)0 I •"6-r J N 01•39•57. E 2325. 413 56' 112'436 WIDE STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION/WATER QUALITY VALIL TOP VAULT EL 22.2 MIN-24.0 MAX. MAX. W.S. EL - 19.0 STATIC W.S. EL = 12.0 BOTTOM VAULT a = 7.0 DETENTION VOLUME PROVIDED - 33.000 CF WATER QUALITY VOLUME PROVIDED 17,600 CF SITE AREA 2.7 AC.± ESTIMATED DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED 32,400CF ESTIMATED WATER QUALITY VOLUME REWIRED A. 1 .600CF W.A. 01 1156 Oevalaitieof z • z o a- ▪ LLJ 0 0 g cc • a g MINKLER OFFICE BUILDING o a 0 cv z :33 • c7.3 < t 0 O r- co cc M 0 < 0 fj - cc a�.JO 11-1 W NZ 0 0 < - • tr' < ij Cs1 ,#,I#uu, #I Xr.t: s(GENAR,n) d. 00 LT, -t .a cA 1;04 wo Map Unit Legend Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Map 24.8 100.0% Job No. 12961 King County Area Washington (WA633) -Mai) Unit Symbol Map Unit Name .Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Ur Urban land 24.8 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Map 24.8 100.0% Job No. 12961 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Eight Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: The site will drain to the north into a large diameter culvert which is 66 inches in diameter coursing in an easterly direction ultimately discharging into the City of Tukwila's P17 Pond. The site drains to this pond under existing conditions without detention; therefore, this project site will discharge at the natural location. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -Site Analysis. Response: No off -site analysis is required for this project site as the City is well aware of the downstream conveyance system from this project site, and knows that it drains into the City of Tukwila's P17 Pond. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: As dictated by the City of Tukwila, Level 1 Flow Control is the requirement for this project site. This is the least restrictive flow control standard that still provides a level of flow control over and above older methodologies utilized in the past by King County and the City of Tukwila. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: This project will provide a conveyance analysis based on the 1998 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) as adopted by the City of Tukwila such that an initial time of concentration of 6.3 minutes will be utilized in the Modified Rational Method, a Manning's "n" value of 0.014, and a 100 -year precipitation rate, to determine a very conservative design for pipe conveyance calculations since this project site is less than 10 acres in size. Core Requirement No. 5: Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: This project will concur with all erosion and sediment control requirements of the City of Tukwila as delineated in the 1998 KCSWDM such that clearing limits will be specified, a rock construction entrance will be instituted, the construction sequence will be followed, perimeter protection in the form of silt fences will be installed, and drainage from clearing and grading areas will be routed to temporary V- ditches with rock checkdams ultimately discharging to a sediment pond prior to discharge from the project site. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: This project will concur with all maintenance and operations requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. 12961.002.doc Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: This will concur with all financial guarantees and liability requirements of the City of Tukwila for projects of this nature. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: As dictated by the City of Tukwila, this project will provide Basic Water Quality in accordance with the 1998 KCSWDM as adopted by the City of Tukwila such that, for this project site, a basic wet vault is proposed located below the live storage in a wet/detention vault sized in accordance with the Basic Water Quality Menu. 2.2 Analysis of the Five Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area - Specific Requirements. Response: This project site is not in a critical drainage area or an area with a master drainage plan, basin plan, lake management plan, or shared facility drainage plan. Therefore, the requirements of this Special Requirement do not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Development Within a Floodplain or Floodway. Response: This project does not contain, nor is it adjacent to a stream, lake, wetland, or closed depression. Therefore, no flood hazards are applicable to this project site. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: The threshold of this requirement is not met; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: Since this project is a commercial site, then the project must provide water quality source controls applicable to the proposed project in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual and King County Code Section 9.12. At a minimum, the trash enclosures will be covered and the owner of the property will be educated about the minimal use of pesticides and fertilizers. In addition, the parking lot will be swept regularly to minimize the amount of pollutants being discharged from the project site. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This project site does not have high use site characteristics nor is it a redevelopment project proposing $100,000 or more of improvements to the existing high use site. Therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. 12961.002.doc 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS An off -site analysis has not been prepared for this project site as the City is well aware of the downstream drainage course from this site, which is by a large diameter culvert and open ditch flowing in an easterly direction toward the City of Tukwila's P17 Pond located adjacent to the Green River, approximately 1 mile from the project site. The existing culvert this project site discharges to is 66 -inch diameter and has been sized to include runoff from this project site. In addition, impacts to this culvert and conveyance system should be minimal since this project site is proposing flow control facilities. There is no upstream basin contributing runoff to this project site as the site is higher than the surrounding ground under developed conditions. 12961.002.doc Parcel Map and i' ata 9077 9076 9143 —'9081 9080 9015 9123 ..v_... -... 9094 — . y} !! I 9124 9115 9117 Tu oll 9142 9o7s 1AI1J t�_tiL I) _ -1 I 9110 90791 {C)2.1,.ngCamry (iii 0050 (fy� E 0,11 ,9102 0030 SITErr L— 0070 0100 990989083 8836502030 ow 9122 Y z �r 9121 n ¢ 0110 1 ; J9118 d f _ t , 9053 t ootL0f9091 9019 ' 9106 ~- Parcel Number 8836500030 Address Zipcode Taxpayer ROFFE INC The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of King County .° King County 1 GIS Center News 1 Services 1 Comments 1 Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details, (Assessor's Map [Job No. 12961 >srifM A. Sensitive Areas Map Job No. 12961 ► '1 Highlighted Feature County Boundary X Mountain Peaks CAO Shoreline Condition ✓ Hi>,t Ffi Medium • LoW Highways A/ Incorporated Area Streets Legend lY ' Class .. • Und i: Lakes and Large Rivers � N` Streams Floodway 100 Year Floodplain SAO Wetland SAO Landslide SAO Coal Mine SAO Seismic r/ •••I MUNI Higfroory }tx SAO Erosion 64:2/.." Anar&is ■ Sensitive Area Notice on Title h: ' Local ci Drainage Complaints • Parcels Areas Susceptible to SAO Stream Groundwater Contamination Class 'I ail Class 2 Pme,trti1 4/ Cis 2 Salnio ud I (cont) Low Medium CAO Basin Condition Hit podium Low Shaded Relief .The,informatiominciuded on this map has been compiled'by_King'County;staff from a, variety; sources. and•is.subject to`change without'notice: King. County makes no representationsor.wanantles; express.or implied, as to accuracy „completeness, timeliness, or tights to the use of, such :informatlon: This document is not intended for use as asurveyproduct. King;County shall,notbe.tiable for:any general ,special„ indirect:;incldental; orconseduential damages including; butnotlimited to,: ostrevenues.or Iostprofits•resultmg from the use or misuse of the information.contained on this map: Any sale of this map or informatlonon this map is- prohibited except by written permission of King County =” • .• • Date: 4122/2008. . Source >King County IMAP :7 Sensitive Areas ( httpihvww .metrokc.gov /GIS%iMAP).... FEMA Map Job No. 12961 lff i #� ! 11 }Ili i 1] Ili fs •;' 1 11 e1 � #� i1 2 °Bi ;I ;ix !!'.11 it ! 4 11 J1 R 11!fl 1 IUD 111 1111111 i II 1!I !rj !1111 x,111 2 1 / ` � l' WEW ill 11! 14� Iif# ,1 ij1lit Ell! lip # al i RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 24 LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN JUNE 1937 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan. District Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North._ District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arne Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, -Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly. Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Deanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bender, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Bverly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS [. SUMMARY 1 [I. INTRODUCTION 1 [[I. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 4 C. Specific Problems 4 1. Erosion damage 5 2. Threat of landsliding 5 3. Sedimentation 5 4. Destruction of fish habitat 5 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 6 A. Prevent accelerated erosion and landsliding 6 B. Improve habitat 7 V. MAP 9 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Rankine APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations A -1 B -1 C -1 1. SUMMARY The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between thr cities of Tukwila and Auburn. The study area considered here includes the unincorporated areas of the basin. which can be roughly separated into northern and southern portions that are divided by the Lower Green River. The two portions are distinctly different in their development patterns, with the northern area dominated by the commercial development of South Center shopping mall, two major interstate freeways, and light industrial activities. En the southern portion, single - family residential land uses dominate. Urbanization processes in this basin are expected to continue, with impervious surfaces in some areas expanding as much as five times their present levels. As might be expected in a basin so heavily urbanized, there are numerous environmental problems. The basin contains many sensitive areas, particularly along the steep slopes of tributary valley walls that are susceptible to erosion and landsliding. Stormfiows, which have increased as the basin has been developed, have caused gullying, landsliding, and other damage along many steep slopes. These problems have also increased sedimentation downstream. Flooding has occurred in some places as both natural and artificial conveyance systems have become clogged with sediment. Worst -case examples of erosion were found at the Kent Highlands landfill, adjacent to King County's Grand View Park, where storm flows have caused erosion of the landfill material. Sediments and chemicals from decomposing trash have washed into the stream system. Flooding potential was found on Tributary 0068 at two locations. Fish habitat losses were significant in the northern portion of the basin, with one of the worst examples located on Tributary 0036. Recommended solutions in the Lower Green River Basin include 1) preventing further erosion and landsliding by using both natural and artificial retention /detention (R /D), prohibiting certain harmful development practices (such as routing storm flows over steep slopes), and revegetating streambanks; and 2) improving habitat in the basin by preventing the further deterioration of water quality, protecting riparian corridors, and reestablishing streams and streambanks, where feasible. II. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important element of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage conditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They P:LGR 1 are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County officials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site - specific basis for any proposal. III. FINDINGS IN LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN The field investigation in the Lower Green River Basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner, Arny Stonkus, engineer, and Lee Benda, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented in the following discussion. A. Overview of the Basin Geographic and land use features. The Lower Green River Basin is located in southern King County between the cities of Tukwila on the north and Auburn on the south. Parts of the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn lie within the basin, which is divided into two portions. The southern portion lies east of the Green River between the cities of Kent and Auburn; the northern portion lies west of the Green River between the Kent -Des Moines Road and State Road (SR) 518. The southern portion of the basin, which includes large residential and commercial areas within the city of Auburn, was not included in the study area. The areas that were studied - -the unincorporated parts of this southern portion of the basin -- are primarily contained in the Soos Creek Community Planning Area. Single - family residential land use dominates in this area, although small farms also occupy sizable acreages. The effects of future development may be dramatic, as some subcatchments are projected to expand in impervious surfaces to as much as five times their current levels. This development will be mainly single- family residential, interspersed with some multi - family units. The northern portion of the basin is dominated by the commercial areas of the South Center shopping mall, its surrounding commercial and light- industrial land uses, three major arterials (Interstates 5 [I -5j and 405 [I -405] and Pacific Highway south), and the shopping district north of Seattle- Tacoma (Sea -Tac) International Airport. Single- family residences greatly outnumber multi- family units in this portion of the basin, which is contained in the Highline and Green River Community Planning Areas. Future growth in this northern portion will consist of commercial and multi - family land uses, including the conversion of some areas presently zoned single- family to denser zoning classifications. Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The composition of the geologic materials in the Lower Green River valley is dominated by glacial sediments. The glacial sediments include an extensive till laver that is located at the top of the valley scarp. Deposits of recessional outwash sand and other glacio - fluvial sands, are locally P:LGR interspersed on top of the till deposits and along the edges of the valley. The valley bottom is made up of more recent alluvial sand and silt deposited by the Green and White Rivers before diversion of the White into the Puyallup River in 1906. The wide floodplain through which the Green River used to meander (before it was diked) is composed of deep floodplain, channel, and Iacustrine sediments up to 100 feet thick. There are a few outcrops of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Puget Group in the basin. The morphology of the Lower Green River basin is dominated by the valley that was formed by the Green and White Rivers prior to the most recent glacial advances. The east and west valley walls were cut by numerous minor tributaries originating in the uplands above the valley escarpment. These tributaries formed steep -sided valleys and alluvial -debris fans at the mouths of the basins. Along the tributaries, landslides and slumps play an active role in maintaining the steep, hummocky valley walls. Historically. the Green and White Rivers meandered through the extensive floodplain located between the valley walls. The White River was diverted south to the Puyallup River; the Green has been straightened, diked, and cleaned of organic and inorganic debris, such as trees and boulders. This essentially isolates the river from its natural floodplain and reduces its present role as a geomorphic agent along the valley floor and walls. The upland areas of the basin have a general morphology indicative of glacial abrasion, deposition, and more recent fluvial erosion caused by minor tributaries. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. The Lower Green River Basin is composed of numerous smaller subbasins which are significantly different from each other in their drainage characteristics. The subbasins are mostly urbanized in the northern and rural in the southern portions of the basin where flows enter the Green River via relatively natural stream channels. Alterations in natural stream corridors occur at or near either the Lower Green River itself or at [ -5 culvert crossings. Whereas most subbasins studied exhibited serious effects from urbanization, many were in relatively good condition and /or might be potential sites for stream restoration projects. A number of wetlands in the southern section of the basin and a few small lakes scattered throughout the basin help to mitigate some of the effects of peak flows and excess volumes generated from urbanization. Tributaries flowing from the northern side of the basin into the Lower Green River are highly urbanized drainages which are in need of R/D facilities to reduce the present and anticipated runoff associated with expanses of impervious areas. The rural southern drainages are slated for the greatest increases in impervious surface due to proposed developments, and are in need of regional R /D/ facilities. Habitat characteristics. The habitat conditions in the streams of the Lower Green River Basin vary considerably. In the northern portion of the basin habitat has been almost completely destroyed; in the southern portion, there are reaches which have been damaged but might be restored to use by fish and other wildlife. At present, there are no tributaries in this basin which support anadromous fish. Commercial development in the northern portion of the basin has severely altered streams and riparian corridors. The clearing and filling of land, construction of buildings, and roadways and piping and diking of streams have eliminated spawning gravel, and other natural features necessary for fish use. In addition, the extensive acres of impervious surfaces associated with intense commercial development have greatly increased the volumes and rates of storm runoff, thereby eroding and destroying those P:LGR 3 few remaining natural reaches downstream in the northern portion. Complicating these conditions even further are the flap gates placed along the main stem of the Green River at most points where tributaries enter; these structures would effectively prevent any fish from entering the streams. The southern portion of the basin experiences many of the same habitat problems as the northern portion, however to a lesser extent. This problems could worsen as residential development expands these next few years. Without specific efforts to protect the environment, habitat will be lost in the southern portion of the Lower Green River Basin, as it has been in the northern portion. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin As in many other rapidly growing basins in the County, the Lower Green River Basin suffers from increased rates and volumes of runoff generated by the impervious surfaces of roofs, roads, and parking lots. When this runoff flows into natural channels, it causes erosion, scour, and downstream sedimentation. Sedimentation fills spawning gravels and pools, eliminates fish habitat; limits channel capacity, and creates the conditions for bank overtopping and flooding. Surface water originating on pavement incorporates greases, oils and other toxic hydrocarbons associated with urban areas. The stormwater that enters drainage ditches flows at an even faster rate than in natural channels, thereby magnifying the damage it can cause. The damages caused by increased runoff in urban areas such as the Lower Green River Basin might be less severe if wetlands, floodplains, and other natural features had been left intact to attenuate and filter the flows. These elements for the most part have disappeared with development. While development has been accompanied by the installation of artificial conveyance and R/D systems, these have often been undersized, poorly designed and installed, or otherwise inadequate to handle the cumulative effects of runoff from new development. For example, the lower portions of Tributaries 0061, 0068, and 0069 were found to contain particularly serious damage in the form of erosion, scour, sedimentation and the elimination of vegetation from streambanks and corridors. Flooding in these tributaries seems to have increased, in part, from the use of undersized drainage pipes. This problem is repeated along the lower reaches of Tributaries 0036A, 0036B, 0036C, and 0038, where flows have have been piped on their approach to I -S or the Lower Green River. Several extreme cases of erosion - incised channels, and landslides -- in part resulting from flows diverted from their natural drainage course and passing through King County Grandview Park -- were noted on the Kent Highlands landfill area. The destruction of pre - existing tightlined conveyance systems has caused surface water at this location to flow unchecked over the unconsolidated former gravel pit slopes and natural hillstopes. Erosion in this case will also cause water quality deterioration, as toxicants from deteriorating garbage and sediments eventually enter the Lower Green River. C. Specific Problems Identified Problems -- both existing and anticipated -- in the Lower Green River Valley are clearly development - related. Earlier descriptions of the basin and the effects of urbanization pointed out these problems in a general way. Specific details of the most serious problems identified during reconnaissance are provided below. 