Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E08-017 - CARLSTEDT RAYMOND - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS AMENDMENT (WOODLAND VIEW)WOODLAND VIEW / CARLSTEDT COMP PLAN REZONE E08 -017 • Cizy of Tukwila • Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION To: Raymond Carlstedt David and Gloria Yoshino Maria C. Notch Hugh Tobin Deb Sorensen Rick Roberts Jeff Anderson Annette Gray Andrea Sipe Debra Tsuruda A.J. Bredberg Washington State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division Jack Pace, Director PROJECT: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Woodland View (SEPA) E08 -017 SEPA — Woodland View Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential L07- 096 — Zoning Map Change —Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) L07- 098 — Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Map Change) Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) Raymond Carlstedt Amend Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) 1.4 acres located at 152xx 65th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA (KC Tax #3597000360) 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 Rf 1 10/15/2008 WnndlandView —SFPA NOD—FOR-017 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Rebecca Fox, who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3670 for further information. Rf 2 10/15/2008 WoodlandView —SEPA NOD —E08 -017 To: From: Date: Re: • City of Tgskwg • Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Comm i Pity Development Jack Pace, Director Jack Pace Rebecca Fox October 14, 2008 Staff Report SEPA/Environmental Review E08- 017 —SEPA for LDR to MDR —Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezone (Carlstedt/Woodland View) Summary of the Proposed Action: The applicant proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map designations on approximately 1.4 acres of a 5.8 acre lot located at 152XX 65t1i Avenue South (King County Parcel # 35970000360) from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Medium Density Residential (MDR) for future redevelopment with multi - family housing. Most of the property contains environmentally - sensitive wetlands, associated buffers and/or steep slopes. The rezone area contains steep slopes. General Information Project Name: Woodland View /Carlstedt Comprehensive Plan amendment and Rezone —LDR to MDR Applicant: Location: Current Zoning: Current Comprehensive Plan: Agencies with Jurisdiction City of Tukwila Raymond Carlstedt 152XX 65th Avenue South (see attached map) Low Density. Residential (LDR) Low Density Residential (LDR) Required Permits /Approvals Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation, and City Council ordinance adoption. Rf Page 1 of 3 10/15/2008 I I :30:00 AM Q. \(`nmr Plan 7 007_78(12 \cPP A __1711R_(117__U/nnr1 lank VIAVACFP A ctaffmvmn- _WnnrllanrlV1FauCarlctnrIL. 10 17 OR lino 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 o Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • SEPA Background This request is being considered in 2008 as part of the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. The property was posted on September 25, 2008, and public notice was mailed on September 26, 2008. This is a non - project action. Specific environmental and design review will be required at the time that a development project is proposed. Background The undeveloped, near - rectangular property is 5.8 acres, and measures about 350 feet x 770 feet. It extends east to west from 65th Avenue South to 62nd Avenue South. The applicant is requesting a rezone only for the eastern 1.4 acre portion of the property, beginning at the center of the east wetland and continuing along the eastern edge of the 50' buffer and extending to the property edge along 65 Avenue South. The remainder of the site would stay LDR. The applicant has mentioned that rest of the site could possibly be donated to the City of Tukwila for open space. Terrain varies from a high elevation of 200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about 140 feet on the west side. Two wetland areas and their associated buffers are located on the west and central portions of the property. Trees and shrubs cover the site. A rock retaining wall on the southeast edge of the property along 65th Avenue South separates the property from the roadway on 65th Avenue South. With the exception of a portion of the lot's southeastern edge, almost the entire site is in an environmentally sensitive area or buffer, including both steep slopes and wetlands. The whole site was proposed for a single - family subdivision in the late 1980's, but the proposal was dropped. Additional Environmental Information Geotechnical Feasibility Report- -Robert M. Pride (April 21, 2008) Wetland Delineation Report John W. Jennings (May 2, 2008) Geotechnical Engineering Services — Alpine Estates — GeoEngineers (May 16, 1989) Summary of Major Impacts The primary impact of changing designation from LDR to MDR will be the potential to develop a greater number and range of housing units on the site than is currently allowed. No development is proposed at this time. As this is a non - project action, no specific impacts are addressed under the 16 elements that are normally reviewed in the SEPA checklist. Future development of the site will require project - specific approvals including, for example, environmental review, site plan approval, design review and approval of building and other construction permits. Subsequent SEPA review will be required in connection with future project- specific proposals. There is no schedule set for residential development. Rf Page 2 of 3 10/15/2008 11:30:00 AM Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \SEPA —E08- 017 -- Woodland View\ SEPAstaffinemo-- WoodlandViewCarlstedt-- I0.12.08.doc • • Land Use: The proposal would allow the future development of the property with MDR residential uses, including duplexes, triplexes and four- plexes. Both the existing LDR zone and the proposed MDR zone permit residential uses, but the MDR allows more intensive residential development. Under the current LDR zoning, up to approximately 9 units with a minimum 6, 500 s.f. lot size could be built.. The proposed MDR zoning could allow 14.5 units per acre, or approximately 16 to 18 units. While project -level plans have not been prepared, it is anticipated that residential uses will be developed on the property. The application shows a preliminary plan for six duplex structures with a total of 12 units. In consideration of the site's steep slopes and wetlands, a project layout and number of units proposed is likely to differ from the preliminary plan. Any future project -level proposals will require careful attention to on -site environmental conditions that include steep slopes, wetlands and their buffer areas. Noise: Future development would generate construction noise, and result in the marginal added noise from a small increase in residents. Traffic /Access: Future multi - family development would generate a small increase in traffic along 65th Avenue South. Additional curb cuts for future development would eliminate some on- street parking. No traffic study has been prepared. Addressing Additional Impacts: Other non - project issues /impacts including utilities, runoff, design review, provision of emergency services, impacts on schools and other governmental services will be addressed as needed once there is a development project for consideration. Recommendation: Determination of Non - Significance Rf Page 3 of 3 10/15/2008 11:30:00 AM Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \SEPA - -E08 -017 -- Woodland View\ SEPAstaffinemo-- WoodlandViewCarlstedt-- 10.12.08.doc City of Tukwila Woodland View LDR to MDR L07-096 & L07 -097 Wetlands & Steep Slopes Slope Classifications Landslide potential is moderate; slope is between 15% and 40% 2 and underlain by reletvely permeable soils. Landslide potential is high; slope is between 15% and 40% and underlain by relatively impermeable soils or by bedrock; also includes 3 all areas sloping more than 40%. Landslide potential is very high; includes sloping areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and existing mappable landslide deposits 4 regardless of slope. Wetland Legend Type 2 Wetland Buffer Type 2 Wetland -80ft Type 3 Wetland Buffer Type 3 Wetland -50 feet File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: Citytf Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Web site: http: / /www.ci.tukwila.wa.us DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) E08 -017 09/18/2008 10/16/2008 APPROVED Applicant: RAYMOND CARLSTEDT Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/REZONE REQUEST FOR 152)0E 65TH AVENUE SOUTH FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) TO MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 3597000360 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Ve'r /5c7'41 Jack P -, 'esponsible Official Date City of a 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) Cizy of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION September 25, 2008 Mr. Raymond Carlstedt 3732 SW Southern Seattle, Wa 98126 Subject: Woodland View SEPA/Environmental Review (File #E08 -017) Dear Mr. Carlstedt: Your application for a Environmental Review (SEPA) for the Woodland View Comprehensive Plan Amendment (L07 -097) and Zoning Map Change (L07 -096) was considered complete on September 25, 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. 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. Please feel free to contact me with any questions at (206) 431 -3683. Sincerely, Rebecca Fox Senior Planner cc. L08 -017 Rf 1 10/01/2008 Q: \Comp Plan 2007 - 2008 \SEPA - -E08 -017 -- Woodland View \Complete.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Robert M. Pride, LLC RECEIVED ConsultgY 0 8 2008 • :COMMUN{TY Entgf PMENT April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt 3921 SW 102nd Street Seattle, WA 98146 Re: Geotechnical Feasibility Report Proposed Residential Development (CJ 144 Alpimereststes on 65th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington ()l Dear Mr. Carlstedt, This report presents the results of geotechnical evaluation of the property located on the west side of 65th Avenue South in Tukwila. The property is situated on a moderately steep slope above the west side of the Parkway and is directly above an existing residence on Lot B. A previous site investigation was performed for the entire parcel in 1989 by GeoEngineers, and it is understood that only the easterly portion of this property will be developed for townhome or apartment use. The purpose of this report is to update the original engineer's report, and to provide recommendations for site development. Site development plans have not been prepared for the easterly portion of this site that will be created for multi- residential use. Available USGS geologic mapping along with the prior test pit date was used as references for this study. Site Conditions The near- rectangular property measures about 350x770 feet extending from 65th Avenue to 62nd Avenue. Natural undeveloped terrain varies from a high elevation of 200 feet at the northeast corner to a low of about 140 feet on the west side. Two wetland areas are located on the west and south - central portions of the property. A moderate growth of trees and shrubs cover this site. Subsurface soil conditions were determined by excavating six test pits on the east section of this property. Except for the wetland area in the south - central portion of the site, all test pits encountered weathered dense bedrock. This bedrock consists of sandstone and conglomerate that is typical to this area of Tukwila. Approximately one foot of organic topsoil covers the property, except around the edge of the wetland where thicker deposits of topsoil and loose organic soils have been deposited at the water's edge. No groundwater was encountered in the five test pits away from the wetland that were dug at elevations above 15o feet. Summary logs of the test pits are attached. 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 - 814 -3970 Fax: 425 - 814 -5672 • • Apri1 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt Page 2 Seismic Hazards Earthquakes occur in the Puget Sound area with great regularity. The majority of these earthquakes are small and usually not noticeable. Large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949 (M7.2) Olympia event, the 1965 (M6.5) Tacoma event, and the 2001 (M6.8) Nisqually event. Normally the epicenter of these larger earthquakes is relatively deep below the ground surface. Generally there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) ground rupture, 2) landslides, 3) liquefaction, and 4) ground motion. The nearest known fault system is the Seattle fault zone located about five miles to the north. USGS continues to study this and other fault systems in the Puget Sound region, and it has been determined that they are capable of generating large earthquakes. Return periods for large earthquakes vary from 50o to more than woo years. The long recurrence intervals for nearby fault systems usually results in a low potential for ground rupture over the life of the proposed residential structures. Based on the subsurface soil conditions existing on this property, the potential for liquefaction is considered low outside of the wetland area. The medium dense sands and the dense bedrock on this site will provide adequate protection against lateral slope displacements during a seismic event. In accordance with the 2003 IBC — Table 1615.1.1, the subject site is defined as Class C. Geotechnical Conclusions On the basis of the previous subsurface exploration and our recent geotechnical evaluation, this property is suitable for development of residential structures. A buffer setback of 5o feet from the mapped wetland area will be required, but the remainder of the site can be successfully developed for residential building pads. Site Excavation Excavation and some filling will be required to establish future building pads for the proposed residential structures. All of the excavated soils are suitable for reuse as compacted structural fill, or for backfill around the structure foundation walls and retaining walls. Some difficulty will be experienced in excavating the dense bedrock depending on the depth of the cuts required. Large rock in excess of 6 to 8 inches in diameter should not be used in any structural fills within the building pad areas. Temporary slope cuts should be made no steeper that 1H:1V where they expose the upper sand and gravel soils. Near vertical cuts in the weathered bedrock will stand without caving or sloughing. 