1. Erosion is damaging both public and private property in the Lower Green River Basin. The majority of the erosion problems in the basin are P:LGR 4 associated with the steep slopes within the small tributary valleys and along the major valley walls. a. Gully erosion is occurring adjacent to King County's Grandview Park, where the routing of concentrated storm flows over the steep hillslopcs could cause even more serious mass - wasting. Such intense gullying is also occurring in the glacio - fluvial sand adjacent to the Kent Highlands landfill, a situation requiring immediate solution. b. Channel and bank erosion from high peak flows is occuring along many tributaries, particularly those with narrow, relatively steep sides. On Tributary 0016 (RM. 10) and Tributary 0069 (RM. 50) there are examples of this type of erosion. 2. Landsliiding is both a present and future threat on steep valley walls. The removal of vegetation, as well as the routing of stormwater along steep slopes (see also 1.a. above), may result in landslides. Many of the valley walls show evidence of historic landslide activity, such as scarps, tilled blocks, chaotic terrain, and tilted trees. A portion of land along the valley wall in the landslide terrain has been put up for sale at S 312th St. and 104th Ave. SE. This area should be assessed for its stability prior to development and all regulatory safeguards (statutory and other regulations) should be used to prevent Iandsliding. 3. Sedimentation accompanies the kind of erosion processes discussed above. For instance sediment is filling the stream channel on Tributary 0068 at river miles .30 and .60. This is reducing channel capacity (increasing the possibility of flooding at these locations), as well as degrading fish habitat and water quality. Severe sedimentation in the lower portion of Tributary 0069, where a sediment fan presents a potential barrier to fish. 4. Fish habitat has been destroyed by utbanization throughout the basin, particularly in the northern portion. a. The elimination of habitat features from streambeds and riparian corridors has made most of the basin's tributaries unusable for fish. As discussed in III.A. above, stream channels have been severely altered in the Lower Green River Basin. As a result, large organic debris, pools. gravels, and other elements of godd instream habitat have disappeared. One of the worst cases was found on Tributary 0036, along the north side of SR 518 near 42nd Avenue S. b. Poor water quality is caused by three separate problems in this basin. First, streams are contaminated by the domestic garbage dumped directly into streambeds and ravines. Second, streams are being adversely affected by the accelerated erosion in the Kent Highlands landfill. Sediment from the landfill is being carried downstream, polluting water and eroding banks along the way. The latter is expected to continue and worsen, if not addressed. Third, greases, oils, and toxic hydro - carbons from highways, parking lots, and commercial areas around South Center are degrading water quality. [V. RECOMMENDATIONS The solutions proposed for this basin focus on eliminating damage to the natural drainage system, restoring natural drainage conditions where possible. and preventing further damage P:LGR 5 throughout the basin as the urbanization process continues. In most cases these solutions will require the cooperation of local government and other, interested agencies. At the present time such arrangements already exist among the King County Surface Water Managment Division; the cities of Tukwila, Kent, and Auburn; and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The purpose of these arrangements is to identify and propose solutions to hydraulic and habitat problems in the basin and to develop cost - sharing agreements where capital improvements are required. These efforts should continue, and similar joint work should be undertaken among other interested agencies, as appropriate. A. Prevent further accelerated erosion and landsliding in the Lower Green River Basin, where possible. Erosion is the source of many other problems discussed in this and other basins reports. By reducing erosion and landslide problems, sedimentation will also be minimized in the both natural and artificial conveyance systems. When sedimentation is reduced flooding problems will be reduced throughout the basin. The steps toward erosion control are listed below. 1. Preserve wetlands for their R/D values, and for the valuable roles they play in enhancing water quality (through filtration) and providing fish and wildlife habitat. Natural R/D facilities, such as wetlands help to attenuate storm flows and prevent accelerated erosion in downstream areas susceptible to erosion damage. The southern portion of the basin contains several wetlands that serve as natural R/D areas. 2. Promote infiltration of excess surface water in upland areas where geologic analysis indicates it will not cause landsliding and other similar problems. Groundwater contaimination should also be considered in this analysis. 3. Preserve vegetation along steep slopes by establishing native growth protection easements, and appropriate building setbacks, and prohibiting vegetation removal. Protected vegetation should include trees as well as shrubs and groundcover. 4. Prohibit the concentration of sormflows over steep slopes. Require that stormflows be attenuated from above with adequate R /D, tightlined or diverted to stable channels. The drainage and erosion problem adjacent to King County's Grandview Park should receive immediate attention to alleviate the severe gully erosion that is presently occurring. S. Prohibit construction along steep slopes identified as landslide hazard areas in the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). In addition, strengthen the criteria used by Building and Land Development to review development proposals in landslide hazard areas_below valley walls. More restrictive criteria will minimize the potential for property damage for property damage caused by erosion and landsliding in the basin. 6. Prevent instream and bank erosion caused by livestock by limiting their access to stream channels. This will preserve streambank vegetation and eliminate the trampling of banks (a direct source of sedimentation). This is particularly important along the Green River, where livestock are presently causing damage. P:LGR 6 7_ Construct or upgrade R/D facilities to assure adequacy to contain both current and anticipated stormwater flows a. Tributary channels currently experiencing channel and hank erosion (e.g.. 0061 and 0069) should be analyzed immediately for their R/D needs. Future developments should be reviewed using criteria that require R; D provisions to maintain stormwater runoff at the level necessary to prevent adverse impacts such as erosion. b. Upgrade the existing earthern berm and R/D pond on Tributary 0036D at collection point 7 (47th Avenue S and S 173rd) and add energy dissipators for outflow from the pond. This will improve the overall function of the facility. 8. Replace undersized conveyance pipes, where necessary. Analyze the adequacy of pipes at key locations in all areas where development has occurred or is planned. Review natural capacities as part of this assessment for stormwater conveyance. B. Improve habitat in the Lower Green River Basin stream system where practicable. 1. Prevent the deterioration of water quality from the toxicants of road and parking lot runoff, from domestic trash (including erosion at the Kent Highlands landfill), and from sedimentation. a. Construct an R/D facility on Tributary 0069 adjacent to Wetland 3226 to provide 3 acre -feet of storage. The facility will intercept drainage from roadside ditches on Southeast 312th Street and cleanse it by means of an oil /water separator. b. Increase enforcement of regulations against the dumping of domestic garbage into ravines and stream channels. Garbage not only degrades water quality as it deteriorates, but it creates fish blockages in tributaries (e.g.. Trib. 0069 at RM .65). c. See A.4. above, regarding the attenuation of stormflows near Kent Highlands landfill and Grandview Park. Preventing severe erosion at these locations will also decrease the washing of chemicals and sediments from the landfill (adjacent to the Grandview Park) into the stream system. 2. Protect against further destruction to channels and riparian corridors in order to preserve the essential features of fish habitat. a. See A.2., 3. and 6. above for recommendations related to the protection of these resources. b. Establish stream - corridor guidelines to prohibit clearing, filling and building within riparian corridors. All streams in the basin would benefit from these guidelines. 3. Reestablish stream and streamside habitat in the northern portion of the basin where these elements have already been severely altered. These restoration efforts should occur during development (or redevelopment) of a site. Opportunities for restoration presently exist on Tributaries 0036A, 0036B, 0036D, and 0038. P:LGR 7 i 5,: Riverton f leigt sr LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN (North Section) Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary 02 Collection Point Stream 0038 Tributary Number •3205 Proposed Project )ft rr N 4- July. 1987 LEA HILL SE 310 3201 313 I Auburn E 83 r. URL.EN RIVER SE 127 31 F -lam; GREEN 3r 23 51 52 APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECI'S LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN NOTE: Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. Project Collect. Number Point • Project Description 3201* 18 Construct R/D facility. with 3.0 acre -ft. of storage adjacent to upper end of Wetland 3226. Intcrceptthe roadside runoff on SE 312th so that it will be retained in the upper wetland. Further biological assessment is needed to assure this project does not decrease habitat values. 3204 15 Construct R/D facility on Trib.0061 at RM 1.25 which would have a capacity of approx. 3.7 acre ft. 3205* Install a control structure and excavate two existing stream channels to provide 2.5 acre -ft. of storage ('1'rib. 003613, 0036C). Problem Addressed Decreases potential downstream flooding and improves water quality. Estimated Costs and Comments $99,000 (subject to right of way acquisitions). Lessen impact on downstream riparian habi- $160,000 tat. Provides storage for runoff from (dependent on land future development. acquisitions). Eliminates channel scouring, road erosion and potential downstream flooding P:LGR.APA A-1 $85,000 (Dependent on right -of- way acquisitions) APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN A total of three sites had been proposed for Surface Water Management (SWM) projects prior to the field reconnaissance of the Lower Green River Basin. One project remains proposed as iden- tified, one project has been changed to an R/D facility, one R/D facility has been added, and one proposed R/D facility has been eliminated by the consensus of the field team because it is located in the wetland serving as the city of Kent's water supply. The previous SWM project list for the Lower Green River Basin had an estimated cost of 5700.000, compared to a revised figure of 5344,000 for the remaining three projects. The revised costs are a result of lower estimates for right -of -way acquisitions. These projects are listed in the table below, which summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed projects in the basin. These projects were rated according to criteria set forth by the SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee. The first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO /NO GO," could be answered affirmatively for the projects below. These projects can now be considered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any projects scoring more than 100 points should be considered for incorporation into the six -year CIP plans. Project No. Score Rank No. Cost 3201* 103 1 S 99,000 3205* 73 2 85.000 3204 60 3 160.000 TOTAL 5344,000 Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management prior to reconnaissance. P:CLGAPB /mlm B -1 APPENDIX C • DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LOWER GREEN RIVER BASIN ° All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning. Trih. & Collect. Existing Item' River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 1 Section 15 12 Geology & 1 lydrology 0001 RM .29 -.30 16 Geology 3 (1001 20 Geology RM .31 4 0001 20 Geology RM 30.60 Runoff from Kent I•lighlands landfill and sub -basin tributary to King County Grandview Park is causing extensive gullying and steep - walled valleys. Presents a potential hazard. Extensive sedimen- tation is resulting from erosion. Lower portion of channel is experiencing channel and hank erosion. A very large gully (small valley) is developing due to discharging con- centrated flow on steep slopes. Landslide area is posted for sale. P:L(iAPC /mlm C -1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued extensive erosion. Fill material will continue to scour away because of lack of compaction. Considerable volumes of fill (contributing to poor water quality) will still he conveyed. Uncontrolled runoff is the Cause. Increasing erosion with in- creasing flows in the basin. Continued erosion; may be a public hazard due to 30' vertical walls. Possible hazards associated with development could occur. Recommendations Tightline runoff down to valley floor in a safe, nonerosive manner. Plan and develop adequate regional R/D facilities in the basin. Determine whether existing facilities should he upgraded for greater control of flows and storage. 'I'ightline drainage to (ircen River. Perform critical predev:lopmcnt review. = .— Trib. • Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project Conditions and Problems 5 0001 20 Geology RM 31.00 6 0036A 9 Ilabitat RM .80 7 003613 8 003613 9 003613 10 003613 4 Ilydrology 3205 4 Habitat 4 1 lydrology 4 Geology Large gully (small valley) formed by development - related drainage. Wash water from Segale truck center flowing under Prager Rd. contains oil film and quantities of algae, Backwater in channel appeared to he caused by defective riser control. Low- gradient stream chan- nels on Tribs. 003613 and 0036C. Floodplain approxi- mately 25' wide. Stream corridor and in- stream habitat both heavi- ly impacted by erosive storm flows, clearing, and sedimentation. Manhole inlet with trash rack next to new extensive roadfill. Damaged inflow pipes into manhole control structure. Channel is experiencing channel and hank erosion. Cause is probably high flows. P:I.GAPC /mlm C= 2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Continued erosion. Same. If no upstream R/D exists, then water may back up during storms. Riser replacement may eliminate this problem. Further deterioration of the stream system. Roadfill embankment will continue to erode. Lrosion will continue. Recommendations '1'ightlinc drainage. Install and maintain a wastewater treatment facility before releasing water to ditch and ultimately the Careen River. Excavate and install control struc- ture for an R/D pond. This system needs R/D to lessen impacts on the system from urban runoff. - Locate control al intersection of Prigs. 36B and 36C. - Reduce existing storm flows. - Restrict future development to release runoff at nonerosive rates. - Require setbacks from tops of ravines. - Repair and replace pipes in manhole structure. - Stabilize roadfill. Build upstream RP) facility. Trib. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Project 11 0036D 12 0061 RM .00 -1.40 13 0061 I2M .01 -.15 14 0061 RM .02 7 I 1 yd rology 14,15 Habitat Geology 14 Ilydrology Conditions and Problems R/D berm has collapsed. Severe instream erosion above and below the faci- lity. Sedimentation and erosion in lower reach by farm adjacent to the Green River. Middle reaches have nice pools and riffles. Four waterfalls up to 10' high keep this from being an anadromous stream. Stream ravine is steep and mostly vege- tated. Best trout stream habitat in the basin. Bank erosion and sedimen- tation in channel located on private property at mouth of basin. Erosion is limited to this sec- tion. Cause of this ero- sion is not certain. Scouring, bank erosion, channel erosion, sediment build up in stream. The channel capacity is too small for the flows pre- sently generated. 1':I .GAPC /mIm C-3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Instream erosion will con- tinue. No energy dissipation from Drisco pipe above berm area. Sediment build up from erosion will migrate downstream. Future development could create up to four times the current amount of impervious surface. This could fill pools with sediment and destabilize the large organic debris in stream. Possibly continued erosion with increased development in the basin. Degradation of riparian corridor will continue. Erosion will continue. Recommendations - Stabilize and upgrade earthen berm. - Provide energy dissi pat ors for Drisco pipe outflow. - Establish a stream corridor pro- tecting the stream and adjacent ravine sidcslopes from clearing. - Future development should release stormwatcr at nonerosivc rates. - Develop adequate R /D for the basin to prevent erosion. - Reestablish the channel floodplain at the mouth of the basin. Use onsite infiltration ti) the maxi- mum extent posxihle for new const ruct ion. Trite. & Collect. Proposed Existing Item River Mile Point Category Pro'cct 15 0061 15 Ilydrology 3204 RM 1.25 16 0061 14 Ilydrology RM 1.50 17 0068 17 RM .25 -.35 Ilabitat 18 0068 17 Ilydrology RM .25 19 0068 17 RM .30 P:I.C;APC /mlm habitat Conditions and Prohlems Stream segment meanders with little change in ele- vation. Erosion and down - cutting exist in lower segments of stream. Existing outlet of Wetland 3224. Floods over existing gravel road. This wetland is owned by the city of Kent as a water supply source (approx. 86 acres). Nice - looking stream with few pools. Good stream - side cover and instream stabil -ity. Lots of benthic organisms. No fish observed. Outfall has instream ero- sion taking place. Large fill of combustible and construction debris on Icft hank. Fill is unstable and sliding downhill toward stream. (' -4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems No change in existing con- ditions. Impact on downstream areas will con- tinue. Increased flows and flood frequency due to develop- ment. Use as a well field for water supply. Further instream instability from future. development storm runoff. l'robable vegetation clearing in stream corridor from development. Erosion of stream channel/ bank, if flows continue unchecked. Ilealth and water quality hazard. Recommendations Construct an R/D facility with 3.7 ac /ft. of storage to mitigate downstream problems. Develop an interlocal agreement to examine the possibility of using part of the wetland for a regional It /D facility. - Establish and enforce stream corri- dor guidelines. - Future development should release stormwaters at non - erosive rates. Subcatchment 17 should use onsitc R/D and infiltration systems to the maxi- mum extent possible for control of peak flows, - 13A1..D grading and filling section has been contacted. - Stabilize and revegetate slope down to stream. - Prohibit filling in stream ravine. Stream becomes eroded from road ditch flows above 108th Ave. SE. Fill occurring adjacent to stream in SW corner of SL 299th St. and 108th Ave. SE. Minimal fish habitat potential in this stream. Access to stream is open to Green River, hut stream is heavily impacted by runoff. This is causing sedimen- tation of the channel in lower portion, erosion and garbage in mid- section, and ditches by trailer park in upper section. High frequency of bank erosion, some small streamside landslides associated with bank ero- sion. Sedimentation resulting from channel and bank erosion described above, Sedimentation is occurring over a large area and may threaten private property. C -5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems More erosion and possible flooding due to fill in the stream corridor.` Subcatchment projected to quadruple in amount of impervious surface. The suhcatchment is pro- jected to expand in imper- vious surface five times that in 1985. All problems exhibited in 1987 will pro- bably get worse. As development increases in the basins, erosion will increase. Sedimentation will increase with continued development in the basin. Recommendations No obvious regional R/D sites, so onsitc R/D will he critical in this subcatchn ent. Release rates of stormwaler should he at nonerosive levels. Assess the fish - habitat potential of this stream before doing any habitat projects. Reducing existing and future storm runoff will he key to maintenance of a good stream. Releasing stormwater runoff at nonerosive rates would help accomplish this goal. Plan and develop adequate R/D as population and development .increase in the basin. Same as RM .10 -.00. Also construct sediment detention ponds at the mouth of the stream. l rib. & Collect. Proposed Item River Mile Point Category Pro'ect 24 0069 18 Uydrology RM .10 25 0069 18 RM .65 26 0069 18 RM ,90 -1.I0 I labitat Ilydrology 3201 Existing Conditions and Problems Undersized pipe for existing flows. Evidence of debris from backwater. Garbage pushed over ravine embankment is blocking stream. Presents fish blockage and is visually very unpleasant. Wetland 3226 is hissected by SE 312th St. Flows into the northern wetland are blocked due to non- functional culvert on opposite side of SE •12th. This has caused the asphalt road to begin to fail from saturation and • standing water. Wetland 3226 contains a wide variety of trees. P:I.GAPC /mlm C-6 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Increase in flows from development in upper catch- ment. Instream erosion and headwall erosion will result. Possible water quality problem and further fish blockage. Potential road failure of SE 312th St. Continued impact on northern portion of Wetland 3226 if road- side ditch flow is not curtailed. Introduction of petroleum by-products into wetland system. Recommendations Increase the capacity of the existing pipe system. Consider project to remove garbage to allow fish, passage without further destabilization of the strcambed. - Construct an R/D facility on the southern portion of Wetland 3226. - Intercept the roadside flows on SE 312th to southern portion of Wetland 3226. This will incorporate a major flow source of the region into an It /I) facility and mitigate a major impact • on the northern section of wetland. - Perform a detailed wetland study to determine environmental impact. 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The total site area to be developed is approximately 2.78 acres, which consists of till pastureland soil and land cover at this time. The project site is fairly level in nature and will remain that way after being developed. The site will drain as it does under existing conditions to the north into the right -of -way of Minkler Boulevard where it is collected in a catch basin collection system and routed into a 66 -inch diameter storm drain on the north side of Minkler Boulevard coursing in an easterly direction. The site is fairly irregular in shape since both the east and west property lines of the site are large diameter curves; however, the north and south property lines are straight as the site is bound on the north by Minkler Boulevard and on the south by Upland Drive. B. Developed Site Hydrology Under developed conditions, the site will utilize Level 1 Flow Control as adopted by the City of Tukwila, delineated further in the 1998 KCSWDM utilizing KCRTS methodology. Under developed conditions, the site is assumed to be 80 percent impervious totaling 2.22 acres with 0.56 acre of landscape area, considered to be till grass. The proposed location for the detention and water quality vault will be in the northeast corner of the project site ultimately discharging to a pump system that will pump runoff into the conveyance system located in Minkler Boulevard discharging into a 66 -inch diameter storm drain on the north side of Minkler Boulevard. C. Performance Standards The area- specific flow control standard, as determined from the City of Tukwila's requirements, is to utilize Level 1 Flow Control and delineated in the 1998 KCSWDM. The conveyance system capacity standard is to utilize the Modified Rational Method as delineated further in the previously mentioned manual. The Water Quality Treatment Menu followed for this project site was the Basic Water Quality Manu as dictated by the City of Tukwila. Additional water quality is being applied to runoff from this project site in the City of Tukwila's P17 Pond located east of the project site, which has its own dead storage for settling out sediments and, since it is a pond, it does provide some aerobic treatment capacity as well. Runoff should be fairly clean prior to being discharged in the ultimate downstream drainage course of the site which is the Green River. D. Flow Control System Please refer to the illustrative sketch on the following pages of this report for the flow control system utilized for this project site. E. Water Quality System Please refer to the illustrative sketch on the following pages of this report that delineates the water quality and detention feature proposed for this development, which is a wet/detention vault located in the northeast corner of the project site. 12961.002.doc DETENTION SIZING CRITERIA Total Site Area = 2.78 ac. Pre - Developed 2.78 ac. till pasture Developed 80 percent impervious = 2.22 ac. 20 percent till grass = 0.56 ac. Total 2.78 ac. 12961.002.doc SIZE THE BASIC WET VAULT Vb = 3[0.9 A; + 0.25 Atg] 0.039 Vb = 3[(0.9)(2.22) + (0.25)(0.56)](0.039)(43,560) Vb = 10,896 cu. ft. 12961.002.doc KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series ez1C2o FYI: ikte 401' ice L Gvel Ole ,'l oLi Cameo Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 12961pre.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File:C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTP60R.rnf - . Till Pasture 2.78 acres Total Area : 2.78 acres Peak Discharge: 0.336 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12961pre.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12961pre.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961pre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12961pre.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Series Project Location : Sea -Tac Computing Series : 12961dev.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating Hourly Time Series File Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STTG60R.rnf Till Grass 0.56 acres Loading Time Series File :C: \KC_SWDM \KC_DATA \STEI60R.rnf Impervious 2.22 acres' Total Area : 2.78 acres Peak Discharge: 1.17 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:12961dev.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage /Discharge curve:12961dev.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961dev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:12961dev.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command Size a Retention /Detention FACILITY Edit Facility Loading Time Series File:12961dev.tsf Time Series Found in Memory:12961dev.tsf Saving Retention /Detention Facility File: 12961convey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data \example \kcbw \12961convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:12961dev.tsf Edit Complete Retention /Detention Facility Design Saving Retention /Detention Facility File: 12961convey.rdf Starting Documentation File:C: \kc_swdm \kc_ data \example \kcbw \12961convey.doc Time Series Found in Memory:12961dev.tsf Retention /Detention Facility Design Route Time Series through Facility Time Series Found in Memory:12961dev.tsf Reservoir Routing [R /D Facility] Inflow /Outflow Analysis Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961pre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.196 2 2/09/01 18:00 0.073 7 1/05/02 16:00 0.179 3 2/28/03 3:00 0.019 8 3/24/04 19:00 0.100 6 1/05/05 8:00 0.167 4 1/18/06 16:00 0.161 5 11/24/06 4:00 0.336 1 1/09/08 6:00 Computed Peaks Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) Period 0.336 1 100.00 0.990 0.196 2 25.00 0.960 0.179 3 10.00 0.900 0.167 4 5.00 0.800 0.161 5 3.00 0.667 0.100 6 2.00 0.500 0.073 7 1.30 0.231 0.019 8 1.10 0.091 0.289 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961dev.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 0.588 6 2/09/01 2:00 1.17 1 100.00 0.990 0.500 8 1/05/02 16:00 0.820 2 25.00 0.960 0.705 3 12/08/02 18:00 0.705 3 10.00 0.900 0.564 7 8/26/04 2:00 0.673 4 5.00 0.800 0.673 4 10/28/04 16:00 0.627 5 3.00 0.667 0.627 5 1/18/06 16:00 0.588 6 2.00 0.500 0.820 2 10/26/06 0:00 0.564 7 1.30 0.231 1.17 1 1/09/08 6:00 0.500 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 1.05 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates - -- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) (ft) Period 0.394 2 2/09/01 16:00 0.956 6.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.079 7 12/28/01 17:00 0.394 6.57 2 25.00 0.960 0.151 5 2/28/03 7:00 0.177 6.40 3 10.00 0.900 0.074 8 8/26/04 6:00 0.163 5.86 4 5.00 0.800 0.096 6 1/05/05 15:00 0.151 5.41 5 3.00 0.667 0.163 4 1/18/06 22:00 0.096 4.15 6 2.00 0.500 0.177 3 11/24/06 7:00 0.079 2.79 7 1.30 0.231 0.956 1 1/09/08 9:00 0.074 2.46 8 1.10 0.091 Computed Peaks 0.768 6.65 50.00 0.980 Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Vault Facility Length: 108.00 ft Facility Width: 34.00 ft Facility Area: 3672. sq. ft Effective Storage Depth: 6.50 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 11.00 ft Storage Volume: 23868. cu. ft Riser Head: 6.50 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Full Head Pipe Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 1.32 0.120 2 4.35 1.22 0.059 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 11.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 11.01 37. 0.001 0.006 0.00 0.03 11.03 110. 0.003 0.008 0.00 0.04 11.04 147. 0.003 0.010 0.00 0.05 11.05 184. 0.004 0.011 0.00 0.07 11.07 257. 0.006 0.012 0.00 0.08 11.08 294. 0.007 0.014 0.00 0.10 11.10 367. 0.008 0.015 0.00 0.11 11.11 404. 0.009 0.016 0.00 0.22 11.22 808. 0.019 0.022 0.00 0.33 11.33 1212. 0.028 0.027 0.00 0.44 11.44 1616. 0.037 0.031 0.00 0.55 11.55 2020. 0.046 0.035 0.00 0.66 11.66 2424. 0.056 0.038 0.00 0.77 11.77 2827. 0.065 0.041 0.00 0.88 11.88 3231. 0.074 0.044 0.00 0.99 11.99 3635. 0.083 0.047 0.00 1.10 12.10 4039. 0.093 0.049 0.00 1.21 12.21 4443. 0.102 0.052 0.00 1.32 12.32 4847. 0.111 0.054 0.00 1.43 12.43 5251. ' 0.121 0.056 0.00 1.54 12.54 5655. 0.130 0.058 0.00 1.65 12.65 6059. 0.139 0.060 0.00 1.76 12.76 6463. 0.148 0.062 0.00 1.87 12.87 6867. 0.158 0.064 0.00 1.98 12.98 7271. 0.167 0.066 0.00 2.09 13.09 7675. 0.176 0.068 0.00 2.20 13.20 8078. 0.185 0.070 0.00 2.31 13.31 8482. 0.195 0.072 0.00 2.42 13.42 8886. 0.204 0.073 0.00 2.53 13.53 9290. 0.213 0.075 0.00 2.64 13.64 9694. 0.223 0.077 0.00 2.75 13.75 10098. 0.232 0.078 0.00 2.86 13.86 10502. 0.241 0.080 0.00 2.97 13.97 10906. 0.250 0.081 0.00 3.08 14.08 11310. 0.260 0.083 0.00 3.19 14.19 11714. 0.269 0.084 0.00 3.30 14.30 12118. 0.278 0.086 0.00 3.41 14.41 12522. 0.287 0.087 0.00 3.53 14.53 12962. 0.298 0.088 0.00 3.64 14.64 13366. 0.307 0.090 0.00 3.75 14.75 13770. 0.316 0.091 0.00 3.86 14.86 14174. 0.325 0.092 0.00 3.97 14.97 14578. 0.335 0.094 0.00 4.08 15.08 14982. 0.344 0.095 0.00 4.19 15.19 15386. 0.353 0.096 0.00 4.30 15.30 15790. 0.362 0.098 0.00 4.35 15.35 15973. 0.367 0.098 0.00 4.36 15.36 16010. 0.368 0.099 0.00 4.38 15.38 16083. 0.369 0.100 0.00 4.39 15.39 16120. 0.370 0.101 0.00 4.40 15.40 16157. 0.371 0.104 0.00 4.41 15.41 16194. 0.372 0.106 0.00 4.43 15.43 16267. 0.373 0.110 0.00 4.44 15.44 16304. 0.374 0.111 0.00 4.45 15.45 16340. 0.375 0.112 0.00 4.46 15.46 16377. 0.376 0.113 0.00 4.57 15.57 16781. 0.385 0.120 0.00 4.68 15.68 17185. 0.395 0.125 0.00 4.79 15.79 17589. 0.404 0.130 0.00 4.90 15.90 17993. 0.413 0.134 0.00 5.02 16.02 18433. 0.423 0.138 0.00 5.13 16.13 18837. 0.432 0.142 0.00 5.24 16.24 19241. 0.442 0.146 0.00 5.35 16.35 19645. 0.451 0.149 0.00 5.46 16.46 20049. 0.460 0.152 0.00 5.57 16.57 20453. 0.470 0.155 0.00 5.68 16.68 20857. 0.479 0.159 0.00 5.79 16.79 21261. 0.488 0.162 0.00 5.90 16.90 21665. 0.497 0.164 0.00 6.01 17.01 22069. 0.507 0.167 0.00 6.12 17.12 22473. 0.516 0.170 0.00 6.23 17.23 22877. 0.525 0.173 0.00 6.34 17.34 23280. 0.534 0.175 0.00 6.45 17.45 23684. 0.544 0.178 0.00 6.50 17.50 23868. 0.548 0.179 0.00 6.60 17.60 24235. 0.556 0.489 0.00 6.70 17.70 24602. 0.565 1.050 0.00 6.80 17.80 24970. 0.573 1.790 0.00 6.90 17.90 25337. 0.582 2.580 0.00 7.00 18.00 25704. 0.590 2.860 0.00 7.10 18.10 26071. 0.599 3.120 0.00 7.20 18.20 26438. 0.607 3.360 0.00 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 7.70 7.80 7.90 8.00 "8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 18.30 18.40 18.50 18.60 18.70 18.80 18.90 19.00 19.10 19.20 19.30 19.40 26806. 27173. 27540. 27907. 28274. 28642. 29009. 29376. 29743. 30110. 30478. 30845. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target 1 1.17 * * * * * ** 2 0.59 * * * * * ** 3 0.60 0.18 4 0.63 * * * * * ** 5 0.70 * * * * * ** 6 0.38 0.10 7 0.50 * * * * * ** 8 0.56 * * * * * ** 0.615 3.580 0.624 3.790 0.632 3.980 0.641 4.170 0.649 4.350 0.658 4.520 0.666 4.680 0.674 4.840 0.683 5.000 0.691 5.140 0.700 5.290 0.708 5.430 Calc Stage Elev 0.96 6.68 17.68 0.39 6.57 17.57 0.18 6.40 0.16 5.86 0.15 5.41 0.10 4.15 0.08 2.79 0.07 2.46 17.40 16.86 16.41 15.15 13.79 13.46 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:12961dev.tsf Outflow Time Series File:12961rdout Inflow /Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: Peak Outflow Discharge: Peak Reservoir Stage: Peak Reservoir Elev: Peak Reservoir Storage: Storage (Cu -Ft) 24541. 24123. 23505. 21523. 19850. 15245. 10246. 9051. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Ac -Ft) 0.563 0.554 0.540 0.494 0.456 0.350 0.235 0.208 1.17 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 0.956 CFS at 9:00 on Jan 9 in Year 8 6.68 Ft 17.68 Ft 24541. Cu -Ft 0.563 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:12961rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.394 0.079 0.151 0.074 0.096 0.163 0.177 0.956 Computed Peaks 2 2/09/01 16:00 7 12/28/01 17:00 5 2/28/03 7:00 8 8/26/04 6:00 6 1/05/05 15:00 4 1/18/06 22:00 3 11/24/06 7:00 1 1/09/08 9:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.956 6.68 1 100.00 0.990 0.394 6.57 2 25.00 0.960 0.177 6.40 3 10.00 0.900 0.163 5.86 4 5.00 0.800 0.151 5.41 5 3.00 0.667 0.096 4.15 6 2.00 0.500 0.079 2.79 7 1.30 0.231 0.074 2.46 8 1.10 0.091 0.768 6.65 50.00 0.980 No. Date By Cka. I Appr• I R.N.IOn D 0 z a3 �rn m `) Z P2<' -nm D !-.1)n 00 0) Z o � D o 0 z Z rn z Job NWnb.r 12961 sn..t C2,, 5 18215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D..lon.a Drown --Mt Chocked _Ai AppraW —.M.. Dot. 3 /t7 /Q5 Ne:P; \12000. \129 1\plelimnary \pre -1 \12961 -Q.dwg Date/Dme:4 /23 /2008 10:33 NN Scalr.O 450045 Horizontal WOW! N/A Winn For ANDOVER COMPANY, INC 415 BAKER BLVD., SUITE 200 TUKWILA, WASH. 98188 ATTN: GEORGE ROCKWELL Title: PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN MINKLER OFFICE BUILDING # Xrs (GEIVAR,P4) • •Minkler zETF- :9 ".:i.::-..:;1:::•::. - .../".... -..ls'i.,:,:-. ,.: r.: • ......,,...... ‘V.,-----. -,,---- I • 4, Ls A • ,•-■-i- b r------■,) v I!) •-• kt 2i I . COMMUN _ ,ITY- • DEVELOPMENT . - GEOTIgCHNC L. REPORT MhikOer Professional rnAilding ouOevard and Andover Park West TukwDa9 Washington Project No T-6176 Terra Assocliess9 [Inc. •• •• • 1. • - Prepared for: The Andover Company, Mc. Seattle, Washington January 11, 2008 ERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Mr. George Rockwell The Andover Company, Inc. 415 Baker Boulevard; Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98188 Subject: Geotechnical Report Minkler Professional Building Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington January 11, 2008 Project No. .T, -6176 Dear Mr. Rockwell: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for.the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates soil conditions consisted of four inches of .organic material overlying seven to .. nine feet of fill material overlying. alluvial silts and sands. The fill material appears to be in good condition, there is no documentation of the compaction : or placement of the fill. The CPT test indicates the fill is dense to very dense. Our recent cone penetration testing revealed that under the dense fill. material there are loose and soft interbedded layers of alluvial sands, silts, and clays to depths ranging from 14 to 20 feet. The upper alluvium is composed predominantly of loose to medium dense silt/silty clay /clay /clayey silt and is approximately 5 to 14 feet _thick. Underlying this_upper alluvial, the CPT data indicates medium dense to dense silty sand and sand. This sand' alluvium is predominant to the termination depths of the CPTs, 40 feet. The formation is indicated to be in a dense field condition with a few softer interbedded layers of sandy silt. In our opinion, support of structures using standard spread footing foundations will be feasible., However, to avoid unacceptable building settlements, we recommend the building pad be surcharged to consolidate the compressible soils prior to construction. or placed on piles. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland,.Washington 98034. Phone (425) 821 -7777 • Fax (425) 821 -4334 • terra@terra- associates.com Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Carolyn Schepper,.E.I.T. Staff Engineer Theodore J. Schepper, P.E. President Encl: Mr. Randy Brown, Synthesis Mr. Joe Shutter, Shutter Consulting Engineers Mr. Dan Balinelli,Barghausen Consulting Engineers Project No. T -6176 Page No. ii January 11, 2008 Project No. T-6176 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 Project Description 1 2.0 Scope of Work 1 3.0 Site Conditions 2 3.1 Surface 2 • 3.2 Subsurface 2 3.3 Groundwater 2 4.0 Geologic Hazards 3 4.1 Erosion 3 4.2 Seismic - 3 5.0 Discussion and Recommendations 4 5.1 General 4 • • 5.2 Site Preparation. and Grading 4 5.3 Excavations 5 •5.4 Surcharge 6 • 5.5 Foundations , • 5.6 : Slabs-on-Grae 9 • 5.7 Drainage 9 5.8 Utilities 10 5.9 Pavements 10 6:0 Additional Services 11 7.0 Limitations 11 Figures. Vicinity Map Figure 1 Exploration Location Plan Figure 2 Typical Settlement Marker Detail Figure 3 Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing Appendix A Page No. 12 Geotechnical Report Mink ler Professional Building Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West Tukwila, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project Consists of developing the 2.47-acre parcel with a two-story office building, associated paved access, parking, and utility improvements. Based on a preliminary site plan prepared by Synthesis PC, dated November 16, 2007, one, approximately 40,500 square-foot two-story building will be constnicted. The building will be constructed using precast concrete perimeter wall panels with interior isolated columns supporting the second floor and roof framing. We expect structural loading will be light to moderate with isolated columns carrying loads of 100 to 200 kips, and bearing walls Carrying 4 to 6 kips per toot. We also expect that the main floor level will be constructed at grade at an elevation at or near exiting site grades. Access to the site will be from Minkler Boulevard and from Upland Drive. We understand that development stormwater will be discharged to the existing city regional facility. The recommendations in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the design features outlined above. We should review design drawings as they become available to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and to supplement them, if tiquired. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK Con December 14, 2007, we excavated 5 test pits to depths of 7 to 9.5 feet beloW existing surface grades. On December 27, 2007, this shallow information was supplemented by advancing 3 done penetration tests (CPTs) to depths of 40 feet below existing surface grades and one cone penetration test to a depth of 14 feet- below existing surface grade. Using the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, we performed analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • • Soil and groundwater conditions • • Seismic • Site preparation and grading -• Preload/surcharge • Excavations • Foundation support alternatives • Slab-on-grade support • Drainage • Utilities, , • Pavements , January 11, 2008. Project No. T -6176 It should be noted that recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage are associated with soil strength, design: earth pressures, erosion, and stability. Design and performance issues with respect to moisture as it relates to the structure environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, mold) is beyond Terra Associates' purview:. A building envelope specialist or contactor should be consulted to address these issues, as needed..: 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The site is a vacant 2.74 -acre parcel' located between Minkler Boulevard and Upland Drive one parcel west :of Andover: Park West in Tukwila, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on. Figure 1: The project site is rectangular in shape with the north end of the.site coming to a,point at the northeast comer of the site. The site is bordered by railroads on three sides with Minkler Boulevard to the .,north, an industrial building to the west, Upland Drive to the south, and an office building to,the east. The site is an open field that is generally flat: There is some garbage and concrete debris throughout the site There are existing gas and water utilities that run on the south end of the property approximately ten feet north of Upland Drive. 