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 - 814 -3970 Fax: 425 - 814 -5672 1 • April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt Page 3 Foundation Recommendations Continuous bearing wall footings and isolated pads may be designed for an allowable soil bearing value of 2000 and 4000 psf for foundations on compacted structural fill and bedrock, respectively. Estimated settlements of footings placed on approved bearing soils /bedrock will be negligible. Resistance to lateral loads may be provided by passive earth pressure and by sliding friction. We recommend a passive pressure of 25o pcf for footings and retaining walls poured against native soils and supporting compacted backfill. Retaining Walls Proposed retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure of 30 pcf and a passive value of 300 pcf. Subdrains should also be installed at the base of the retaining walls to collect possible groundwater seepage from the adjacent planter areas. Erosion Control and Drainage Normal erosion control procedures should be in place during project construction during the winter months. Silt fencing will be needed around the south and easterly sides of the project site, and quarry spalls should be placed for equipment access off of 65th Avenue. Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing subdrains, area drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be directed to an approved discharge outlet. Summary We recommend that we be retained to review the final drawings for foundations and earthwork to confirm that they are consistent with the recommendations of this report. Construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be revealed during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. Field construction services should be considered an extension of this initial geotechnical investigation, and are essential to the determination of compliance with the project drawings and specifications. Such activities would include site and foundation excavations, preparation of the building pad area, retaining wall excavations, subdrain installations, and fill placement and compaction. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on i) our 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425 - 814 -3970 Fax: 425- 814 -5672 • • April 21, 2008 Mr. Ray Carlstedt Page 4 interpretation and evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be performed during construction. Our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget Sound area at the time our work was performed. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Please call me if there are any questions regarding this report. Respectfully, Robert M. Pride, P. Principal Geotechnical Engine dist: (2) addressee encl: Appendix A rmp: CarlstedtResi rXPIR!S �- )/iJ 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Phone: 425 - 814 -3970 Kirkland, WA. 98034 Fax: 425 - 814 -5672 • LOG OF TEST PIT it DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 FEET 0 - 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE., WET) 0.5 - 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY .FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH (:RAVEI. (MEDIUM DENSE 1'O DENSE, MOIST) 4.5 - 1I.5 5M LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM (DENSE TO.VERY DENSE, MOIST) SAND WITH GRAVE:(. 11.5 12.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FELT TEST .PIT 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 172 FEET 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (1.00S_E, .WET) 1.11 1.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROOTS TO UEI'TD OF 3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 7.0 - 9.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 1.0 NO GROUND- WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED. TEST I'IT.3 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET SM DARK T) B (( ROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WE 1.0 - 3.5 ROCK GRAY WEATHERED ROCK WITH NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND WITH REDDISH -BROWN SAND TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON 3/9/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TIIE 0E1'TIIS ON TIIE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE RASED UN AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET. IL'() `.% �;11°1IWO'S LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 3 „ DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) LOG OF TEST PIT • GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 4 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 161 FEET 1.0 SM I.0 - 3.0 SM 1.11 - 9.0 SM n.1 0.J - 4.0 DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH CRAVEI. (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VEKY DENSE., MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE ;AND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE, WET) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO.MEU[UM SAND (VERY DENSE., MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED 4t (;cO 1'' P°111CCl'S LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET 0.4 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) H.4 - 2.11 SM B,ROWNISII -CRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SANn WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (`LOUSE:, MOIST) 1.0 ML /SM CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT TO SILTY F'INF: TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM STIFF TO LOUSE, MOIST To WET) 1•I1 - 1.5 ML /OL DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET) - 5.5 SP -SM BROWN FINE TO COARSE. SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) - 7.0 SM CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1/10/89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CAVING RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 1.2, 4.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, . MOIST) 1 . 0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO-MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOUSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (.11 - 5.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH - OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST.) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 1/10/89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED ROCK NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET .:1411,p; (leo E;11 111ee'1'S LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 GO 120 L7-_ __ J SCALE IN FEET � ?o I � T.. P-3 (1-1st; P-2 '14---Approxialat mihry 01 ssaaalnq \Pe7 12 EXPL.ANAT1ON: TPu12..7E5'r Pt! LOCATION AND NUMBER Ref: )3aima & Holmberg survey drawing for Alpine Estates SITE PLAN J 15 \,e ,. \ i - ' • 1 1. b• Proposed Multi- Residential development 65th Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Project No. Drativing Na 1 Robert M. Pride LW CvtL�ulti:.n ngineer RECEIVED NAY 0 8 2000 COMMUNiTV DEVELOPMENT Title: Wetland Delineation and Documentation of Findings on Tax Parcel Number 3597000260, King County, City of Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Ray Carlstedt, Applicant, 3921 SW 102nd St., Seattle, WA 98146 Phone: (206)932 -8246 Report preparation date: 2 May 2008 For presentation to: City of Tukwila, Dept. of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188, Phone: (206)431 -3670 Prepared by: John Wesley Jennings, Wetland Specialist P. 0. Box 9635, Tacoma, WA 98490, (253)474 -5432 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Ray Carlstedt, has applied for a zoning change for tax parcel number 3597000260. The City of Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel (the Staff) have determined there are two wetlands on the above tax parcel. Therefore, they have requested that a wetland sensitive area study be conducted. The applicant talked the situation over with Rebecca Fox and other personnel within your department. The Tukwila Department of Community Development has a prepared handout that summarizes the requirements for a wetland sensitive area study. However, this is a request for rezoning, and not a development proposal. The Staff has reviewed the city coding requirements and determined that only the technical requirements of item 6.a. would be required at this time. This basically is the data collection phase of a wetland determination. A copy of this wetland sensitive area study handout is attached to the Appendix of this report. In verbal communication with Rebecca Fox I was told the required input that must go into this wetland study. In addition to the requirement to address only item 6.a. has noted above, I was told there is the need to study only the eastern wetland. In a personal visit to your office, I obtained a copy of the GIS resource mapping for the Carlstedt property. This map is attached to the Appendix of this report and labeled as the CityGIS Map. This GIS mapping layer indicates two wetland areas: the western one designated as a Type 2 wetland, and the eastern one as a Type 3 wetland. My findings as described below are in close agreement with this CityGIS mapping. PROCEDURES and FINDINGS 1. The first steps taken were to review that project requirements and the regulations that must be followed. Because of its importance, the Introduction Section explains the rational why this report contains a subset of the requirements for a full wetland report. This process is abbreviated because at this time there is just a request for a zoning change, and not a development proposal. The direction for wetland procedures and requirements are taken from the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual), Ecology Publication #96 -94; the City of Tukwila Code, Chapter 18.45, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and the U. S. Department of Interior Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin Classification). 2. The study site can be easily segregated into two separate upland and wetland areas. There is no need to make a gridded search to find additional wetland areas. Wetland A, the critical eastern wetland for making a rezoning decision, was traversed and the wetland delineation boundary marked with pink flagging labeled as WL -A1 to WL -A25 and then WL -A -Last. Land interior to the wetland delineation line meets all three of the wetland criteria statements: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Lands exterior to this wetland delineation line fail to meet one or more of the required wetland criteria statements. These wetland delineation points were then surveyed by Pacific Northwest Land Surveyors, LLC, of Puyallup, Washington. The acreage of Wetland A is 35,435 square feet. Almost the entire Wetland A area is on the study parcel except about 168 square feet that extends offsite to the south. 3. Five plots were taken to characterize both upland and wetland conditions within the study parcel. These plots are labeled as UPL -1 -Plot, UPL -2 -Plot, WL -A1 -Plot, WL -A2 -Plot, and WL -A3 -Plot. Information on the vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded on DATA FORM 1 for a routine wetland determination as described in the Wetland Manual. These forms are attached to the Appendix of this report. The UPL -1 Plot records resource conditions in a relatively normal upland area. The UPL -2 Plot is taken very close to the wetland delineation boundary. The three wetland plots, WL- A(1,2,3) -Plots represents typical resource conditions found within the Wetland A area. These wetland plots indicated that this wetland has vegetation dominated by the shrub layer with small percentages of trees and scattered presence of an emergent understory vegetation. Within the Cowardin Classification System, Wetland A is a Shrub -Shrub Class, Palustrine System, and meets the hydrophytic vegetation criteria. Hydrologically, the wetland plots are seasonally inundated with waters during the winter, spring, and early summer seasons, and meets the wetland hydrology criteria. The soils within the wetland area are relatively close to the Pu, Puget silty clay loam soil mapping unit as described in the Soil Survey, King County Area, Washington, and meets the hydric soil criteria. Due to difficulty in access the wetland plots the survey crew could not survey all plot locations. This wetland specialist has marked and labeled the plot locations on the Wetland Site Map. 4. A Wetland Site Map has been prepared by the combined efforts of the surveyor and this wetland specialist. The underlying survey map defines the property lines, road system, wetland delineation, and other associated detail typically found on survey documents. This wetland specialist has added the following detail to the survey map and re- labeled it as the Wetland Site Map. Both the original survey map, labeled as WETLAND EXHIBIT, and the Wetland Site Map are attached to the Appendix of this report. The added details to make the Wetland Site Map includes the following. a. A new title to the map, labeling it as the Wetland Site Map. b. The addition of the field wetland flag numbers that correlate with the assigned survey numbers found on the survey map. c. The location of the upland and wetland plot locations. Plots WL -A1 -Plot and WL -A2 -Plot lack any survey data and are conceptual as to their true location. d. The 50 ft. standard wetland buffer width has been added around the eastern wetland area. e. A signature block is added to identify the Wetland Specialist that has made these modifications to the original survey document. 5. The wetland was rated following Tukwila Code 18.45.080.(B) and (E). It was determined that the conditions in the field did not meet the conditions as outlined for a Type 1 or Type 2 wetland area, and by default meets the description for a Type 3 wetland rating. The standard wetland buffer width for a Type 3 wetland is 50 feet. This wetland buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map but has not been located in the field. 