3.2 Subsurface In general, soil conditions we observed at the test pits consisted of four inches of organic .material overlying seven to-nine feet of silty sand with gravel fill overlying alluvial silts and sands. Based on observations in the test pits and CPT data, the fill material appears to be well compacted. CPT data indicates that under the dense . fill material there are -loose and soft interbedded layers of alluvial sands, silts, and clays to depths ranging from 14 to 20 feet: The upper alluvium is composed predominantly of soft to medium stiff silt/clayey silt, and is approximately 5 to 11 feet thick. Underlying this upper alluvium, medium dense to dense silty -sand and sand layers are indicated to the termination depths of the CPTs, 40 feet. The . Geological Map of the Des Moines 7.5' Quadrangle, King County, Washington, by, D.B. Booth and H.H. Waldron (2004) maps the site as Alluvium (Qal). This mapped description is consistent with the native soil we observed below the fill material in the CPT Logs. The, preceding discussion is intended to be a brief review of the soil, conditions observed at the. site.. More detailed descriptions -are presented on the Test Pit and CPT Logs attached in Appendix A. .3.3 Groundwater We did not observe any groundwater in the test pits. A pore water dissipation test was performed during the CPT testing. Results of this testing indicated the groundwater was approximately 10 to;11 feet below existing grades at the time of our site exploration. Fluctuations in the groundwater table will occur in response to seasonal changes. Given the time of year our field work was completed and the rainfall experienced in the region, the groundwater-elevation indicated at the time of our work likely represents the near seasonal high level. Page No. 2 January 11, 2008 • Project No. T -6176 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45.120 defines erosion hazard areas as areas that are Potential Geologic Instability Designation of Class 2, 3, or 4. By definition, this site is Class 1 and; therefore, there is no erosion hazard. Regardless; it will be necessary to have appropriate Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) elements in place before on -site grading activities begin. 4.2 • Seismic The. Tukwila Municipal Code defines seismic hazard areas as areas that are considered seismic' hazards by the Washington State Building Code which: in turn references the International Building Code .(IBC): Based: on Chapter .16 of the IBC; the site is only a hazardous area if the soils liquefy. Liquefaction is a-,phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure' induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine- grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from imergranular friction. The. generated water pressure or pressure essentially separates the soil grains and eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength. As described earlier, the soils indicated at the site by the CPT data consist of highly variable interbedded layers of fine grained sediments (silts-and clays), and cohesionless layers composed of silty sand, sandy silt, and sand. The consistency of the' fine grained sediments indicate that they would exhibit sufficient undrained strength to offset shear stresses imposed during, an earthquake and would resist the liquefaction: phenomenon. The indicated relative density-of the coarser alluvial sediments also indicates that these layers have likely liquefied during past seismic events, thus increasing their relative density and making them more resistant to liquefaction during future events. . We completed a liquefaction analysis using procedures outlined by Seed and Idriss. The analysis was completed using a .ground acceleration of .2g. The results of the analysis indicate that the alluvial soils with N60 .values of 20 and less could'liquefy under this acceleration. Most of the layers that the analysis indicates could liquefy are fine grained sediments. As noted earlier, these soils would not be subject to liquefaction because of the cohesive component of their shear strength. The . remaining layers consist of sandy silt and silty sand. The impact to the site should these layers. liquefy- will be in . the form of surface subsidence or settlement.. The settlement that would occur would result in cosmetic cracks in . the building and would not be likely to cause structural damage, in our opinion. Estimated total potential settlement from our analysis is in the range of one to two inches. Given the variability of the soils, all of this settlement could be differential in nature. In our opinion, the soil liquefaction hazard at the site and the associated risk to building performance is low. Page No 3 January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General The results of our, study indicate the :upper fill soils are well compact and would be suitable for supporting the structure on conventional spread. footing foundations. However, unless mitigated; the soft, fine grained native soil layers observed below the compact fill will consolidate under static dead loads imposed by the structure. Analysis indicates settlement approaching '2 inches with differential movement of 1 to 1 1/2 inches is possible. To mitigate this potential settlement, we recommend the building location. As an alternative to surcharging the:building'site and supporting the structure on spread footings, the building can be supported on augercast piles transferring building loads to competent soils below the compressible stratum. The soils observed at the site contain a significant amount of Imes and.. will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use native soil from site excavations as structural fill will depend on_its moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take, place during winter, the owner should be prepared to import clean granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. Alternatively, stabilizing the moisture in the native soil with cement kiln dust (CKD), cement, or lime can be considered. Detailed recommendations regarding these .issues, and .other geotechriical design considerations are provided in the following sections.. These recommendations should be incorporated into • the final design drawings and . construction specifications. 5.2 _ Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation and organic surface soils should be stripped and removed from the site. Based on conditions observed in the test pits; required surface stripping depths will vary from four to six inches. Organic topsoil ,will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used for limited depths in nonstructural areas' or for landscaping purposes. Once clearing and stripping operations are complete, cut and fill operations can be initiated to establish desired building grades. Prior to placing fill, all exposed surfaces ;should. be proofrolled to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. If excessively yielding areas are observed, and they cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, the affected soils should be excavated and removed to firm bearing and grade restored with new structural fill.' If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, the use of geotextile fabrics, such as. Mirafi 500X, or an equivalent fabric, can be used in conjunction with clean granular structural fill. Our experience has shown that in general, a minimum of 18 . inches of a clean, granular structural fill place and compacted over the geotextile fabric should establish 'a stable bearing surface. A representative . of Terra Associates should ,observe all bearing surfaces to verify that soil conditions are as expected and are suitable for support of building _foundations, floor slabs, and site pavements. Page No. 4 January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 Our study indicates that the native soils contain a sufficient percentage of fines (silt and clay size particles) that will make them difficult to compact as structural fill if they are too wet or too dry. Accordingly, the ability to use these native soils from site excavations as structural fill .will depend on .their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take places Native soils that are too wet to properly compact could be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions or mixed with an additive such as cement, cement kiln dust (CKD), or lime to stabilize the soil and facilitate compaction. If an additive is used, additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate increases to the soils 'pH will need to be incorporated into the Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control °(TESC) and Stormwater. Pollution and Prevention Program (SWPPP) for the project. If grading activities are planned during the :.wet winter ,months, or if they are initiated . during the summer and extend into fall and winter, the contractor should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements:. U.S. Sieve Size. Percent Passing 6 inches . 100 No. 4, 75 maximum No. 200. 5 maximum* *Based on the ,3/4 -inch fraction. Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc: :should examine and test all materials -imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D -698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum; as determined by this ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas, the degree of compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. 53 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, .siucli as utility trenches and lower building levels, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington State Safety and Health Administration (WSHA) regulations, soils found on the project site would be classified as Group C soils. For properly dewatered excavations more 'than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in depth_ the side. slopes should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal :Vertical). If, there is insufficient room to complete the . excavations in this manner, or if excavations greater than 20 feet in depth are planned, temporary shoring to support the excavations will be required. Properly designed and installed shoring trench, boxes can be Used to support utility trench excavations where required. Page No. 5 January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 Groundwater should be anticipated within excavations extending below depths Of ten feet from current surface grades. Based on our study, the volume of water and rate of flow into the excayation may be significant and dewatering of the excavations will be necessary. Shallow excavations that do not extend more than one to two feet below the groundwater table can likely be dewatered by conventional sump - pumping procedures along with a system of collection trenches. Deeper excavation will require dewatering by well points or isolated deep -pump wells. The utility subcontractor should be prepared to implement excavation dewatering by well point or deep - pump wells, as needed. This will be an especially critical consideration for any deep excavations. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for jok site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. 5.4 Surcharge For building support using conventional spread footing foundations, if the estimated potential: settlement from Consolidation is not acceptable, we recommend surcharging the building site For this procedure, we recommend placing a minimum of four feet of fill in the building area above the slab -on -grade subgrade elevation and delaying building construction until settlement under this fill load has occurred. The surcharge fill should extend a minimum of two feet beyond the outside edge of the perimeter building footings.. The soil used for the surcharge does not;need to meet any specific requirements: other than having a minimum unit weight when placed of 120 pounds:per cubic foot (pcf)..It would be advisable to use a good quality fill source for the surcharge if structural fill is required in other areas of the site; Total settlement under the surcharge fill_ is estimated in the range:: of :two to three inches. These settlements are expected to occur in about three to five weeks following full application of the surcharge fill. To verify the amount of settlement and the time rate of movement, the preload/surcharge program should be monitored by installing settlement. markers. The settlement markers should be installed 'on the existing grade prior to placing any building fills. Once installed, elevations of both the fill height and marker should be taken daily until the full height of the preload is in place. Once fully preloaded,- readings should continue weekly until the anticipated settlements have occurred. A typical settlement marker detail is provided as Figure 3. It is critical that the grading contractor recognize the importance of the settlement marker installations. All efforts must be made to protect the markers from damage during fill placement. It is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the progress of the preload program if the markers are damaged or _ destroyed by construction equipment. As a result, it may be necessary to install new markers and extend the surcharging time period in order to ensurethat settlements have ceased and building construction can begin. Following the successful completion of the preload program, with foundations . designed as recommended in Section 5.5._ of this report, estimated maximum total and differential post - construction settlements are less than one -half inch. January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 5.5 Foundations Spread Footings Following successful completion of the surcharge program the office building may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on the existing fill material. Foundation subgrade should be prepared as recommended in. Section 5.2 of this report. Perimeter foundations exposed to the weather should bear at a minimum depth of 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth below the floor slab. Foundations supported on structural fill or preloaded native material can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and'.. seismic, a one - third increase. in this allowable capacity can be used.: With structural loading as anticipated and these bearing stresses applied, estimated total foundation settlement of one -inch is expected: For designing foundations to resist' lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing can also be considered.. We recommend „calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recominend.not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. Augercast Piles As an altemative to surcharging the building site and supporting the building on conventional spread_ footings, augercast piles advanced through the compressible native soils can be used to support the structure. Augercast piles are constructed by advancing a hollow -stem auger into the ground to a predetermined tip elevation: When the bearing depth is achieved, grout is injected under pressure through the stem of the auger, which is then slowly extracted from the ground. Reinforcing steel, as required, is then set into the completed grout column. We recommend advancing augercast piles to a maximum tip elevation equal to 35 ,feet below current-site grades. With piles advanced to this depth, the following allowable axial pile capacities for varying pile diameters can be used in design: Maximum Pile Capacities Allowable Axial Capacity (tons) Pile Diameter 18-inch I 24 -mch . Compression Uplift Compression. Uplift_ 40 30 60 40 These allowable capacities are provided with a safety factor of 3.0. Full single -pile capacities can , be used, provided the center -to- center pile spacing is at least three pile diameters. Page No. 7 Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis Lateral pile load .capacity analyses were performed for a single pile: The analysis was based on subgrade modulus theory and assumes that the pile will act as a beam under the imposed loading. For the analyses, we used the computer program GEOPRO 3.0 — Laterally Loaded Pile. The design lateral load available will be dependent on the allowable lateral deflection than can be tolerated. The following table provides single pile lateral capacities for deflections of one-half and one-inch at the top of the , • pile for freehead conditions for both 18- and 24-inch piles: Lateral Pile Capacity • Pile Head Deflection (inches) Lateral Pile Capacity •(tons) Pile Diameter 18 inches 24 inches • 0.50 15 30 • 1.00 • 25 50 The maximum moment in the piles or point of zero shear occurs at depths of about 7 feet and 9 feet for the 18- inch and 24-inch diameters, respectively. • In addition to the lateral pile capacities, additional lateral resistance will be provided by passive earth pressure acting adjacent to the buried portions of the pile caps and grade beams. Passive resistance equivalent to a fluid weighing 350 pcf can be used to calculate this lateral resistance. Construction Considerations The auger should be extracted slowly and uniformly below a sufficient and consistent head of grout. If the auger is extracted too quickly, the pile may neck down and soil may collapse into the pile, reducing its structural. integrity. At a point along the injection line, the piling contractOr. should use a pressure gauge to monitor the grout pressure .during construction. The pressure used to inject the grout and construct the pile column will compress the soils immediately adjacent the pile. As a result, the amount of grout needed to form the pile will be greater than the computed grout volume. There will also be excess grout used to construct the piles because of the head of grout in the hollow stem auger that is required to construct the pile. Minimum grout takes should. typically exceed the theoretical grout volume by 10 to 15 percent: Accounting for compression of the . soils, maximum grout takes of 1.5 to 1.8 times the theoretical volumes should be expected. The contractor must take this into ,.consideration in estimating grout volumes. The grout pump should be calibrated with a stroke counter to allow for monitoring and verifying the • amount of grout used to construct the pile.: Page No. 8 January '11,2008 Project No. T-6176 The pile installation sequence should be such that piles are constructed at a minimum spacing of five diameters. Once the grout has achieved its initial set, usually in 24 .hours, installation between these locations can be completed. 5.6 Slabs-on-Grade Slabs-on-grade may be supported on subgrade prepared as recommended in Section 5.2 of this report. , Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four-inch thick capillary break layer composed of clean, coarse sand or fine gravel that has less than five percent passing the No 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. The capillary break layer will not prevent moisture intrusion .through the slab caused by water vapor transmission. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, such as covered floor areas, a common practice is to place a durable plastic membrane on the capillary break layer and then cover the membrane with a layer of clean sand or fine gravel to protect it from damage during construction, and aid in uniform curing 'of the concrete slab': It should be noted that if the sand or gravel layer overlying the membrane is saturated prior to pouring the slab, it will be ineffective in assisting uniform curing of the slab, and can actually serve as a water supply for moisture transmission through the slab and affecting floor coverings. Therefore, in our opiniOn, covering the membrane with a layer of sand or gravel should be avoided if floor slab construction occurs during the ,wet winter months and the layer cannot be effectively drained. We recommend floor designers and contractors refer to the 2003 American Concrete Institute (ACI) Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2, 302.1R-96, for further information regarding vapor barrier installation below slab-on-grade floors. 5.7 Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the site at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent to foundations or 'within the immediate building Areas. We recommend — providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeters-. If this gradient .cannot be provided, surface water should be collected adjacent to the structures and disposed to appropriate'storm facilities: Subsurface We recommend installing perimeter foundation drains adjacent to shallow foundations. The drains can be laid to grade at an invert elevation equivalent to the bottom of footing grade. The drains can consist of four-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed pea. gravel-sized drainage aggregate: The aggregate should extend six inches above and to the sides of the pipe. Roof and foundation drams should be tightlined separately to the storm drains. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. Page No. 9 January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 5.8 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA), or:City of Tukwila specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill, as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Most native soils excavated on the site should be suitable for use as backfill "material during dry weather conditions. However, if utility construction takes place during the wet winter months, it will likely be necessary to import suitable wet weather fill for utility trench backfilling. The utility contractor should also be prepared for encountering unstable soft alluvial soils below the pipe invert elevations: If not removed from below the pipe and replaced with crushed rock or additional bedding material, pipe deflections may occur as a result of the soil yielding and compressing in response to loading imposed during trench backfilling. The need to overexcavate and stabilize the pipe foundation before backfilling should be evaluated by observation: and, testing during construction. Pavements Existing- granular .fill soils should be suitable as a subgrade soil for support of pavements. Pavement subgrades should be prepared as structural fill as described in Section 5.2 of this report. Regardless: of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade Must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. We anticipate traffic in the parking areas will mainly consist of light passenger and commercial .vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic in the form of buses, delivery, and refuse removal vehicles. Based on this information, with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following - pavement sections: • Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB) • Two inches' of HMA over three inches of asphalt- treated base (ATB) For . travel lanes that will be subjected to more frequent heavy vehicle traffic, we recommend increasing the thickness of the AC surfacing,to three inches. The ,.paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department. of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for 1 inch class HMA, ATB, and CRB. Long -term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage: A poorly- drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. For optimum performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks as they occur. Page No. 10 January 11, 2008 Project No. T -6176 6.0 ADDITIONAL. SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the ,final design, drawings and specifications in order. to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with our design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior the start of construction. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with "generally accepted geotechnical engineering .practices.. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the MinklerProfessional Building project. This report is for the exclusive use of The Andover Company, Inc. and their authorized representatives. The, analyses and recommendations: presented in this report are based on data obtained from the test pits excavated on the site Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until :construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction.. Page No: 11 '0. FOSTER • Nib „':a 1447H S 1491)1 5 TW WI LA:: 173RD _ 'cis Sf ..ems '— -� I5 :175711 ::' 1766TH . SEATTLE 5117718 j.: I LRR►OTT .w! n �! 5 inn -ST Li 4JnD. 178111 51 Grain 110.* OD 1514 r - tl` 1 23 i _ • < L8310 PC Q� ti -eLL — 1 REFERENCE: THOMAS GUIDE CD =ROM, KING /PIERCE /SNOHOMISH COUNTIES, 2004 1 T1-'7-5- 19DTH ST- 7 NOT TO SCALE S5 1881H. .. ST Terra Associate•Inc..' • Consultants.in Geotechnical • Geology and. Environmental Earth Sciences VICINITY MAP MINKLER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING _ TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj, No.T -6176 Date JAN 2008 Figure 1 NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY CLIENT 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET LEGEND: S APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION ® APPROXIMATE CONE PENETRATION TEST LOCATION Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN MINKLER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No.T -6176 I Date JAN 2008 I Figure 2 STEEL ROD SURCHARGE OR FILL • HEIGHT VARIES (SEE NOTES) PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SURCHARGE OR FILL NOT TO SCALE /,, NOTES: 1. BASE CONSISTS OF 3/4" THICK; 2'x2' PLYWOOD WITH CENTER DRILLED .5 /8 "DIAMETER HOLE. 2. BEDDING MATERIAL, IF REQUIRED, SHOULD CONSIST OF. CLEAN COARSE SAND. 3. MARKER ROD IS 1/2" DIAMETER STEEL ROD THREADED. AT BOTH ENDS. 4. MARKER ROD IS ATTACHED TO BASE BY NUT AND WASHER ON EACH SIDE OF BASE.: 5. PROTECTIVE SLEEVE SURROUNDING MARKER ROD SHOULD CONSIST OF 2" DIAMETER PLASTIC TUBING. SLEEVE IS NOT ATTACHED TO ROD OR BASE. 6. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF STEEL ROD CAN BE CONNECTED WITH THREADED COUPLINGS. 7. ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE CAN BE CONNECTED WITH PRESS-FIT PLASTIC COUPLINGS. 8. STEEL MARKER' ROD SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 6" ABOVE TOP OF PLASTIC PROTECTIVE SLEEVE. 9.. PLASTIC PROTECTIVE. SLEEVE SHOULD EXTEND AT LEAST 1" ABOVE TOP OF FILL SURFACE. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth. Sciences TYPICAL SETTLEMENT:MARKER DETAIL MINKLER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON `. Proj. No. T -6176 Date JAN 2008. I Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Minkler Professional Building Tukwila, Washington On December 14, 2007, we completed our site exploration by observing soil conditions at 5 test pits. The test pits were excavated using a trackhoe to a maximum depth of 9.5 feet below existing site grades. On December 27, 2007, we performed additional site exploration by performing 4 cone penetration tests. The test pit and cone penetration test locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by measurements from existing site features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A -2 through A -6. The cone penetration graphs are presented on Figures A -9 through A -12. A geotechnical engineer from our office conducted the field exploration. Our representative classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples, and recorded water levels observed during excavation. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A -1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were performed on selected samples. The results are shown on Figures A -7 and A -8. Project No. T-6176 MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material larger than No. 200 sieve size GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines) GW Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GP Poorly- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. Gravels with fines GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non plastic fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve Clean Sands (less than 5% fines) SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. SP Poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. Sands with fines SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. FINE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material smaller than No. 200 sieve size SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is less than 50% ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is greater than 50% MH Inorganic silts, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS COHESIONLESS Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows /Foot 2° OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT 1 SPOON SAMPLER T 2.4° INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER — OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Y WATER LEVEL (DATE) Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING tsf DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Very loose 0 -4 Loose 4 -10 Medium dense 10 -30 Dense 30 -50 Very dense >50 COHESIVE Standard Penetration Consistency Resistance in Blows /Foot Very soft 0 -2 Soft 2 -4 Medium stiff 4 -8 Stiff 8-16 Very stiff 16 -32 Hard >32 Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MINKLER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON '``���1 6 Proj. No. T -6176 Date JAN 2008 Figure A -1 • PROJECT LOCATION: DATE NAME: LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 1 Minkler Professional Building PROJ. NO: T -6176 LOGGED CAVING: FIGURE A -2 BY: CS Tukwila. Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass. Brush APPROX. ELEV: N/A LOGGED: December 14.2007 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: N/A DEPTH TO N/A DEPTH (FT.) SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY/ RELATIVE DENSITY o 3 POCKET PEN. (TSF) REMARKS _ - 5— - 10— 15— (6 inches GRAVEL, ROOTS) FILL: gray brown silty sand, fine grained, mottling, wet. FILL: brown silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. - -- FILL: gray silty sand, fine to coarse grained, cemented, moist, some gravel. Brown elastic SILT, moist. (MH) Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Very Dense Hard 22.6 17.9 16.9 Test pit terminated at approximately 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. No caving was observed. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences PROJECT LOCATION: DATE NAME: LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 2 Minkler Professional Building PROJ. NO: T -6173 LOGGED CAVING: FIGURE A -3 BY: CS Tukwila. Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass. Brush APPROX. ELEV: N/A LOGGED: December 14. 2007 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: N/A DEPTH TO N/A X FF. w 0 SAMPLE NO. I CONSISTENCY/ RELATIVE DENSITY -- POCKET PEN. (TSF) REMARKS - ' - 5— _ - 10- 15— (3 inches ORGANICS) FILL: gray brown silty sand, fine grained, mottling, wet. FILL: brown silty sand, fine to coarse grained, some cementation, moist, some gravel. FILL: gray silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Very Dense 27.9 19.2 13.6 Test pit terminated at approximately 7 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. No caving was observed. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and •v;,.• . :• °' ^• Environmental Earth Sciences PROJECT LOCATION: DATE NAME: LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 3 Minkler Professional Building PROJ. NO: T -6176 LOGGED CAVING: FIGURE A -4 BY: CS Tukwila. Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass. Brush APPROX. ELEV: N/A LOGGED: December 14. 2007 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: N/A DEPTH TO N/A DEPTH (FT.) SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY/ RELATIVE DENSITY o 3 POCKET PEN. (TSF)I REMARKS - - - 5— - 10- 15— (3 inches ORGANICS) FILL: gray brown silty sand, fine grained, mottling, wet. - -- FILL: brown silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. - FILL: gray silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. Medium Dense Dense Very Dense T Very Dense 23.1 19.7 19.0 Test pit terminated at approximately 7.5 feet. Slight groundwater seepage from surface water. No caving was observed. NOTE This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. , ° Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and ' Environmental Earth Sciences PROJECT LOCATION: DATE NAME: LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 4 Minkler Professional Building PROJ. NO: T -6176 LOGGED CAVING: FIGURE A -5 BY: CS Tukwila. Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass. Brush APPROX. ELEV: N/A LOGGED: December 14.2007 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: NIA DEPTH TO N/A DEPTH (FT.) SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY/ RELATIVE DENSITY o 3 POCKET PEN. (TSF) REMARKS - - 5- - - 10- 15- (3 inches ORGANICS) ., FILL: gray brown silty sand, fine grained, mottling, wet. - ' FILL: brown silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. 'Thin layer of red sand, fine grained. - FILL: gray silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. Medium Dense - Dense Very Dense — Very Dense 20.0 18.7 21.0 Test pit terminated at approximately 8 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. No caving was observed. NOTE: This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and :,.>v -V.: , "• : ,i Environmental Earth Sciences PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: DATE LOGGED: LOG OF TEST PIT NO. 5 Minkler Professional Building PROJ. NO: T -6176 LOGGED CAVING: FIGURE A -6 BY: CS Tukwila. Washington SURFACE CONDS: Grass. Brush APPROX. ELEV: N/A December 14. 2007 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER: N/A DEPTH TO N/A DEPTH (FT.) SAMPLE NO. DESCRIPTION CONSISTENCY/ RELATIVE DENSITY 3 POCKET PEN. (TSF)I REMARKS - 5— - - 10— 15- (3 inches ORGANICS) . FILL: gray brown silty sand, fine grained, mottling, wet. / FILL: brown silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. 4 -inch layer red sand with silt, fine grained, moist. FILL: gray silty sand, fine to coarse grained, moist, some gravel. - Brown elastic SILT, moist. (MH) Medium Dense Dense Very Dense Very Dense Hard 23.1 17.5 19.9 51.3 LL =53 PL=45 PI =8 Test pit terminated at approximately 9.5 feet. Slight groundwater seepage from surface water. No caving was observed. NOTE This subsurface information pertains only to this test pit location and should not be interpreted as being indicative of other locations at the site. ;: - • Terra " Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and !':rte -,:;. ` "P': . ^ izz: Environmental Earth Sciences D m 2 _> y y' O o 8 W mow■ ma) (3. __ cad N m m.. 7 0, ca • -D z 0 -. 0 CD D z N O O co m (o' >, Z -1r Cm0 rp *0) m >� =0Z zD r O c V) Zr 0 z Q SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, US STANDARD 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 J - (i1 N 0) A W N 1�A� A0� 13 O) A A 9 O HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM O O bb bb b b 00 0 D 0) A 0 10 20 30 40 iii 1 r I II I I I I 1 I I 0 0 000 00 0 el, A'W b 0 a1. G) IV GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES Key COARSE 1 FINE Exploration Number • 0 TP -1 TP -3 GRAVEL Depth (ft.) 2.0 6.0 USCS SM SM COARSE 1 MEDIUM 1 FINE silty SAND silty SAND 0) 00) A W b SAND Description b b b pb O O 00) 0 0 CO 0) A FINES Moisture Content (%) LL 50 60 70 80 90 100 b O HOW A8 213S2id001N30a • PL 22.6 19.0 DROMETER ANALYST mzgAztirkiklithl NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, US STANDARD .0010 .002 .003 .004 .006 .008 .01 .02 .03 .04 .06 200 100 60 40 20 10 4 1/4 3/8 1/2 5/8 3/4 1 1 1/4 1 1/2 2 3 4 12 PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT N COQ) lo COD tC co 0 0 0.001 0 0 O D) CO O COD 100 et M PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT N Terra Associates Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences .002 .003 .004 .006 .008 .01 .02 .03 .04 .06 .08 .1 .2 .3 .4 .6 .8 1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 60 80 100 200 300 O iii; L l 1/ 11 , co w Z w z u- z 0) 0 w w N cc O 0 w z w 0) O 0 N w J m 0 U J a J J 0 a b N 0 0 co 0 z 0) N U 0) a N 0 " N o o m � o g. x Z w GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS MINKLER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING TUKWILA , WASHINGTON Proj. No.T -6176 I Date JAN 2008 I Figure A -8 Depth (ft) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Tip Resistance Qc TSF 0 Terra Associates, Inc. Operator. Nowak Sounding: CPT -1 Cone Used: DSA0902 CPT Date/Time: 12/27/2007 9:22:14 AM Location: Minkler Professional Building Job Number T -6176 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Fs /Qc ( %) Pw PSI 250 0 12 -10 _J_ - 'I _ 1 — -r- Maximum Depth = 40.19 feet rt 1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material ❑ 3 clay . behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 ni 50 Soil Behavior Type* Zone: UBC -1983 0 12 N=i=l ,111111 rk I I I 1 SPT N* 60% Hammer 0 50 r L 1:1 Depth Increment = 0.164 feet 4 silty clay to clay ❑ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ❑ 5 clayey silt to silty clay a 8 sand to silty sand ❑ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ❑ 9 sand In Situ Engineering ❑ 10 gravelly sand to sand ❑ 11 very stiff fine grained ( *) ❑ 12 sand to clayey sand ( *) Depth (ff) ' ;oil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 Tip Resistance Qc TSF Terra Associates, Inc. Operator: Nowak Sounding: CPT -2 Cone Used: DSA0902 Friction Ratio Fs /Qc ( %) 250 0 6 F 1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material ❑ 3 clay Maximum Depth = 40.19 feet 0 4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay ❑ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt CPT Date/Time: 12/27/2007 11:17:56 AM Location: Minkler Professional Building Job Number: T -6176 Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' Pw PSI Zone: UBC -1983 -10 50 0 12 1 _y_ _1_ -r— r lllil I I I I J AI r I I 1 1 1 1 1 11- 71 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 -1-1,1-. 1 1 11 1 11 11111 *OW _LLLI.4 •rrrr 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 L L- t1 1 11 -1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 J 1'I 1 1'1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1111111 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1' , J Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ❑ 7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand ❑ 9 sand In Situ Engineering SPT N* 60% Hammer 0 50 ❑ 10 gravelly sand to sand ❑ 11 very stiff fine grained ( *) ❑ 12 sand to clayey sand (•) Depth (ft) ' 300 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC -1983 Tip Resistance Qc TSF 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Terra Associates, Inc. Operator: Nowak Sounding: CPT -3 Cone Used: DSA0902 Friction Ratio Fs /Qc ( %) 250 0 12 J et 1 sensitive fine grained El 2 organic material ❑ 3 clay Maximum Depth = 40.03 feet CPT Date/Time: 12/27/2007 12:30:43 PM Location: Minkler Professional Building Job Number: T -6176 Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type* SPT N* Pw PSI Zone: UBC -1983 60% Hammer -10 50 0 12 0 50 131 i I I 1 I 11 I II 1 I 1 I r 1 1 1_.1,.1.. Depth Increment = 0.164 feet 0 4 silty clay to clay ❑ 7 silty sand to sandy silt 0 5 clayey silt to silty clay 0 8 sand to silty sand ❑ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ❑ 9 sand In Situ Engineering ❑ 10 gravelly sand to sand ❑ 11 very stiff fine grained (•) ❑ 12 sand to clayey sand C) Depth (ft) ISoil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 Tip Resistance Qc TSF Terra Associates, Inc. Operator: Nowak Sounding: CPT-4 Cone Used: DSA0902 CPT Date /me: 12/27/2007 1:06:16 PM Location: Minkler Professional Building Job Number: T-6176 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type* SPT N* Fs /Qc (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC -1983 60% Hammer 250 0 12 -10 50 0 12 0 1 sensitive fine grained ® 2 organic material ❑ 3 clay - _ 1 _ --1-1-t— .L_ J Maximum Depth = 14.11 feet 11 J 111L 1LL -r r -I -J 1 r L r Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ❑ 4 silty clay to clay ❑ 7 silty sand to sandy silt 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand ❑ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ❑ 9 sand In Situ Engineering 50 zl,l 1 1 c -r t11-1ti- II _L. --r JJJ_ 11- r- L ❑ 10 gravelly sand to sand ❑ 11 very stiff fine grained ( *) ❑ 12 sand to clayey sand (•) Pressure (psi) 12 11 10 Terra Associates, Inc. Operator Nowak Sounding: CPT -1 Cone Used: DSA0902 CPT Date/Time: 12/27/2007 9:22:14 AM Location: Minkler Professional Building Job Number: T-6176 Selected Depth(s) (feet) — 15.256 LJ L J -r1 J J J J 1 L r- r 1. r y 1T J_ _ ✓ r -1 T L L LL LL r J J L rr 1 L L r r J- -4- L 1 L.1 J rill L L ✓ r T L rrr\� J J r L1 J 1 L 1 J 1 L 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 II J L1_ _ r r -1- I 1- T 10 100 Maximum Pressure = 11.793 psi In Situ Engineering Time: (seconds) 1000 10000 • CITY OF TUKWILA SEPA Department of Community Development ENVIRONMENTAL 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 P "'C!IVED Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 REVIEW E -mail: tukplan(a�ci.tukwila.wa.us APR 2 4 2008 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Minkler Office Building LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 300 Upland Drive, Tukwila, WA 98188 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 883650 -0030 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: Address: Phone: 425 251 -6222 FAX: 425 251 -8782 Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 E -mail: gib- melli©b rglause ,com Signatur: _�,�,. � /I►.. A Date: `{ l 2�1 0$ P: \Planning Forms \Applications \2007 Applications \SEPAApp- 12- 07.doc FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: y ti` I File Number: 6 "el Application Complete (Date:5-2.2.ce ) Project File Number: P2107 -c32. Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: L(S„O27 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Minkler Office Building LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 300 Upland Drive, Tukwila, WA 98188 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 883650 -0030 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: Address: Phone: 425 251 -6222 FAX: 425 251 -8782 Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA 98032 E -mail: gib- melli©b rglause ,com Signatur: _�,�,. � /I►.. A Date: `{ l 2�1 0$ P: \Planning Forms \Applications \2007 Applications \SEPAApp- 12- 07.doc • • RECEIVED ApR 2 4 2008 �vtnt City of Tukwila "- Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: 4/22/2008 Applicant Name: Street Address: George Rockwell c/o of Dan Balmelli Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 -72nd Avenue South City, State, Zip: Kent , WA 98032 Telephone: 425 2 51- 6 2 2 2 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. P: \Planning Forms \Applications \2007 Applications \SEPAApp- 12- 07.doc • RECEIVED 'APR 24 20001 Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases otgaina. including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 YES Continue to Question 1 -1 (Page 3) 2 -0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 Continue to Question 2 -1 (Page 4) 3 -0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18 -15). Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 4 -0 YES - Continue to Question 3 -1 (Page 5) 4 -0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173 -303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 5 -0 YES - Continue to Question 5 -0 5 -0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 P: \Planning Forms \Applications \2007 Applications \SEPAApp- 12- 07.doc Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that Ric tsP{T 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 establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete Checklist Complete • City of Tukzvi SA Screening Checklist RECEIVED 'APR 2 4 2000 COMMUNITY 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 mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. Continue to Question 1 -2 YES - Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1 -3 (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. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) YES Continue to Question 1 -4 • City of TukwiSA Screening Checklist RECEIVED 308 Part B (continued) 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that'" infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stain ®jirry treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by alloiil4T seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) 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 watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. O Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. O 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. 1;F1>- 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 Tukzvi4SA Screening Checklist RECEIVED Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the orHihar)h' g12888 water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each q uestion carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, uG"""r 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. • NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 City of TukwilSA Screening Checklist RECEIVED APR 2 4 2008 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface conn6 f1Tto 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) °el 1 C EtvEO• OR 2 4 20O81 aiTir STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Minkler Office Building 2. Name of Applicant: George Rockwell, The Andover Company 3. Date checklist prepared: April 21, 2007 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction to start Spring of 2009 or as soon as applicable permits are issued. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Environmental Checklist • Technical Information Report • Geotechnical Report 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No applications are pending to our knowledge. Agency Comments P:\Planning Forms \Applications\2007 Applications \SEPAApp- 12- 07.doc 12961.001.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. • Environmental Determination by City of Tukwila • Design Review Approval by City of Tukwila • Site Development Permits by City of Tukwila • Building Permit by City of Tukwila • Electrical /Mechanical /Plumbing Permits by City of Tukwila • NPDES by Department of Ecology 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. The proposed project is to construct an approximately 41,468- square -foot office building on a 2.74 -acre parcel of currently undeveloped land. The project will include associated clearing, grading, landscaping, paved parking and drive aisles, stormwater facility, water and sewer connections, utility extensions and required frontage road improvements. cno 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. The site is located at 300 Upland Drive. Tax Parcel No. 883650 -0030. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 12961 .001 .doc • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): 1Flati, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest slope on site is approximately 2 percent. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland The native soil found beneath fill material is mapped as Alluvium (QaI) according to the Geological Map of the Des Moines 7.5 -Foot Quadrangle, King County, Washington. Please refer to the Geotechnical Report for a more detailed description. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None are known to exist to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 2,650 cubic yards of cut and 1,600 cubic yards of fill material will be used to prepare the site for construction. The source of the fill material is unknown at this time but will be from an approved source. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur during construction depending on weather conditions., however, a temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) plan will be designed and implemented in accordance with City of Tukwila Standards. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 80 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surface upon completion of the project. 12961.001.doc • 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A TESC plan will be designed and implemented to reduce and control impacts from construction activities. 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. During construction, emissions from construction equipment would be present. After completion of the project, emissions from vehicular traffic to and from the site would be present. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None are known to exist that would affect our proposal. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Construction equipment will meet state emissions standards and the site will be watered to control dust. No other specific measures are proposed. 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. No. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None will be used. 12961.001.doc • • 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. The project does not require surface water withdrawals or diversion. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 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. No waste materials will be discharged to surface water. Stormwater runoff will be treated in an underground detention /water quality vault prior to discharging to the existing storm drainage system in Minkler Boulevard. 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. No groundwater will be withdrawn or water discharged to groundwater. 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: No waste materials will be discharged to the ground. All sanitary sewer effluent will be collected and conveyed via tightline pipe and discharged into the existing sanitary sewer system in Minkler Boulevard. 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. Runoff will be from the building rooftop and pavement areas. All runoff will be collected and conveyed to a detention /water quality vault prior to discharging into the existing storm system in Minkler Boulevard. This discharge eventually flows into a regional detention facility. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. All stormwater will be conveyed via tightline storm pipe and all sewer effluent will be conveyed to a sanitary sewer system. 12961.001.doc • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A TESC plan will be implemented to control runoff during the construction phase in accordance with City of Tukwila Standards. A detention /water quality vault will be designed and constructed to treat and control runoff from the completed proiect. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the vegetation will be removed for the construction of the building and site improvements. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known to exist to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: On -site landscaping will be designed and installed according to City of Tukwila Standards. 12961.001 .doc Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ✓ Shrubs ✓ Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the vegetation will be removed for the construction of the building and site improvements. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known to exist to our knowledge. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: On -site landscaping will be designed and installed according to City of Tukwila Standards. 12961.001 .doc • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 5 Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds Mammals Fish Other Hawk, heron, eagle, ongbirds, other: Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known to exist to our knowledge. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The site is part of the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: On -site landscaping will help to reduce impacts to wildlife. 6 Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. During construction, electricity, natural qas, and diesel fuel will be used to operate construction equipment. Electricity and natural gas will be used to meet the completed office building's lighting and heating needs. b Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: All buildings will comply with the Washington State Energy Code. No other specific measures are proposed. 12961.001.doc • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. None are known to our knowledge. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. Other than normal police, fire, and medical services already available in the area, no special requirements are anticipated. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any Payment of impact fees, if required, would reduce impacts. No other specific measures are proposed. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Normal vehicular traffic noise exists along Minkler Boulevard and Andover Park West, and noise from occasional transit along rail spurs: none of which are anticipated to affect the project. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. On a short -term basis, noise from construction equipment would be present during daylight hours of 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. On a long -term basis, noise from vehicular traffic to and from the building would be present, predominantly Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: New landscaping will be installed to help shield noise impacts. No other specific measures are proposed. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is vacant. To the north, east, and west are predominantly office use buildings. To the south are office and office /warehouse use buildings. 12961.001.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. c. Describe any structures on the site. The site is undeveloped. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). f What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Tukwila Urban Center (TUC). If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not to our knowledge. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? It is anticipated that approximately 60 to 100 people will work at the completed office building. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No persons will be displaced by this proiect. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. No measures are proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project is compatible with the zoning for which it is a part. 12961.001.doc • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. - Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The maximum height of the building will be approximately 42 feet. The predominant building materials will be concrete and glass. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views would be altered or obstructed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The building is designed with architectural details to reduce aesthetic impacts. Perimeter landscaping will also reduce aesthetic impacts from the project. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light or glare from building windows and parking lot lighting could occur during both daylight and evening hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? It is not anticipated that any safety hazard would be created due to light or glare. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Light from adjacent streetlights would be present but are not anticipated to affect the proposed project. 12961.001.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Building glass will be non - glare, parking lot lights will be shielded, and on -site landscaping will reduce and control glare impacts. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Tukwila Pond Park is located approximately 1/2-mile to the north of the project site. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: No specific measures are proposed. 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. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known to exist to our knowledge. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: No specific measures are proposed. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by Minkler Boulevard to the north and Upland Drive to the south. One new access point is proposed to Minkler Boulevard and two new access points are proposed to Upland Drive. 12961.001.doc • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is not currently served by public transit. The distance to the nearest transit stop is approximately 1 mile. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have 170 parking stalls. No parking stalls will be eliminated. 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). ' Half- street improvements including curb, gutter, and sidewalk may be required along Minkler Boulevard and Upland Drive. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Rail spurs are located to the east and west of the site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 62 p.m. peak hour trips using the ITE Manual calculation. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Half- street improvements and mitigation fees, if required, would reduce transportation impacts. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposed proiect would result in an increased need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. A fireline water system. new fire hydrants, and frontage road improvements would help reduce impacts to public services. 12961.001.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity natural gas water refuse service telephone sanitary sewer , septic system other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Natural Gas: Water: Sewer: Telephone: Cable: Refuse: Puget Sound Energy Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Qwest Communications Comcast Waste Management C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agenc : ying on them o ma e its decis'on. Signature: . /l,. kik /Gl AgL2 . Al Date Submitted: L I 7---`f (D ! 12961.001.doc t FREESTANDING SIGN MINKLER BOULEVARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPE SETBACK VICINITY MAP NORTH NORTH UPLAND DRIVE SITE PLAN sou: 1' a 20-0" BUILDING AREA 41,468 SF 1ST FLOOR 21,028 SF 2ND FLOOR 20,440 SF PARKING PROVIDED 170 STALLS PARKING RATIO 4.1:1000 SF PROJECT LOGTCN RECEIVED APR 2 4 20081 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SYNT\ SI,SPC THE FUSION O ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN TECHNOLOGY & PEOPLE 11911 NE tat Street, Suite 103 Bellevue, WA 98005 425 646 1818 (fax) 425 646 4141 GEORGE ROCKWELL 415 BAKER BLVD, SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98188 REVISIONS A 04 21 08 0E00/4 REVIEW eti PROFESSIO4'AL STAMP M54I REO9ER00 I 1/ ARMfECf RANOV.E LEE BROWN STATE OF WASHINGTON PROJECT INFORMATION MINKLER BLVD OFFICE TUKWILA, WA SHEET INFORMATION mua MI- DESIGN REVIEW ,... SITE PLAN VICINITY MAP o®c e. R8 carp, et JL e en rneuce EWE 03 31 08 e~O AIR A1.1 nnosci ,R 07020.01.001 www.synthesispc.com 0 2009 20199209.0 COLOR SCHEDULE 1l BENJAMIN MOORE HC -90 "CROWN POINT SAND" • CONCRETE PANELS ® BENJAMIN MOORE HC -89 "NORTHAMPTON PUTTY" • CONCRETE PANELS • METAL SIDING ® BENJAMIN MOORE HC -76 "DAVENPORT TAN" • CONCRETE PANELS • MECHANICAL SCREENING (� AEP SPAN "COOL DARK BRONZE" • METAL FASCIA • ENTRANCE TRIM ® "CLEAR" ANODIZED ALUMINUM • ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMES (6 ) (7) PPG "SOLEXIA" • VISION GLAZING OPACI -COAT -300 j12 -0225 EVERGREEN • SPANDREL GLAZING O 0 110' -O• ■ ( , ) 1 1 0 210 -0• O ( I ) Ti ( 1 ) ( 3 ) OSOUTH ELEVATION SG4E 3/37• = 1 -0• 37 -11 le OP O1 FASCN 37 -10 TOP OF SCREEN 20• -0. TOP OE MITI oe s ( 1 ) I1 ) ( 3 O 2 EAST ELEVATION SCALE 3/32• • 1' -0• 11' -0• SECOND FLOOR 0'-0• FLOOR 29. -0 TOP O . f WAIL SE,-0. A . CONO FLOOR A FY1611 FLOOR 110. -0• O O H ( I ) — ( ( 2 210 -0' ONORTH ELEVATION 3 SCALE 3/37• = 1. -0• I 'I 1 ' i-- 11 2 2. -0. TOP 01 WALL ,1' 0 SEOOR 0' -0• FH0M ROOK • STOP 35 - 301 10008 TOP a WALL '4—Oro FLOOR ( 4 OWEST ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32' • 1• -0• ( • )— 0' tJ F0' N-0M 11.000 SYNTHESIS �PC THE FUSION OF ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN TECHNOLOGY & PEOPLE 11911 NE tat Street, Suite 103 Bellevue, WA 98005 425 846 1818 (fax) 425 646 4141 GEORGE ROCKWELL 415 BAKER BLVD, SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98188 RECEIVE APR 24',.200R COMMUNITY DID} REVISIONS A 04 21 OB DESIGN RENEW EWE PROFESSIONAL STAMP N54 I REfA1LPED I 1/ APW,ECi RAMO111 LEI EOM STATE OT MASHNGTCN PROJECT INFORMATION MINKLER BLVD OFFICE TUKWILA, WA SHEET INFORMATION rilIGSF FOR. DESIGN REVIEW ELEVATIONS •mom ar: RB ova. it A eaten e.: MAO. a1: a c 03 31 08 war 11a A4.1 oCCI •a 07020.01.001 www.synthesispc.com caws •,•nov0 CATCH EOSIN 84.21,80 fE 12' CNC 5.15.75 E-12`POC14.4-- (r&. 6 AV.18.200-" - 1L VAULT 1509 8,4.11.0 IE 8' !OHE 6.591 8"Taoc-r =596 - R 5'-E A, 14.6.54 -UG1T J801 LL9II- LIGHT JBOK 154■ 094,21.82 C- CATCH BASIN 16 8' 00NC.11.07 r RIM.21. 32 IE 18' CONC W =527 .i IE t2'RVCN ].1 ] 11: COTE E.5 ' L 16 12' CNC S.17_14 • r CATCH BASIN I RIM= 20.56 6 12' PVC N.16.54 IE 4' PVC 4.18.76 IE 12' CNC. 5.1539 55411 919.20.81 IE 18' CONC 6.4.13 � TEL -war LIGHT 6501 290k CURB DROP MINKLER BLVD. SS SINGLE YE�PANT STRF[STZPE E%TR( EDGE Ailuli - -- - 71 -7 MG4T CATCH BASIN 60.21.82 --1615 -Ec N.17.20 BOX 101_ v4U0LT- u52i "- - 5041 J803 - IGGHTQ,Y CATCH BASIN 0911.22.05 IE 12• CNC N.16.26 32 501968D - P/W .01 4 EAXRENT PE R '7AT & RE i NO 7,07220711 /A f UPLAND DRIVE N 8755•04' W x599 40' (PLAT) 899.54' (MEAS.) "-CATCH BASIN R 944.20.43 95 12' COP 6.17.42 15' TYPE I LANDSCAPE DRN WAY =45 L•6.75' 763.38' 4= 9'5L:24'. CATCH 81514 RI9 =20.40 IE 12' CUP (•17.50 LARGE PIPE RUMS N & S UNKNOWN IE r WATER VALVE' 15' 411141 EASEMENT PER PUT FIRE HYD. -N 01'39'57' E 23.25' J 2 30' RAILROAD R/W EASEMENT PER PLAT & REC.N0.7707220771 LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS IE 6 C4P NE.19.63 TOTAL PARKING STALLS 170 REOUIRED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE: 2,550 S.F. (15 S.F. / STALL) PROVIDED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE: 5,197 S.F. 453.56' !RA TAY 0106x81' LANDSCAPE PLAN 0 15' 30' 60' SCALE 1' =30' -0' 120' FOUND MON. IN CASE CATCH 644N RA1.20.97 1E 12' CNC 6.16.80 1E 12' CNC 8 =1680 51GNAL JBDK LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB ALL EXISTING BED AREAS SHOWN TO RECEIVE NEW LANDSCAPE. 2. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS ADJACENT TO BUILDINGS AND WITHIN PARKING LOT TO BE SET AT 8' MINUS FINISH ELEVATION EXCEPT AS NOTED. THESE AREAS TO RECEIVE IMPORTED 3 -WAY TOPSOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12". SUBGRADE TO BE SCARIFIED TO A DEPTH OF 12 -18' AND ALL SPOILS (ROCK & DEBRIS > 2" DIA.) TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF NEW TOPSOIL INSTALL IMPORTED TOPSOIL TWO LIFTS OF 6" EACH. ROTOTILL EACH LIFT TO A DEPTH OF 8' INTO SUBGRADE. ALL EXISTING BEDS THAT ARE SHOWN TO RECEIVE NEW PLANTING TO BE PIT PLANTED WITH A 50/50 MIX OF EXISTING SUBGRADE AND IMPORTED 3 -WAY TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL TO BE PACIFIC TOPSOILS WINTER MIX OR APPROVED EQUAL. WINTER MIX TO CONSIST OF 1/3 BY VOLUME SANDY LOAM, 1/3 BY VOLUME COMPOSTED GARDEN MULCH, AND 1/3 BY VOLUME COURSE WASHED SAND. WINTER MIX TO BE UNIFORMLLY AMENDED FOR FERTILITY AND PH AS RECOMMENDED BY A CURRENT SOILS TEST PROVIDED BY SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY FOR NEW PLANTING. (SOIL AND PLANT LABORATORY, INC. 425 -746 -6665, TEST #A05 -2) 3. ALL NEW PLANTING BEDS TO HAVE FINE BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2'. EXISTING BEDS TO BE MULCHED AS NOTED. 4. GROUND COVER TO EXTEND UNDER ALL DECIDUOUS TREE CANOPIES AT THE SPECIFIED SPACING TO PROVIDE COMPLETE COVERAGE IN ALL PLANTING BEDS DESIGNATED TO RECEIVE GROUND COVER. GROUNDCOVER BENEATH EVERGREEN TREES TO BE MAINTAIN A 3' CLEARANCE FROM BASE OF TRUNK. 5. LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS ARE BASED ON THE SITE PLANS PREPARED BY SYNTHESIS ARCHITECTS. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY FIELD CHANGES TO THE SITE PLANS WHICH MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT OF DESIGN. 