6. It was stressed by Tukwila Department of Community Development personnel that work needed to be done on the water courses in the area. There is a water course that is shown on the Tukwila City GIS Map flowing in a southeasterly direction from Wetland A. The legend indicates this is a Type 4 water course. Additionally an unidentified water course was found that drains from Wetland B. These two water courses both drain in a southerly direction but angle off in slightly different directions. The two water courses do not join together. a. The water course off the southern tip of Wetland A flows a short distance into a very small wetland area; then into a crudely constructed ditch; then at S. 153rd St. goes into a buried culvert system that appears to drain toward a dual infiltration /retention pond about 250 feet west of the pagoda in Tukwila Park; and from there waters likely infiltrate into the soil layers or tie into the local road drainage systems. This water course has intermittent flow periods and would not support any life phase of a salmonid species. It is correctly classified as a Type 4 water course and should have a 50 feet water course buffer. This water course buffer is shown on the Wetland Site Map and is totally interior to the the Wetland A and Wetland A buffer areas. b. The water course off the southern portion of Wetland B was found in the field after searching for a water connection between Wetland A and Wetland B. The water course off Wetland B flows in a southerly - southwesterly direction through sections of buried culvert and stretches of a relatively natural stream channel. It was traced laterally to a point just east of the junction of Southcenter Blvd. and 62nd Ave. S. at the prominent Tukwila City Hall sign. From there the water course flows into another culvert that heads toward Interstate 405. It is questionable if this water course is intermittent or perennial, but should not support any phase of a salmonid species since they must pass through buried culverts sections and debris traps. This water course would classify as a Type 3 or Type 4 water course. 7. In summary, the application for a zoning change on the eastern portion of this property hinges upon the wetland conditions found at the eastern wetland area: Wetland A. This wetland has been delineated in the field and the delineation boundary accurately tied into the property boundary by a licensed surveyor. The size of this wetland has been determined to be 35,435 square feet or 0.81 acres. Plots were taken to characterize the wetland and upland resource conditions. Wetland A is a palustrine, shrub -shrub class, wetland system. It classifies as a Type 3 wetland area requiring a standard 50 ft. wetland buffer as provided for in Tukwila City Code 18.45.080.(B and E). Field work was conducted to determine if Wetland A and Wetland B are connected by surface waters. It was established they are not. Both of these wetlands have outlets that flow waters in a southerly direction. However, they are angling away from each other without a confluence of the water courses. The water course associated with Wetland B is not shown on the CityGIS Map and this may represent new data. 8. In the matter of professional experience, I would simply state that I have been on the wetland specialist list of Pierce County from 1991 to the present. During that time period I have conducted over 300 wetland reports. Most of this wetland work has been done in Pierce County, with some submissions to other counties and city jurisdictions as in this case. From 1967 -1990 I was employed by the US Forest Service as a forester, soil scientist, and watershed specialist. I have a BS degree in Forest Science from the University of Washington, 1967, with graduate studies in soil science at Oregon State University and Cornell University. Hopefully, the described and attached wetland and water course field studies are helpful in reaching a determination concerning a rezoning application by the applicant. In closing, one should recognize there is always a degree of uncertainty in scientific endeavors. Other individuals may have more time and discover new data that could lead to different conclusions. I would simply state I have conducted this wetland investigation, reported my findings, and made my conclusions and recommendations to the best of my abilities. If I may be of any further assistance, I may be contacted at 253 - 474 -5432. Wes Jennings, Soil Scientist / Wetland Specialist Puget Land Consultants APPEND I X Guidance for Preparation of Sensitive Areas Special Studies; Wetlands and Watercourses Who Should Prepare the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? M applicant whose proposed action is on must submit a Sensitive grey Special Study � that may contain a wetland or watercourse must submit Sc s Tukwila Sensitive Areas must be prepared by a qualified, ex professional (Municipal required under the code (i.e., for wetlands - a Certified Professional experienced d Scientist st or as professional with at least 2 years P'nofcssional Wettaud Scientist or a hydrologist or other scientist with experience ri n n wetland work; for sanest ourse8, a professional fence in watercourse essesslnents ). What kind of information should be included In the Wetland or Watercourse Sensitive Area Study? The study must include the fallowing information (as applicable), Note that the the Sensitive Area Study may be combined with studies required by o information s agenciesJordinances. 1. Applicant's name and contact information 2. Description of the proposed action and identification of the permits) required, 3. Copy of the site plan with north arrow, scale and showing: pproposal and' dimension,, location of g and watercourse s development nd drainage existyn wets lures, clearing limits, proposed stormwater m . proposed plan and dm impacts, and topographical contours at two (2) foot teevals ,Proposed Plan for mitigating 4. Names and qualifications of the professionals) preparing the study. S. Dates and description of the fieldwork carried out on the site. 6. Detailed characterization of the wetland/watetco nuts, and buffers, which will include: • Wetland delineation report that includes methods used, field indicators evaluated and the results (wetland delineation must be performed in accordance with the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, W Ecology, March 1997). Field data forums are to be includereport. We a d boundaries are to be marked in the field with numbered stakes or fl These markers are to be shown on the she plan with their corresponding numbers indicated, After the City of Tukwila confirms the boundaries, they are to be professionally surveyed to the nearest square foot and the site plan modified as necessary. Exact and will be calculated after the boundaries have been surveyed. b. Co' o � noo* ,;44 riffe:ad ne r� I "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States", Cowardin, L., Carter, V., Gaieth, F.C., and LaRoe, E.T., US Fish and Wildlife Service, office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C., 1979. a. q:AParmsaensitive Area Study Guidetines.doc Page 1of3 08/19/200512:13 PM Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2005 c. Hydrogeomorphic classification of the wetland(s).2 d. Characterization of the watercourse on site: flow regime, streambed, banks, dimensions, vegetation, habitat conditions, existing modifications. e. be f landscape assessment of the wetland/watercourse (identify hydrologic basin/sub- n, inlets, outlets, surrounding land use, habitat quality and connectivity, ultimate prim wed discharge, presence of culverts or other constraints to flow, relationship to ands/watercounses adjacent to or potentially impacted by the proposed project, flow regime, surrounding land uses). f. CIassifrcation of the wetland/ watercourse under Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance Rating system (see TMC 18.45.080 for wetlands and TMC 18,45.100 for watercourses). g. Description of buffer size per TMC 18.45.080 E. and TMC 18.45.100 D., conditions watercourse top ogmphc considerations, existing vegetation types and density, habitat features, edges, presence of invasjve species, etc.), and functions. h. FunctiFunctional assessment of the wetland(s). For proposed wetland filling the Washington Assessment Method (WAFAM) must be used. For proposed projects that will impact buffers, the Washington Wetland Classification System may be used as a fitzncdonal assessment. . i. Description of habitat conditions, wildlife/fish use of the sensitive area, including sensitive, threatened or endangered species. j. Citations of any literature or other resources utilized in preparation of the report. k. Description of adjacent land uses and ownership. 7. A statement verifying the accuracy and limitations of the study and the assumptions used. 8. Assessment of hazards, risks and impacts. An assessment of likely impacts to the wetland/watercourses must be performed and must include an evaluation of short- terra, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the sensitive areas and their buffers and to neighboring properties. A description of the wetland/watercome functions that will be lost as a result of implementing the project should be provided, as well as an evaluation of impacts to wildlife/fish, if applicable. 9. Description of development alternatives considered and efforts made to avoid and minimize adverse impacts (see TMC 18.45.0900 regarding mitigation sequencing). 10. Description of proposed conceptual mitigation plan for &fixating impacts of the proposal. For wetlands, the consultant shall use as a guide the Department of Ecology "Guidance on Wetland Mitigation in Washington State, Part 2, Guidelines for Developing Wetland Mitigation Plans and Proposals, April 2004". The conceptual mitigation plan shall include the following: a. Rationale, mitigation goals, expected functions of completed mitigation; b. Amount of restoration/creation /enhancement proposed; c. Location and dimensions of proposed mitigation; d. Description of expected hydrology (and explanation of how this was determined); _ "A Rydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands ", Brinson, M.M., Wetlands Research Program Technical Report WRP -D&4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, 1993. CL q:WounslSensitive Area Study Quidelines.doc Page 2 of3 08/19/2005 12:13 PM Sensitive Area Study Requirements August, 2001 e. Description animas to stabilize relocated watercourse channels, actions to improve watercourse ftmctions such u water quality, habitat, food control, etc.; f. Preliminary planting plan and invasive plant control plan; and g. riming and schedule. h. Recommended maintenance, monitoring (short-term and long - teen), contingency plans, bonding measures for mitigation, per TMC 18.45.210. 11. Any additional ter/mica' information as required by the Director to assist in determining compliance with TMC Chapter 18.45. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary jurisdictional determinations and from state and federal agencies and for providing this information to the City. from CL P*ge3ot3 q:1Fomu\Sen8itive Ares Study Guidelinee.doe 08/19/2005 12:13 PM SOILS M0., �C uam ` s C� CC ',act Map Unit amen � � i eries & Phase) row.. K ; .. CCl axonomy Subgroup) iistRAIAvvexhs • Drainage Class T QQrly ,Drq,Ih Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? N its Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) "`7 0 All . SC)/ i ve S.f ? 1' o B3 Io \jr/ h. 5■f C.`o ."CSiVe• ro,.va eob- ,tzt--,,,5 c.3 ►oyR /a SO4 CIc�y �iS Na r4s Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low - Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) ✓ Histic Epipedon High Organic Sulfidic 7Aquic ■ Reducing Organic Listed on Listed on V. Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland Determination (circle) no no Is the sampling point no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale/Remarks: • NOTES: L 0 GOA 0%1 F to, p 'i v'r w -'R`1 5° N to b W-- DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Applicant/owner: Rv �,r'$ q, ` Investigator(s): W E'.,S Te,Y1 Y1 ■ i v� Date: % �(1 �,�Y`� ` -•. f� t County: 1<' ,n 1 -rwk.{W a10,. J State: ■,„) Pt S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site . ea no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes o Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes n Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: W L — ' 3 V1 oi" VEGETATION / Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species tum Indicator Dominant Plant Species �C54s' 5c3. \, S c \Q S (IQ "Ti -te. F `l1i Rv., ksr.4 I. (3.1Ce41,4-4 F�'�► j SCS.,''ts J s10'4 -t�! (c) S 1 �1.w S%A'tis ►pRA,.ItS (-) rGwoww.� F' W RQr, kakis w�v1/4,S rit�eh $ (7oYSraokA, F ,w t� e...hlv kc sm. 9.q- , C..s ca Y a kh k a 61 HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: "A tit of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC:' %� °, t , / a Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: V" Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base .. OTHER Hydrophytic vegetation present? es no Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDROLOGY no • • Is it the growing season? Based on: Ici, ,. Water Marks: ( no Sediment Deposits: es es no Drainage 'Patterns:(e no Drift Lines: yes no Dept. of inundation: inches 4 „Awl • 1 Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no Depth to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: no Water - stained Leaves: yes no - Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Other: Other: • Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? no - Rationale for decision/Remarks: SOILS �� J Lie'Map U t Name X112. 4.. 1\)0\ `^l t\ Si ■ (iseries 8r Phase) FSro s Ki9 Co taxonomy (s�bgroup) 6.0.y 1 Drainage Class \700%4 Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? Profile Description . Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0 —10 0 5'/ ''',/( . Tp.q.cicel d'n v., - ,'•4...ty Rots Cta� - s; (L �"xxSciVe5 R 63 51 / Hydric Soil Indicators: (check all that apply) Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Sulfidic Organic Odor Streaking in Sandy Soils ✓ Aquic Listed on Moisture Regime Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Listed on Conditions National Hydric Soils List Gleyed Other (explain or Low - Chroma Colors in remarks) Hydric soils present? CD no Rationale for decision/Remarks: • Wetland Determination (circle) Hydrophytic vegetation present? no Hydric soils present? l'1 no Is the sampling point . . "' CO Wetland hydrology present? es no within a wetland? Rationale/Remarks: NOTES: ._ Rrt" bc0. n o wok ct.A s A't DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: p Applicant/owner: Re Ca As-k--9.A.A- \ Investigator(s): w 'e-S Te_ry hq_ Date: I O A ^pv , ‘ 56 g) ,1 County: IC\ h�9 � `T��A.! \ 0` State: W t S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site. 472, Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a potential Problem Ar a? yes no m Community ID: Transect ID: ,�,„ Plot ID: W V. P).• V‘ ti no VEGETATION % Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Co.) tr Dominant Plant Species SCN\ i ece@s (rv-t Ftkc W S t,I i X s t.;q. s (Tit S tw,A1 F .\4 - HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, &FAC: o;. /^ -, I aO d.