6. REFER TO CIVIL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS FOR GRADING AND DRAINAGE INFORMATION. IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY ADVERSE DRAINAGE CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE HEALTH OF PLANT MATERIAL. 7. NO PRE - EMERGENT HERBICIDES TO BE USED ON THE PROJECT SITE DURING THE FIRST YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD. 8. 8 & B PLANTS TO BE DUG AND SECURED PRIOR TO END OF MARCH. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM NURSERY TO BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 9. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO INSPECT AND APPROVE ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLANTING TO ENSURE ACCEPTABLE QUALITY. 10. BURLAP TO BE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM ALL B & 8 PLANT MATERIAL BEFORE BACKFIWNG OF PLANTING. 11. ALL NEW LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED WITH A AUTOMATIC WATER EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM. SYSTEM TO INCLUDE A RAIN SHUT -OFF DEVICE. PLANT SCHEDULE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE NOTES IK6tS ACER PLATANgDES 'EMERALD QUEEN' /NORWAY MAPLE 2" CAL B &B lit 7�r ACER RUBRUM 'FRANKSRED' / RED SUNSET MAPLE 2" CAL B&B �` . ACER PLAT. X ACER TRUN. 'WARRENRED'/ PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE 2' CAL. 8 &B 11� �! PI U5 CALLERYANA 'GLENS FORM' / CHANTICLEER PEAR 2" CAL B &B 1111 ACER CIRCINTUM / VINE MAPLE 8 -10' HT. MULTI- STEM,B&B OTFiUJA PUCATA 'EXCELSA' / EXCELSA WESTERN RED CEDAR 2' CAL. B &B { } CHAMAECYPARIS OBTUSA 'GRACIUS' / SLENDER HINOKI 6' HT. B &B EWRN;<tEEN SHRUBS 0 ABEUA X GRANDIFLORA / GLOSSY ABEUA MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 4' O.C. QJ ARBUTUS UNEDO 'COMPACTA' / STRAWBERRY BUSH MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 4'.O.C. O CISTUS X HYBRIDUS / WHITE ROCKROSE MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 4' O.0 Q NANDINA DOMESTICA 'SEANNIA SUNSET / HEAVENLY BAMBOO MIN. 18" HT. CONT, 3' 0 C. ® OSMANTHUS DELAVAYI / DELAVAY OSMANTHUS MIN. 18" HT. CONT, 3' 0 C 0 PRUNUS L. 'OTTO LUYKEN' / OTTO LUYKEN LAUREL MIN. 36' HT. CONT, 3' 0C ® TAXUS B. 'REPENDENS' / SPREADING YEW MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 3' OC ® TAXUS X M. 'HICKOI' / HICKS YEW MIN. 36" HT. CONT, 3' 0.C. 0 VIBURNUM DAVIDII / OAMOS VIBURNUM MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 4' O.0 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS e EUONYUMUS ALUTUS'COMPACTA' / WINGED EUYONUMUS MIN. IF HT. CONT, 4' O.C. ei BERBERIS T. 'CRIMSON PYGMY / DWARF RED -LEAF BARBERRY MIN. 18" HT. CONT, 2' O.0 ID PHYSOCARPUS OPUUFOLIUS.'DIABOLO' / DIABOLO NINEBARK MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 4' O.0 ® SPIRAEA JAPONICA 'BULMALDA' / BULMALDA SPIREA MIN. 18' HT. CONT, 3' O.0 PERENNIALS / GRASSES / FERNS . ® EUPHORBIA CHARACIAS 'WOLFENII' / EUPHORBIA 1 GAL CONT. ' * POLYSTICHUM MUNITUM / SWORD FERN 1 GAL CONT o CAREX 'ICE DANCE' / VARIEGATED CAREX- 1 GAL. CONT., 2' O.C. GROLRNDCOVER ;��;•;•;•;•• ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA -URSI / KINNIKINNICK 1 GAL 24" O.C. t•X;i :i O' EPIMEDIUM X RUBRUM / BISHOP'S HAT 1 GAL. 24" O.C. VINCA MINOR / DWARF PERIWINKLE 4' POT 12' O.C. WM LAWN SOD PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN MINKLER. BLVD OFFICE Date: 4 -22 -08 Project: 200812 File: Drawn: CB L -1 • 1'-30' 0 15 30 60 'd= `e`"'b7� 9991 X09 � �'"AR"t"T� CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1- 800 - 424-5555 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 3, UPLANDS TUKWILA INDUSTRIAL PARK ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLIIYE 104 OF PLATS, PAGES 8 THROUGH 10, OICLUSTK, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE MY OF TUKWILA BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1994, UNDER RECORDING 140. 9408290326. (LEGAL DESORPTION AND EASEMENTS PER 1111.E REPORT SUPPLIED BY CLIENT FROM FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY NATIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2007 AT 7:30 AM., POLICY N0. NOS-318734-RM. NO FURTHER RESEARCH INTO MATTERS OF RECORHAS BEEN PERFORMED BY BARGHALUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.) BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASS OF BFAINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS IND 83/91. W500T MONUMENT D 136 WAS HELD FOR POSITION, AND A UNE BETWEEN WS00T MONUMENT ID 136 AND WSDO1 MONUMENT 1384 WAS HELD FOR ROTATION. VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD 29) THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY 15 N0V029. NGS POINT 740. N254 WAS HELD, WITH A14 ELEVATION OF 28.51' NARRATIVE A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A 'TRIMBLE 5600' ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION AND A TOPCON GR3 CAPS WERE 90111 USED AS WELL AS A IDS RANGER' DATA COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH HELD NOTES WAS PERFORMED, ESTABUSH9HG THE ANGULAR DISTANCE AND VERINa1 RELATIONSIPS BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS, PROPERTY LINES, AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. THE RESULTING DATA MEETS OR EXCEEDS 1NE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH N RAC 332- 130 -090. N01'49.25'E 1152' COVER SHEET A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON R- 359.27' 1.470.74' T.276/34' DELTA-75'13'SE 4.arigia WI-----,711&21111.r1101•10. •101 MN INN MN MU V4.UU Ar zr P•E a 04/14 Awe 7 / / 8.450 96' 1- 85.98' 1- 43.11' DELTA.1O55'19' 699.54 ( R.359.26' 1.394.90' 1.220.07' DELTA - 62'58'47' 02'04'58' E 8.05' RECEIVED APR 24 nom DEVELOPS184T STRANDER BLVD TUKWILA POND TRICK DR RR —_ 'NICER BLVD UPLAND VICINITY MAP // LEGEND ® JUNCTION BOA (A5 NOTED) ❑ CAmai 6*20 (TD) p SPKTM1 SEWER MN692E (S990 ® 11011T09 WELL DO WATER VALK (W) A FRE new (FN) SOD) INDEX OF SHEETS C1 of 5 COVER SHEET 8 A W co C2 of 5 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN C3 of 5 PRELIMINARY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN C4 of 5 TEMP. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN C5 of 5 CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND DETAILS CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBGUNNG PERMITS FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR REMOVING AND REPLACING ALL SURVEY MONUMENTATION THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACIMTY, PURSUANT TO WAC 332 -120. APPLICATIONS MUST BE COMPLETED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. APPUCATIONS FOR MOMS TO REMOVE MONUMENTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, OR BY CONTACTING THEIR OFFlCE BY TELEPHONE AT (208) 902 -1190. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARNENI OF NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC LAN) SURVEY OFFICE 1111 WASHINGTON STREET BE PD. 606 47060 OOMPH, WASHINGTON 98504-7080 UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRICTION, ALL MONUMENTS DISPLACED, RDAOVED, OR DESTROYED swat BE REPLACED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR AT 14E COST AND AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CONTRACTOR, PURSUANT TO THESE REGULATIONS. THE APPROPRIATE FORMS FGR REMACDIENT OF SAD MONUMENTATAN SHALL ALSO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR malmszamtaiam CAUTKIN TIE CONTR101DR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYNG 1NE LOCATION_ DIMENSION_ D DEPTH OF ALL COSTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT ION 001!11)0 THE LIMIII( AND SURVEYING TEE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. MIS SHALL. INCLUDE GALLING 011111Y LOCATE 0 1- 800 - 424-5555 AND LIEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE DOSING 5111/1105 AT LOCATIONS OF NEW U1RNY CROSSINGS ID PHYSICALLY VEREY WHETHER OR NOT CDNF11CF5 COST. LOCATIONS OF SAID MIMES AS SHOWN ON THESE FUNS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUDJEC1 TO VARIATION. B CONFLCIS SHOULD OCCUR, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BOIIHAUSEN COISUI�ERNGINEERS, INC. TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH c L. • a4 -8 LL Z Z •n 03 7 NI ,n.3'N N aZ m ▪ Y f a t) Daterfime:4 /22/2008 3:13 PM T-30' 0 15 30 80 1M7L ;a TEL N 01'49'28' E 11.92' WATER VALVE-4\ DRIVEWAY 1! DRIVEWAY FOUHO 4'x I" CONC. MON., BRASSIE BR01(EN OFF. 'X' IN TOP OF STEM CATCH BASIN RIM.21.60 IE 12" CNC S=15.70 Err-P0 11.15:73. f-e- 04 50-..5820. - li • rTEL VAULT S54H 17114.27 01 IE 8" '.014C 0 =511 -1E 1CTaaC0ti995 058 {51E-N.444._ - PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON I JB00 ./. (4101 J801, EX. 66"-STORM GRAIN 1- SSW 054-21.82 CATCH BASIN IE 8 .0840-11.07 1714.21.32 If 18' CON! W -527 IE 12' TOC N -17.12 5 18'. C 5NC E. 17 if 12" (NC S.17.I. r TEL. - 0AULr- =SIGHT _. LIGHT J030 II CATCH FYSM RIM -21.82 IE..I -j_CNC 44=17.20 EX. 66 STORM DRAIN 25' - 111 5 - - UONI ua1T 1000 CA1011 BASIN 814=20.59 IE 12' PVC 44.16.54 If 0' PVC N.18.76 It 12' CNC. S -18.39 SSMH RM.30.01 IE 18' CONC 0 =4.13 -- 1E- 18'- M4cw421. J/CHI 1307 /0GHI I-2474'0.37 IE 12' PVC N =15.27 IE 12' CNC 5E=15.27 IE 6' PVC N -18.92 MINKLER BLVD. MOORS 38.100 PAINT STRIPE -111G417 TURN SIGN CATCH BASIN 2 If 1 2' CNC IE 1C N =1626 RAILROAD-. /W EA5E0EN1 Pita.101Q REC.1017(7.70'71/ mom it Pim Mina' IN 1111Au1{111111 10ff vsG 01 ry Ll tMI -7i 4402'04.58' SOW, 7801 ' RALHWU -� 05���' -R/w 0.30E C.NC. 38W770139F STORM DRAINAGE PUMP STATION 30' RA11.00AD 8/W EASEMENT PEA P1A1 50 REC.N0.7707220771 150 SF OF GRATED ACCESS RAILROAD ROW 1000141 REC. No. 78.270035 t. Irxili IONIMIRRINVII=2.17M/NigagillifffilainalearawmariniTririlinalliX4011 .0 I E UPLAND DR. -CATCH BASIN COM. ill N 87'55'04' W E 12' CRP IE 12' P E -17 1 COY 510. 9.40' (PUT) 899.54• (mai) -Ei: TEL M.H. TO BE 0 A ADJUSTED DRAEWAY NEW 25 WIDE COIL DRWY PER L =8.75' T -3.38' •!+10,129* 5117 CATCH 81 ..I4 =20.40 IE 12' C5P 0=17.50 LARGE PIPE RUNS N h 5 UNKNOWN If 554,4 N 01'39'57" E 23.25' ACCESS RISER (1YPICAL) 15' UTILITY 800E4EN7 PER PLAT 00150150, 6' CLIP 10 =19.63 112'436' WIDE STORM DRNNAGE DETENTION/WATER QUALITY VAULT TOP VAULT EL = 22.2 MIN -24.0 MAX MAX. W.S. EL = 19.0 STATIC WS. EL = 12.0 BOTTOM VAULT EL = 7.0 DETENTION VOLUME PROVIDED = 33,000 CF WATER QUALITY VOLUME PROVIDED - 17,600 OF SITE AREA = 2.7 AC.± ESTIMATED DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED - 32.4000F ESTIMATED WATER QUALITY VOLUME REQUIRED = 10.80000 413,56' FOUND MON. IN CASE / 0RNEIY44 CATCH BASIN 014 =20.97 IE 12' CNC 8418.80 0 12' CAC 8016.80 LEM 54H �N RIM 20.64 W W=4.04 IE 18" CNC W -!. H 4 5 SIGNAL JBOX SIGNAL JB00 `01914AL J801 I- CATCH BASIN RL4 -20.69 10 12' a1C 4414=17.67 RECEIVED APR 2 4 20081 1 2 rcom Q m LL 1 r 1-30'. 0 15 30 so &fi$1 MOM - 14 01.49•28' E 11.92' WM VALVE - FVIATER iEL MNJ_ 00.0100 DRMNA5 FOUND 4'A 4' CONC.. WON.. BRASSIE HEOKEN OFF. 51' IN TOP OF STEM 55 -CATCH BASIN RIM.21.60 IE 12- CNC 5.15.75 R"P>t YI=1S03- • PRELIMINARY WATER AND SANITARY SEWER PLAN C . VAULT 550411 RN.22,01 IE 8' 565/0 5.5.91 IITf- CONC'YK796 ___.__ -1E 9-EBN6- N-i.6a -_EX. 66' S70R4 DRAIN • --UGWI JBOA __ A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANG 4 EAST, W.M. CRY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LIGHT JBOK TEL. YATJLr — 11CHf -- CURD DRu.> r51040 RM =:1 82 IE r ANC =11.07 IF. A CONC 0.5.:7 JF 1Q 0051 E -S l' -CATCH BASIN RIM.21.32 10 12' PVT: N.17.12 /- CA1.2 11AVN IE 12' 0NC 5.17.14 R104.21,82 _. IE 12_ENC N.17.20 -11GH1 155. 5 U0 /300 TEL VAULT- - CATCH BASIN 910.20.59 IE 12' PVC. 5/.16.54 IE 8' PVC 11 =1876 IE 12' CNC. 5.16.39 SSNH RIN.20.B1 IE 18' CONC E.4.13 -- ?E;8'6PNC -Wsa2t 201, LK;HT I ,-UGHI -UCHT 1000 r CATCH BASIN 111-20.37 IE 12' INC 1.15.27 15 12' CNC 5E •15.27 M 6' PVC 9 =1892 II .DOE ASPHALT SINCLE YELLOW PAM ((RIPE _0 US1 '09 II / COUPLE YF116W PANT 519/05 RIGHT 1UR0 C '• s° �[g E sEs D. E 2 A Pw W y1 A' I�I�I���i _I�I�IMIMIMI��I�I�I�I�I�I Arn ��I� � �I�I�I■I�I�i�Ml�yl�l�i�l�� !■I�Imi�t� ®1Wl l - -- • RI =22.05 /� CNC '�7 � L R1WEASE4�E��', _ ■ - �1�= l -l� �NIE 12' =16 2 L / / 30' RALROAD R/w EASEMENT PER PLAT k P EC.NO.7 70 7 220 7 71 /! I(1 I ILL Ce I' °n" To ITT; CARP0A0 ROM EA.JIENI REC 5e 734270035 5YTCH Kim 'n[simomr UPLAND DR - - - 14 87'55'04' w (PLAT) 899.54' (MEAS.) CONNECT TO 01519N0 YAM InvEWAT CATCH 84510 RIN-20.43 _15 12' CAP 5.17.42 TEL 4H 15' 17T10Il PER WPLAI _FLOE HTO. .� ORAE0A5 DC. FH L -8.75' T.338' A- QQOl19' CATCH BASIN 11■=20.40 IE .2 CAP E =17.50 URGE FIFE RUNS N h 5 UNKNOWN IE 413.58' N 01'39'57' E 23.25' ORNDVAY 30' PALRMD R/V. USE4EH1 PER PUT 6 REC.90.7707220711 FOUND NON. IN CASE IE 6' C.0 NE =19.63 CATCH BASIN RIM 20.97 6/ 12' CNC N.16.130 0/ 12' CNC W =18.00 SIGNAL /800 N SSW . '11 �� 0/ 10' . N �\ - 6: 18' CNC 5E -3.79 ‘.R" 18' CNC w.1.04 •- 51ONA1 J8311 111111M 8MMIE SIGNAL JBOK C 51GNA1 JB08 \• -SIGNAL 1800 CATCH 045N RIM =20.69 . 0/ 12' CNC R .17.67 RECEIVED PAPR 24 2008 DEEVVEM OuPMENT 2 z� o 2 h A U g Z 543)± 2 § ral9 CC ;2' a I 40 m r s.d.q Dote/Time:4 /22/2008 3:11 PIA : \120001 \12961 \ preliminary \pre -1 \1 • • TEMP. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN 0 15 30 eo DM MI5:7W 1=9, 121 4,2999271,.\:%11921 TEL. INSTALL TIDAPORARY INTERCEPTOR DITCH WITH ROCK CHECK OARS PER DETAIL N orecezr E 11.92' WATER VALVE DRIVEWAY FOUND 4% 4' CONC. MON.. BRASSIE BROKEN OFF. IN TOP OF STEM 63 CATCH BASIN P33=21.60 E 12 CNC S-15.75 E-r•-!=vc 4=,663- o, _ A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON r TM. VAUI.1 SSW -/-1E13-E76C-11.313& 12114-22 E 8' CON. 6.6 31 - 1E N.6.6a J13,•■ SINCLE VE_LOW PNNT STRIPE 1- CATCH to4.6. 4191.22 DS C 12' :46 0.16.27 q. 36 F.6.FGAD- PAY LtSE MEN- • P,A1 64.2 N) E'01.129 1 SENN R0-: ; 8's 611627''' '74 7 80 P21 37 N EX 66 SiORN DRAN 8 2 7803 r 1720 -111.61 W Jon, • •r;9 . •••• ' • " • ...--LEAn K. MINKLER BLVD. • - • 11•111111•111111111 1 triMIMISILMIN . , . call1111.1101111111.9...u. L366 ANIL 00172 01 E le' CL/ .6120 SIGNAL 440 -8 2. UG H22T 1 M./1311" i 1111.311011. 0643 080 , R4 11 = 1 1. MN G1I3SME E EXTIM6I:I-I52 I 197510 LIGHT - LGHT 4809 10111 1 CATC41 9A3 19 RE=20.59 E 12' PVC 6 =1/216..54 E 4' PVC 613-76 E 2' CNC. 31.16.3 9 - S.E SS51664 .111-84 60-21 70101-.618= 4W L. I- 1 CA. T -1C116H 66046 IN 618.0 17 E 2' PVC 5 .r5EE.t2 7 E 12' CNC SE-15.27 E PvC N-18.92 SCKAL JCX Nu 514476 NNCC WSE:47: • 91 •9;44,44 c4. D CURS 504.5 60.0 ALL TD.I-FtgoLEROS4ON MENTATON POND / MIN. TOP POND EL -22..9 MAX. WS. EL 21. / SIAM W.S. EL 19.5 / BOTTOM POND EL ./ 18.0 FIRE lLNINFK-A. GAS 044.43-. UPLAND DR. N 87'55.04* W 40' (Fun 899.5e (mui. 1 . sw.ICH INSTALL TEMPORARY / FILTER FABRIC FENCE P9906133,' \__P.,,,POAD 4741 E.#641■00 No 7842" 03S rawml ri.ffio„n.. g leowa_. o fte spaRumMlmtea_i mIl IiIimMg i• I llIL .I.,I D4. MN :, , 111 _:_i1iii_ i 3PE1.A6E5SP6L8.I1tC6 A" f, ir , itAM 11 CR., CATCH BASIN 1,a. RIN -- 290.4 3 1E 12' OAP 6=17.42 2 60160094515 611=2240 E 12 CIO 6-17.50 LARGE PIP elms N & UNKNOWN E . DRIVEWAY S L-13.75' 5 N 0r39'57' E 23.25' 00P OE3AD 6/94 EASEMET N T PER PLAT & 602.04 770722U0 D7E7 1 FOUN D 1M,ON CATCH BASIN 0)9=20.37 2k . .--- E 12' CAC N=16.80 -SIGNAL 4809 - ------- - 16 12' CNC w-16.39 ,CA1CH BASIN ---‹ 6' CMP NE=19.63 E 12' CNC NE=17.67 RIA1=20.69 ' ."--SIDNAL 4606 -SKNAL 4800 RECEIVED 41Pli 2 4 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPaideNT z 0 F i'• z 9 g- 5 w (1) o 8 cc w w a: z m m A • I A I WOLLASTON Vet . 712961 —pt dwg. 7129.1 —ps dwg. 712961 —pb dwg 47 CITY OF TUKWLA 8TAM ARD CONSTRUCTION NOTE& PI60R TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT ONE -CALL (1- 800 - 424 -5555) FOR UTMY LOCATIONS. CONTACT • PROJECT MANAGER DESIGN ENGINEER ALI SADR BARCNAUSEN CONSIILTING ENGINEERS OWNER ODER GENERAL 1. LOCATIONS SHOWN FOR EKS11410 UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE 2. AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE STARTING PROJECT SITE WORK NOTIFY THE UTWTIES INSPECTOR AT 206-4.33-0179. 3. REQUEST A PUBUC WORKS LJ11L11Y INSPECTION AT LEAST 24 HOURS N ADVANCE BY CARING 208- 433-0179. 4. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKER SAFETY. AND DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENT RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE PERMIT(5) MD COMITIONS, THE APPROVED MANS, AND A CURRENT COPY OF an' OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT G111DELRNES N D DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AVA.ABLE AT THE JOB SITE 6. ALL WORN SHALL CONFORM TO THESE APPROVED DRAWINGS ANY CHANGES FR014 THE APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE PE- APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER, THE ENGINEER MD THE COY OF TUKWILA. 7. ALL MET= AND WIEAWS SHALL MEET DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY DIRECTOR CITY OF 11.1118 AND CONSTRUCTION THE PUBLIC WORKS 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL AMN NN A CURRENT SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS ON -SITE 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS PRIOR TO PROJECT FINAL APPROVAL 10. PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STREET MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PUBLIC 0816 APPROVAL BEFORE DPLENENTAIDN. 11. ALL SURVEYING FOR PUBUC FACILITIES SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A WASHINGTON LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR VERTICAL DATUM SHALL BE NAM 1988. HORIZONTAL DATUM SHALL BE WASHINGTON STATE MID COORDINATES, NORTH ZONE. USING NAD 133/91 SURVEY CONTROL MD TIED TO ANY TWO 0TY OF 1UKW11A HORIZONTAL CONTROL MONUIEMS. FOR PROJECTS WITHIN A FLOOD CONTROL ZONE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS TO MVO 1929. 12. REPLACE OR RELOCATE AL SKR45 DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRICTION. 13. RETAIN. REPLACE OR RESTORE DOSING VEGETATION IN RIGHTS -OF -WAY . EASEMENT, AND ACCESS TRACTS. CONSTRUCTION NOTI 1. ALL WORK PERFORMED 9RALL BE PER APPROVED PANS AND SPEOFIC11NS ONLY. THE PERMTTEE IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A 5ET OF APPROVED PUNS, SPECIFICATIONS, MID ASSOCIATED PERMITS ON THE JOB SIRE. WORK SINE BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL FEDERL, STATE MD LOCAL LAWS. PERMRIEE SHALL APPLY FOR A REVISION FOR ANY WORK NOT ACCORDING 10 THE APPROVED PANS. 2. PERMTTEE /CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE GAYS INSPECTOR(5) PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WOK. 3. WORK N ROADWAYS A LL WORK IN ROADWAYS SHALL MEET TALC I1 AND TAE FOLLDMIN1 B PRIOR TO ANY ACTIVITY IN 0TY RIGHT-OF -WAY, THE PERMIT" STALL PROVDE THE CRY A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR RENEW AND APPROVAL THE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL INCLUDE THE LOCATION ADDRESS AND DESCRIPTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW DURI40 THE WORK AND SHALL MEET MUTCD REQUIREMENTS. C. ALL WORK REQUIRING LANE CLOSURES MUST BE BY PERMIT ONLY. FROM THE THIRD THURSDAY IN NOVEMBER TO THE FOLLOWING JANUARY 2ND, THE DIRECTOR DOES NOT ALLOW LANE CLOSURES IN THE TUKWILA URBAN CENTER D. FIRE PEDESRR6N, AND VEHICULAR ACCESS TO BUILDINGS SHALL BE MAINTNNED AT ALL TIMES, EXCEPT WHEN PERMOTTEE WAS P01805 ON FROM TIE BUILDING OWNER AND THE DEFECTOR TO CLOSE AN ACCESS. E ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF DIRT AND DEBRIS USING STREET SWEEPERS USE OF WATER TRUCKS FOR maxim ROADWAYS REWIRES PEAPPROVL FROM THE DIRECTOR. F. 116E11. STEEL PATES OVER ANY TRENCH, AT ANY TIME WORK 6 STOPPED MD THE TRENCH 6 LEFT OPEN. AnLEICLIalgt 1. ALL TRENCH ECCAVATON OPERATIONS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED ALL APPUCABLE SHORING LAWS MR TRENCHES OVER 4-FEET DEEP. ALL TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS SHALL MEET WSW REQUIREMENTS. 2. POWER. CABLE, NEER OPTICS, AND TELEPHONE ONES SHAT BE IN A TRENCH WITH A 5' MIN A N HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM OTHER UNDERGROUND LIMES. 3. ADJUST ALL MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, AND VALVES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS- OF-WAY OR EASEMENTS DATER ASPHALT PAVING. DEMOLITION NOTES 1. ALL P89040015, CURBS, GROUND COVER, UNITES, ETC. INSIDE DEMOLITION UYITS SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE STEM ON THE PLANS. comma 94ALL CAP /PLUG ALL mums 111901 ARE TO BE ABANDONED OR REMOVED. 2. CONTRACTOR SHAT ASSURE NM ALL NECESSARY PERAUS HAZE BEEN OBTAINED AND NECESSARY PRECONSTRUCO)N MEETINGS HELD PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 3. CONTACTOR 9WLL HAVE ALL EASING UINTES WITHIN PRONMIIY OF WORK AREA LOCATED PRIOR iD WORK 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AND PRESERVE ALL IMPROVFMENIS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE WORK AREA ANY DAMAGED IMPR04EMENTS SHAH BE REPAIRED /REPUCED AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE. 5. DEWATERINO OF TRENCHES MAY BE NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR SHILL DISPOSE OF ANY PIMPED WATER IN A MANNER OFEIED ACCEPTABLE BY THE CITY. CiTY OF TUKWLA WATER OBERAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION,' WASHINGTON STATE OEPARIIENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE C4IPTER, 1994 EDI1109. TOGETHER WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE cltt OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING STANDARDS. 2. AR APPROVED COPY OF 114E5E PLANS MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS N PROGRESS. 