- d Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: Wetland plant list (nat'1'or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base ' OTHER • Hydrophytic vegetation present? s no , Rationale for decision/Remarks: • HYDROLOGY no • . Is it the growing season? trio Based on: Water Marks: Ges no Sediment Deposifs: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: « no Dept. of inundation: 411.1i_ inches Depth to free water in pit: inches io low 1 Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. es no Local Soil Survey: yes no FAC Neutral: es no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data: Other: Other: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? C no Rationale for decision/Remarks: SOILS / . i �'` � �� L. i*R Map Unit Name %& , : Series & phase) Y4,0. KN a C.4 Taxonomy (s Frkv 4�ie 44Ck--Ckk•k4A5k*S u Drainage Class ly Field observations confirm Yes No t mapped type? Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile match d scri Lion pa.otkm C,ta w..„1,* tfC. ,/ SSv, S 3.1 /).1 kC r Q y , F& )1- Igo C 3 Ibyte,'4 ® c Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low - Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon High Organic Sulfidic • Organic Aquic Listed on v'`°" Reducing Listed on i Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? no Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland Determination (circle) t►► no i no Is the sampling point es es no within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: • NOTES: LQC.4io�fi F rp vvet. � 0 G 50( NG'Vll ki-Vtot DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: It is" 1 Applicant/owner: 1\ ftlk.i CA f 1 S, \ Investigator(s): W 'Q,S Tt. r Y\ h3_i Date: ‘0 Av( \ eiitpi R County: K h q 'T�,,,�4�,Jtl Ct State: \,) , S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? lab no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a potential Problem Area? yes Community ID: Transect ID: 1 Plot ID: W I.,. d ■ - Pt b 1 VEGETATION dp1 ratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species tr S�1 X S .c\q.S1�2. T Fv4 StkVINA, SpetaS (10 ,SLewk F »J C c x r e x 0 b tvAsk CI) Q■irove.,A 43 6 L HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION INDICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: 31 ) (/3 o Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: ✓ Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base ✓ OTHER V Hydrophytic vegetation present? Cyz) no Rationale for decision/Remarks: • . HYDROLOGY • yes no • . Is it the growing season? Based on: Water Marks: no - Sediment Deposits: yes no Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: 41131 no Dept. of inundation: gyp inches Depth to free water in pit: inches 4A6. . 1 Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes no Local Soil. Survey: yes no FAC Neutral: Q10 no Water - stained Leaves: yes no Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream, Lake or gage data Other: Other: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? `ree no Rationale for decision/Remarks: SOILS AckpP r 1 aA Map Unit Name LJ (Series & Phase) Foe 1k4t 04 oss Taxonomy (subgroup) o'� r V 9 Odoe, k‘c. Dyskvbxe.r4 Drainage Class S V V '"` M 0+Field observations confirm Yes No 4: mapped type? Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) p _7 GI Souk ,4 '°4 tint, % S�cd ■(-Sc4yLo�m SS 4 PS FQ,.4 I• AN , AAA Kit, � tkpcks Akamas6k R 0o-{ .� S 1 (3 w 10`iR / tg C A ) tip' �. mq., C`a ✓s t�l o koo s Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low- Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon High Organic Sulfidic Organic Aquic Listed on Reducing Listed on Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes CIO Rationale for decision/Remarks: • Wetland Determination (circle) yes yes yes CO __ cm Is the sampling point yes (E) QM within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: • NOTES: w Fromm. p�� r. w �►"' ft5 Q 9 S'4 s 4--© u P t o` ` • DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Applicant/owner: `Rp,y C.Q. f�° tk4 , �I / t Investigator(s): AI ts @.VIVI\ IS Date: 10 .A.1`? e.; ( 9$ c6 S County: �i`^ ' " , ,ql,`Q`, State: 1 S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? a) no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a potential Problem Are ? yes no Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: ■J p L. �. ",,,. '°" c (6+ VEGETATION `/o _ tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator C-Ner Dominant Plant Species PIS It `\-4vv,30. . 1 ‘,,i1\ (5) *T e. FKAA. tfl kceto PANtrav y 1 iwvh. 64 -"Tvte, FKCAL “tY , 5p4-0-4 € (rb.Qt F' \AI Rwl 4,4 tt or cLrv,,c V1„ Po\ 54 i Inv.++ 40.,Av ►° t. C tt kv,t, . F*' _ HYIROPHYTIC VEGETATION I1ICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: I Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: • ----‘," Wetland plant list (nat'1 or regional) Morphological adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base VI OTHER • \ e' Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: HYDROLOGY yes no • Is it the growing season? -- Based on: Water Marks: , yes no Sediment Deposits: yes Drift Lines: yes no Drainage Patterns: yes Dept. of inundation: inches l'O Oxidized Root (live rots) Channels <12 in. yes o Local Soil Survey: yes no ' Atre1 1e. Depth to free water in pat: ^ � inches FAC Neutral: yes Q Water- stained Leaves: yes �• Depth to saturated soil: inches Check all that apply & explain below: Stream; Lake or gage data: Other: Other: Aerial photographs: Wetland hydrology present? yes no Rationale for decision/Remarks: . SOILS p\ poe4 u-Y) w L.00.4 IP Map Unit Name z1`! (Series & Ph e) k't ` A ,./vv. 4v t'xk j Taxonomy (subgroup) V 1 i' 4\' �1 �„ i ox -t Y' -,4'5 Drainage Class �� , � �'n Q.A Field observations confirm Yes No mapped type? QPt- I Profile Description Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix color (Munsell moist) Mottle colors (Munsell moist) Mottle abundance size & contrast Texture, concretions, structure, etc. Drawing of soil profile (match description) 0 -- t 1 1011 3i, SS 4 Ts, ssz7. .1 !,va CoarSCAQdvtMit SS k 'PS r./10 .to ks V 50N oe*s I 0lo8 ktyRA - 'asSE'4 Cwwt, \S 11— it B w 'A ► s'/ It- kS*JIC ars\II idi. 1°4 (41 IOyiZ 4 4 /a coo,..v.401N 4 Grp; Low. , sl51( \I FR., c;,0,70 Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol (check all that apply) Odor Moisture Regime Conditions or Low- Chroma Colors Concretions Content in Surface Layer of Sandy Soils. Streaking in Sandy Soils Local Hydric Soils List National Hydric Soils List in remarks) Histic Epipedon High Organic Sulfidic Organic Aquic Listed on Reducing Listed on Gleyed Other (explain Hydric soils present? yes CLIAP Rationale for decision/Remarks: Wetland Determination (circle) yes yes yes . oilb ;(*.fil4 Is the sampling point yes o within a wetland? Hydrophytic vegetation present? Hydric soils present? Wetland hydrology present? Rationale/Remarks: • NOTES: 55' S t°I +o k —1— P! DATA FORM 1 Routine Wetland Determination (WA State Wetland Delineation Manual or 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Applicant/owner: R a.� c_wC\ S i Investigator(s): W-QS SC'. r\ Y1 \Y\ Date: 10 Alt vi ( D4603 - ' / (' R County: I. 6 ri j —r, K W i I o1/4. State: W A S/T/R: Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? no Is the site significantly disturbed (atypical situation)? yes Is the area a •otential Problem Area? yes Community ID: Transect ID: Plot ID: V2? L " 1 "" sii\ Qi VEGETATION 7o 3/4) C.04 Ga tratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species S atum Indicator Dominant Plant Species ? e o o rS u,.. ,IhtvL12.1- .. 