3. IT SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONS®1111Y OF THE CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN STREET USE AND ANY OTHER RELATED PERMIT PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION /LIMN IN 013 RIGHT-OF -WAY. 4. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CRY OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (433 -1850) MUST BE CONTACTED FOR A PRECONSTRUC110N MEETING. & ALL LOCATIONS OF CLIME UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR OBTAINED FROM AVNLABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE. IT 15 THE SOLE RESPON98UFf OF THE CONTRACTOR TD INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF AIL MLTY LOCATIONS SHOWN, AND TO FURTHER DSCOMER AND AVOID ANY OTHER 1)11LI1109 NO SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHAH 00NTACT THE 811111IF5 UNDERGfDUNO LOCATION SERVICE (1- 800 - 424 -5555) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TIC OWNER OR HIS REPRESENGTVE SHAH BE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. 6. THE WATER MAIN DISTRIBUTION SY5TEL4 SWILL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS WHICH ARE ON FILE N THE COY OF 1UKWTA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE PROPER ACENLY. 7. CONNECTIONS TO EX61N0 FA0LRE5 SHALL BE SEALED OFF UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. NO CONNECTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED UNTIL TIE NEW WATER MANS HAVE PM14E) ALL PRESSURE AND PURITY TEST. B. WATER WIN PIPE BEDDING. AND TRENCH COMPACTION: A ALL WATER DAWN PPE TO BE CEMENT LINED, CLASS 52 DUCILE IRON, C0NF0RNNG TO ANS.1 SPECIFICATIONS A -21.51 (A.W.WA C151 -78), OR LATEST REVISION. CEMENT MORTAR 114310 AND 5FAL COATING SHALL CONFORM TO ANSI. A- 21.4 -74 (AW.WA C104 -74), OR LATEST REVISION. B PIPE JOINT 10 BE PUSHED -ON, MECHANICAL OR FLANGE JOLT. O AIL W1ER MAIN PPE P11TRES TO BE CEMENT LINED, CLASS 250 CAST IRON, CONFINING ID ANSI. A -21.10 AND A -021.11 -77, OR LATEST REVISION. D. All WATER AWN PPE BEDDING TO BE AP.WA CLASS C. E 411. WATER MAIN CEMENT CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS TO CONFORM TO STANDARD DETAILS SHOWN ON THE PINS. F. ALL WATER MIN TRENCH BAOOILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 924 DRY OPTIMUM DENSITY PER AS.T.M. 0- 1557 -70 (MODIFIED PROCTOR) PRIOR TO TESTING WATER AWNS FOR ACCEPTANCE. 9. ALL WATER DAWN PPE 10' AND SMALLER TO IA4NTNN A MINMUM COVER AT 36 INCHES BELOW FINISHED GRADE. WHERE UTILITY CONFLICTS OCCUR WATER AWNS ARE 10 BE LOWERED TO GEAR. 10. ALL WATER WINS SHALL BE PRESSURE TESTED AND DISINFECTED IN ACCORDANCE MN THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT MD CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARDS ALL 408001ION AND PRESSURE TESTING SHALL BE DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF. AND UNDER THE SUPEIMSION OF, THE CITY ENGINEER MID /OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE 11. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PLUGS ND /0R TEMPORARY °LOW -OFF AS5O®LIES FOR TESTING AND PURITY ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO FINAL 11E IN. 12. FIRE HYDRANTS: A ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHAIl CONFORM TO THE CRY OF TUKWILA STANDARD PUN 8405. W -3, 9 -4. W -5, AND W -6. B. ALL FIRE HYDPoWF PORT SHALL FACE PERPENDICULAR TO CURB AND ram° DRIVEWAY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 13. DOMESTIC WATER SERVICES: A ALL DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE LINES TO BE TYPE 'M COPPER. STANDARD CANONIZED, SAFE. PPE, OR PVC PIPE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARD PLAN NO 202 OR N0. 203 (DOUBLE STRAPS AND CORPORATION STOPS). B. METER BOXES TO BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. C. METERS TO BE INSTALLED BY NE CITY OF TUKWILA. 14. BUILDINGS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WI16N 10 FEET OF THE SPRIG UNE OF ANY WATER WIN. 15. ALL WATER WINS MT IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY REDUCE 10 -FOOT WIDE EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF TUKWILA 1& ALL FITTINGS SHALL BE CAST IRON OR DUCTILE 91114 RANGED OR MECHANICAL ,DIM CONNECTION, AND BE THE SAME THICI04E1S CLASS AS THE PPE USED. 17. LNE TAPS TO BE COORDINATED WITH CITY AT LEAST 48 FOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 18. ALL PPE FITTINGS TO BE LISTED AND LABB.ED US. FOR FIRE SERVICE: INSTALLED, TESTED AND PLASHED AS SPECIFIED BY NFPA STANDARDS N0. 13 AR0 N0. 24. PROPERLY COMPLETED CONTRACTOR'S LATERAL AND TEST CERTIFICATES ARE TO BE PROVIDED TO WASHINGTON SURVEYING AND RATING BUREAU AND THE 011Y OF TUKWILA. NOTES: 1. CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING k CLEANING THE APPROACH ON A REGULAR 8495. 2. IF DIRECTED BY THE COUNTY ADDITION& QUARRY SPALLS MUST BE ADDED. 3. THE CONSTRUCTION APPROACH MIU5T BE LOCATED AT 114E PERMANENT APPROACH LOCATION. CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND DETAILS cn OF TUCWLA SANITARY SEWER OENBIAL NOTES 1. ALL WORK AND LATERALS SHALL BE W AccORD NCE WITH THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUMGIPAL CONSTRUCTION.' WASHINGTON STATE DEPM1MEN4 OF TRANSPORTATION AND APEMAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE CHAPTER, 1994 EDITION. TOGETHER WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE CITY OF TAMA ENGINEERING STANDARDS 2. AN APPROVED COPY OF T)ESE PUNS MUST BE ON SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTER S N PROGRESS. 3. IT SHALL BE THE SOLE RESPONSDIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TD OB1NN STREET USE AND ANY OTHER RELATED PERMIT MKS TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTMIY IN 011 RIGHT-OF -WAY. 4. PRIOR TO AI4 CONSTRUCTION ACTMTY, THE CITY OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (433 -1850) MUST BE CONTACTED FOR A PRECONST RUC110N PEEING. 5: AIL LOCAIDNS OF 09/51840 UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY FIELD SURVEY OR °BINNED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY COMPLETE IT 6 THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY TAE ACCURACY OF ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN. AND 10 FURTHER DISCOVER AND AVOID ANY OTHER ALINES N0T SHOWN HEREON WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TH6 PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION SERVICE (1- 800 - 422 -5855) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HS REFRES01IATIVE SHALL DE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EOM. 6. THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS WHICH ARE ON FILE 04 THE CITY OF TUKWILA ENGINEERING DEPARNENT. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL-FROM THE PROPER AGENCY. 7. ALL NEW SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE SEALED OFF AT THE EXITING TRUNK CONNECTION POINT UNIT. ALL UPSTREAM CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, CLEWED, TESTED, WIPED, AND ACCEPTED BY THE 8. YA 10410 AND UDS: A ALL TYPE I - 48 -INCH 1118DLE5 SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER WSDOT /AIWA STANDARD DELL 8-231 WITH ECCENTRIC COMES. B. ALL MANHOLES SHALL HAVE A WNMUM DROP OF 0.10 FEET BETWEEN INVERTS. O ALL MANHOLES NOT N PAVED AREAS SHALL HAVE 1000140 LDS. D. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MIST ALL MANHOLE TOPS TO MATCH FINAL ASPHALT ELEVATIONS AND GROUND ELEVATIONS IN LANDSCAPED AREAS. 9. SEWER PPE, BEDDING, AND TRENCH COMPACTION: A ALL 5E0ER PPE 51W.1. BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS DESIGNATED: 1. P.V.C, CONFORMING TO AS.T.M. S -3034, 50R 35. 2. DUCTILE IRON, CLASS 50, 00NF0RF6NG TO AW.WA C151. 3. PIPE MAY BE ANY OF THE ABOVE PRONDED: A) FIRE 500415 MUST BE OF THE SAME LATERALS, AND B) WHERE A PIPE MATERIAL S SPECEIGLLY SHOWN ON THE PUN, THAT MATERIAL MUST BE USED. 4. MINIMUM PPE COVER AT MANHOLES SHALL BE 8.0 FEET AND 5.0 FEET BEN/EN RUNS 8. PPE BEDDING SHALL BE AP.WA TYPE 'P WITH WTERIL CONFORMING TO SECTION 9- 30.78(2). C. TRENCH BAC FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 924 DRY OPRINU11 DENSITY PER A5.7.1 D- 1557 -70 (80131FED PROCTOR) PRIOR TO RISING SEWER LINES FOR ACCEPTANCE 10. SIDE SEWER LATERALS A 100E SEWERS SHALL BE 6-19CH MINIMUM DIAMETER AT 2.00 11114IMUM 9DPE. B. SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE TESTED FOR LEAKAGE AT THE SAME 1111E THE AWN LNE SEWER I5 TESTED. IF NOT TENTED TOGETHER, PROVIDE TEST TEES AT SETWER DAWN CONNECTIONS C. BUILDINGS WADI GREATER THAN 10 UNIT SHALL BE SERVICED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING NEDDD5: 1. DOUBLE 6-INCH DIAMETER SERVICES CONNECTED TO TRUCK BY STANDARD TEES OR INTO MANHOLES. 2. SINGLE B -INCH DIAMETER SERVICE WITH CLEANDUT, CONNECTED TO TRUNK INTO MANHOLES ONLY. (ALTERNATE CONNECTION METHODS ARE DEPICTED ON PANS). D. ALL LATERAL CONNECT0N5 TO SEWER MAINS SHALL BE WADE' WITH A WYE OR SWEEPING TEE 11. CONSTRUCTION OF DEWA1ERING (GROUNDWATER) SYSTEM SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AP.WA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, 5EC710N 81 -3.02, 1981 EDITION. 12. WHENEVER SEWERS MUST CROSS UNDER WATER AWN THE SEWER SHALL BE LAD AT SUCH AN ELEVATION THAT THE TOP OF THE SEWER LINE IS AT LEAST 38 INCHES BELOW THE BOTTOM ON THE WATER MAN. 13. BUILDINGS SHAT NOT BE PERMITTED WTHN 10 FEET OF THE SPRING UNE OF ANY WNW SEWER PIPE 14. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE DEA:LOPER SHALL GRANT 10' WIDE SARAART SEWER EASEMENTS ID THE CITY OF 'TUKWILA 15. =MOWS SHALL BE PROVEED AT 111E RENT-OP -WAY UNE FOR LATERALS ENTERING THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. *•u6Ye /0° • r% /R-25' MW. • 12' 4' -6' OlARRY SPALIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE GRADINCi AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES ON THE APPROVED PLANS ARE MINIMUM Re:STR MINTS. 2. BEFORE BEGINNING AMY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ESTABLSH 1}E 013314810 WADS, INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND INSTALL EROSION PREMITTO81 AND SEDIMENT CONTROL RECURS. 3. BEFORE ANY GROUND 06TURBANCE OCCURS, ALL DOWNSTREAM BOSON PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (ESC) MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION. NS1LL AND MANAN ALL ESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO THE ESC PLAN. 4. ESC MEASURE INCLUDING ALL PERIMETER CONI0OL,'SHLLL REMAIN IN PLACE ANTI FINAL SITE CONSTRUC1108 S COMPLETED AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5. FROM WY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30. PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PEMWmEN1 CNER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL RELWN UNWORKED FOR SEVEN DAYS OR MORE 8. FROM OCTOBER 1 1HR0004 APRIL 30, PROVIDE 1FMPORAIO AND PERYANEI41 COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR TWO DAYS OR MORE IN ADO1T1044 ID COVER MEASURES, THE CONTRAcTOR SHAW A PROTECT SID0PRES AND STEEP CUT AND FILL SLOPES IF UMVORKE0 FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS B. STOCKPILE ON STE ENOUGH COVER LATEENS TO COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS. G BY OCTOBER 8, SEED ALL AREAS TAT WEL REAM UNWORKED DUNG THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30). MULCH ALL SEEDED AREAS. 7. FAILURE TO MWMM4 BC 14EASLPIES N ACCORDANCE WIN THE APPROVED M4NIENANCE SCHEDULE MAY RESULT IN THE WORK BENG PERFORMED AT THE 0REC5ON OF THE DIRECTOR AR0 ASSESSED AS A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY WHERE SUCH FACL8ES ARE LOCATED. 8 DURING THE UFE OF THE PROJECT. THE PERIBf1EE SHALL MAINTAIN W 0000 COMMON AND PROPERY REPAIR RESTORE. OR REPLACE A. GRADE SURFACES: WALLS, DRAINS, DAMS, STRUCTURES. -VEGETATION, :BOSTON AID SEDIMENT CONTROL MEA5UR6, AND ODER PROTECTIVE DEVICES IN ACCORDANCE MATH APPROVED PLANS 9. 10. THE PERMTTEE SHALL MONITOR THE DCWWNSTREM DRAINAGE FEATURES, AND SSW. WITH THE DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL, REMOVE ALL SEDIMENT DEPOADON RESULTING FROM PROJECT - RELATED WORK. ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE PER APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ONLY. THE P099111 E IS REWIRED TO MAINTAIN A SET OF APPROVED PUNS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSOCIATED PERMITS ON THE JOB SIDE. WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL LAWS 11. AS 1140 FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, THE PERMOTEE SHALL INSTALL EROSION PREVENTION MD SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES PER THE ESC AND SHALL INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY ESC MEASURES BETDRE ANY 511E DISTURBANCE OCCURS. BEFORE THE TEMPORARY MFJSURES ARE RE9ONFD. INSTALL AN0 ESTABU94 THE UPSTREAM PERMANENT ESC MEASURES. 12. THE PERMITTEE SHALL AT AL TIMES PROTECT SEN5DTVE AREAS, THEIR BUF1FIO, AND ADJACENT PRNATE PROPERTIES AND PUB5C ROWS -0F -WAY OR EASEMENT FROM DAMAGE DURING GRADING OPERATIONS. THE MONT00 SHALL RESTORE. TO THE STANDARDS 1N ERECT AT THE DE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT. 5015116E AREAS, THEIR BUFFERS, AND PUBLIC AND PRNATE PROPERIES AND D10009 AIMS DAMAGED BY THE PR(6TIEE'11 OPERATIONS 13. PERMTTEE SHALL ARRANGE FOR AND COMPLY WIN TM FOLLOWING: A NOTIFY THE PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF ESC MEASURES. B OBTAIN PERMISSION IN WRI11N0 FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO MODIFYING THE ESC PLAN. C. MAINTAIN ALL ROAD DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, CONTROL MEASURES AND OTHER FACILITIES AS EMITTED N THE ESC PLAN. D. REPAIR ANY SILTATION OR EROSION DAMAGES TO ADJOINING PROPBTI S AND DRAINAGE FACILE. E INSPECT ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED ESC ISPE011N SCHEDULE AND DANE NEEDED REPNRS IMMEDIATELY. W.i'7_1E�.1[IT�(7• .SY.1:W �T1Wf.H7TNRV)♦ MiCatfilIMINIMM 3' 1.0' MIN. --1 1 FLOW KEY ROCK I470 SCALE 0.25' (MIN.) 8WALE X�E0'IION AT R00(0E0(D� . 5. i0.5' -1.0' SUMP BEHIND ROCK CHECK DAM SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY, AND CLEANED WHEN COLLECTED DEBRIS EXCEEDS 1/2 OF IT DEPTH NOTE: ROCK SH411 BE 4' MINUS QUARRY ROCK. _ KEY RCK IMO 5814E 0 WN. 0.25 ROCK CHECK DAM DETAILS NOT TO SALE FLIER FABRIC FENCE INSTALLATION NOTES 1. THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCFIISED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. WHEN JONI5 ARE NECESSARY, nom CLOTH SHALL BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST, 81IH A MINIMUM 6-INCH MEMO, AND BOTH ENDS SECURELY FASTENED TD 111E POST. 2. THE FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED TO FOLLOW THE CONTOURS SECURELY INTO THE GROUND *SHALL mum 04'30 SPACED A 1NCHB). MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET ART AND DRIVEN 3. A TRENCH SWILL BE EXCAVATED, ROUGHLY 8 INCHES WIDE AND 12 INCHES DEEP, UPSLOPE AND ADJACENT ID THE WOOD POST TO ALLOW THE FILTER FABRIC TO BE BURIED. 4. WHEN STANDARD 51RENOIN FILTER FABRIC IS USED, A WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE SHALL BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING NEM' DUTY WIRE STAPLES AT LEAST 1 MN LONG, 1E WES OR HOG RINGS. THE WIRE SHALL EXTEND INTO THE TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 4 ACMES AND SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 NOES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE 5. THE STANDARD 53808GI14 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STAPLED OR WIRED TD 1HE FENCE AID 20 8404 S OF THE FABRIC S1MLL BE EXTENDED INTO THE TRENCH. THE FABRIC S1WL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 38 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE REIER FABRIC SHALL NOT BE STAPLED TO DIME TREES. 0. WHEN EXTRA 5IRENO1)1 FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSE POST SPACING ARE USED, THE WIRE MESI1 SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE EUMRNIED. 94 SUCH A CAS. THE FILTER PAM 6 STAPLED OR WIRED ONECILY TO TE POSTS W114 ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF STANDARD NOTE 5 APPLYING, 7. THE TREI404 SHALL BE 040811110 WITH 3/4 -INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER WASHED GRAVEL. EC FILTER MR= FENCES SHALL BE REMIND WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY ST 855200. 9. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL A110 AT LEAST ONLY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. ANY REQUIRED REPNRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDIATELY. 2',2',14 GA WIRE OR EQUIVALENT, IF STANDARD STRENGTH FABRIC IS USED FILTER FABRIC LATERAL TIN. 4'x4' TRENCH BACKFILL TRENCH WITH NATNE SOIL DR 3/4' - 1 5" WASHED GRAVEL 2'44' WOOD POSTS, STEEL FENCE POSTS, REBAR, OR EOUNLENT JOINTS IN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED AT POST. USE STAPLES WIRE RINGS, OR EQUIVALENT TO ATATCH FABRIC TO POST 2',2',14 GA. WIRE OR EQUNALEM, IF STANDARD STRENGTH FABRIC IS USED R11R 4 11811= 11P11 =11 =11 =11= 11= oPEl=;ll ='.11 =11 1414. 4',4' TRENCH �T 6' MAX 71 (POST SPACING LAY BE INCREASED TO B' IF WIRE BACKING IS USED) 2'w' WOOD POSTS, STEEL FENCE POSTS, REHM, OR EQUNALENT INSTALLEff PATER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE D ALONG CONTOUR WHENEVER POSSIBLE FILTER FABRIC FENCE NOT TO SCALE TEMPORARY 'V' DITCH NOT TO SCALE RECEIVED !APR 2 4 2008 DEVELOPR NT 9 co Wa 6 8 z 9 m U cc 2 •0 z ; \preliminary \pre -1 \12961— di.dwg Dote/Time:4 /22/2008 3:09 PM N $ S8 • 0 15 30 60 MUIFIX1 NNM IEV,A VYA7 SCALE, T -30' N 01'49'28' E 11.92' WATER VALVE TEL MHiLr' �?�> / / / / / / CATC14 BASIN RIM.21.50 IE 12 CNC 5.15.75 I0 I2' PVC 11.15.73 IE 8' 01 W.111 ..' ,fl • TEL VAULT BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON 654411 RIM■22 01 10 6' CONC 0.5.91 IE 6' CONC 5.5.95 IE 8' CCNC N46.64 1X01 JBO% p,d LIGHT LIGHT JBOX 5$101 001.2132 IE 8' 400040.11 07 10 18' CONC W.5,27 IE 18' CONC 6.517 CATCH BASIN 519.21.32 IE 12' PVC 1 =17.12 E 12' CNC 5 417.14 CATCH 9.5510 RN -20.59 10 12' 14410 N =16.54 LE 4' PVC N418.75 E 12' CNC. 5.16.39 55445 5144 =20.61 E 18' CONC (.4.13 E 18004440 W.4.21 UGHT 260X 7' d UOM TEL VAULT -110HT L . • UCHT 250400 UGH1 THT i, 1$ • TEL VAULT CATCH 955114 66.20.37 LE 12' PVC N -15.27 1E 12' CNC 5E -15.27 1E 6' PVC N =18.92 WYq CATCH BASIN RLM -22.05 IE 42 CNC 941626 • ...� nsRiAEr- =� - / 30' R/W EASEMENT PER PUT k REC SIGNAL 2000 5544H 5141.20.64 IE 15' CNC 5E.3.79 IE 18' CNC W44.04 lil�l�!�I�I_10t�1_I_I 1 91��,� �'11WErZaImiMitli'�I�I�;��I �Ii 1•I�I�I��immui���I�I��I�I\�I�I� WR�9i1%�li'•: -' r 7� - - r N 67.55 02 W 324.37 .c �E� IL7141��� � � T 'e � -� '��' 9GHLL JBO% • 6.05' 0458' E 5 -- ar00 DavN MDNROIBIG 7:1, 894.20.97 5500050 / IE 12' CNC N =1660 _IE 72' CNC W.f 6-00 / x01701220111 \\ / *f v / \ �/ IE 8' CUP 00.19.63 ' / ic / +. .../. / i�// / / �/ l' 6* / / / j +�'/ .1--,E), A 1.1n,^ T, II,' 111111 A /� \,✓ / f V. L. 111 NL1 �: 1 VI.4414 , / / 11 NIJ V I I \I�L_ PARK rVf\ 1 % 1� / / 119,950 SQ.FT.± (2.754 ACRES r'\ ( +"° / / / / R/W N0 78042700 CATCH BASIN RMp6,112 IEf17 CNC N =17.X) MA1ER VALVE - 15' L1RMJ17 04005441 PER PAT - - �FlAE 1KYD. dl Pa DRIVEWAY pp ,tom', ''�'`•Z,, iii FOUND 4400. IN CA5E +?i 30' RAILROAD R/W EASEMENT PER PLAT & REC.N0.7707220771 (LEGEND 27 1290541E (1151) ANL1p5 550 (IS 05160) ❑ 405701 DAM (408) O 090416 nut 4414410E (SUN) ® 405010 461 DO RAM YALE (IN) .0, FIE 0814411 010 .3. , 9400 • FOUND 4'a 4' CONC BRASSIE BROKEN OFF, x' IN TOP OF STEM _ __44-_44._ �. 444,4.. . x::s:._:•.t•....:1.'C :ydy rl+ .:.,. DRNDYA - -� -• .. .. c..�zS 55410 AY n9 CATCH BASIN RN.20.40 E 12' DIP 0.17.50 LARGE PIPE RUNS N $ S UNKNOWN 10 S5MH LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5P.wL J60X SIGNAL J809 `SIGNAL 280% CATCH BASIN 00.20.69 E 12' CNC NW.17.57 LOT 3. UPLAND'S TUKWILA INDUSTRIAL PARK ACCORDING TO PIAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 104 OF PLATS, PAGES 8 THROUGH 10, NCLUSNE, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (%CEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF TUKWIIA BY DEED RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1994, UNDER RECORDING N0. 9408290326. (LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS PER TITLE REPORT SUPPLIED BY CLIENT FROM FIRST AMERICAN TI1IE INSURANCE COMPANY NATIONAL COMMERCIAL SERVICES, DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 AT 7:30 A.M., POLICY NO NCS- 318734 -WA1. NO FURRIER RESEARCH INTO MATTERS OF RECORHAS BEEN P084105IED BY B4RCHA05EN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.) BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BAAS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY 15 NW 83/91. W5D0T MONUMENT ID 136 WAS HELD FOR POSITION, AND A UNE BETWEEN WSDOT MONUMENT ID 136 AND W500T MONUMENT 1384 WAS HELD FOR R0TA110N. VERTICAL DATUM (NGVD 29) THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY IS NCVD29. 005 POINT N0. N254 WAS HELD, WITH AN ELEVATION OF 28.51' NARRATIVE A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A 'TRIABLE 5600' ROBOTIC TOTAL STATION AND A TOPCON GR3 0PS WERE BOTH USED AS W01 AS A 'IDS RANGER' DATA 0011ECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH HELD NOTES WAS PERFORMED, ESTABLISHING THE ANGULAR, DISTANCE, AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MON LINES, AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. THE FORTH RESULTING WAATA 2 LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAC 332 'APR 24 2ggg COMMUNiTv BEVeLG;-jc1 a 2 rc f 5 a A 2 .. z > N�o CC z co x co - LL. . ▪ O cc 0 o cm Se F- _ as od X LL Z O 1- . -u- m O - N O <0• 0 0 N U.1 Z LL Z L0 c0 csl O) 40 03 n 3 N N • I- IY N N $ T 8 "'-.P. \120003\ 12981 \survey \12961T001.0•g Dote /Time. /23/2008 6.17 PM scale