30 ''rr ee Fftc V,. Z e. _ 1► 5 sLMwA) tv a. cN 04,..,cro ■ v,v, At `art. FtPtCIi Rvv\)L1,.. ,, \ c., : , 5 51, Fet ke` 14\Kv.s rwDit0. (5 'Tree F C , 4444,rat, s 'kEs ( v The. WI, Roi a., 5Pet E.s- (a) S 4 N I M naO. n aoso, ( Cgro Ni. Ot1WL \Qr ∎0.. CVik 1c 1S ( \e NevA p.. y ttc. Lwes. CI) Gvav1 FACE HYDROPHYTIC VEGETATION ICATORS: of dominants OBL, FACW, & FAC: I /CP _ S � _, /I 7 Check all indicators that apply & explain Regional knowledge of plant communities Physiological or reproductive adaptations Technical Literature below: ✓ Wetland plant list (nat'l or regional) Morphological, adaptations Wetland Plant Data Base ✓ OTHER ✓ Hydrophytic vegetation present? yes el ` Rationale for decision/Remarks: • HYDROLOGY no • Is it the growing season? -- Based on: e, Water Marks: yes Q! Sediment Deposits: yes Drift Lines: yes (E> Drainage Patterns: ye Dept. Depth Depth of inundation: inches Oxidized Root (live roots) Channels <12 in. yes .6 Lo al So Survey: yes no kLr 'CAW. i 4 INVAt to free water in pit: inches FAC Neutral: yes no Water - stained Leaves: ye • no to saturated soil: inches Check Stream; Aerial all that apply & explain below: Lake or gage data: Other: Other: photographs: Wetland hydrology present? yes Rationale for decision/Remarks: PARCEL #359700 -0360 Copyright m 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. _;_ City Annex Property - City Annex Property Water Course 2 2pipe 3 3pipe 4 4pipe j— Buffer2 L 0 O Wetlands Buffer3 Buffer4 ® 2 O 0 C Apartment Parcels vaa;� Apartment Parcels Potential Wetlands . Potential Wetlands 2ft Contours 3 Buffed Buffer2 Buffer3 CityGIS 150ft • • (QWD FOR- MC F.1140NI ED�0h1) • REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ALPINE ESTATES TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR LOURIE CONTRACTING, INC. AliN)1. G ) eei t i�r1'.tILiiiccls Jo 4144411q.4:5M • • =q r te'is I.ourie Contracting, Inc. '78 Industry Drive Seattle, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Dan Lourie Gentlemen: April 24, 1989 .r; Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Grulogists Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Alpine Estates Tukwila, Washington File No. 1559 -01 -7 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Alpine Estates plat in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located west of 65th Avenue South, as shown in the Site Plan, Figure 1. Authorization for our services was confirmed by Mr. Dan I.ourie of Lourie Contracting, Inc. by countersignature of our letter of March 8, 1989. The configuration and location of the proposed plat is shown on Figure 1. The property is bordered by 62nd Avenue South to the west, Mapletree Park to the north,.65th Avenue South to the east, and an apartment complex to the south. The parcel covers approximately 6 acres and is currently undeveloped. The access roadway is planned from 65th Avenue South. We understand that the preliminary plans include balancing CuLS and fills at approximately Elevation 158. This will require cut slopes approximately 40 feet high and fills of approximately 15 feet above existing grades. Sixteen lots are included in the preliminary plat. l;co Engineers Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of our services is to develop general geotechnical design criteria for site development. Separate studies may be appropriate for individual residences, depending upon the specific design requirements of each structure related to each lot. Specifically, the scope of our services includes: 1. Exploring subsurface soil and ground water conditions with a series of backhoe excavated test pits. - 2. Performing limited laboratory testing for evaluation of soil types. 3. Providing recommendations for grading and filling, including specifications for compaction. 4. Providing recommendations for roadway subgrade support. 5. Providing recommendations for drainage and erosion control. 6. Developing foundation design recommendations including allowable soil bearing pressures and settlement performance estimates. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The ground surface generally slopes down to the south, as shown in Figure 1. Two large low lying areas are present on the site. One of these is located in the south central part of the site; the other is located at the west end of the site and contains a drainage course flowing northwest to southeast. Both areas contained standing water at the time of our field work. The site is sparsely wooded, consisting generally of cedars, Douglas firs, and maples. Undergrowth includes blackberries, ferns and tall brush. We did not observe indications of soil movement on the site. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 14 test pits at the locations shown in Figure 1. Test pit locations were determined by pacing from existing features. Elevations at the test pits were determined by `tl j (il'U � �og L.I loll leers • • [.ourie Contracting, Inc. Ap t i t 24, 1989 Page 3 interpolation between contours on the plan provided. Locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. Test pits were excavated using a track — mounted backhoe. The test pits were logged in the field by an engineer from our firm who identified the various soil strata encountered, obtained representative samples from the test pits, observed ground water seepage conditions, and maintained a detailed log of each test pit. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in Figure 2. Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 3 through 8. The two low lying areas were inaccessible with the track — mounted backhoe. These areas were explored by hand probing. The probe consists of threaded 3/8 —inch diameter steel rods with a 3/4 —inch diameter sampler attached to the tip. Samples from the test pits were examined in our laboratory to confirm field classifications. Moisture contents were measured on samples from the test pits to evaluate the general workability of the soils in their existing state. Results of these tests are presented in Figure 9. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is mantled, in most of the areas we were able to observe, with a layer of dark brown topsoil having a thickness ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 feet. In the upper, northerly portion of the site (above Elevation 150), a unit of medium dense to dense silty sand with occasional gravel was encountered underlying the topsoil. This unit varies from 2 to 6 feet thick in the test pits and is underlain by bedrock. The bedrock appears to be a sandstone and siltstone conglomerate. The explorations encountered a weathered zone up to 6 feet thick underlain by competent bedrock at depths of 3.5 to 12 feet. I al ) �(,p0 i'.I 1■11 I Il'l'I'S Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 4 In the lower portion of the site, loose, wet silty sand and soft, wo!, sandy silt was encountered to depths of 2.5 to 10 feet. Some of the explorations ended with refusal in bedrock, while others could not be deepened because of severe caving. In the lowlying areas, the hand probe explorations encountered between 2 and 12 feet of peat and organic silt overlying 2 to more than 10 feet of soft silt. The total depth of soft soils in the explorations varied from 2 to more than 16 feet. No ground water seepage was observed in the explorations located above approximately Elevation 150. Explorations in the lower portion of the site encountered ground water at depths of 0.5 to 4 feet. We expect that the ground water levels will fluctuate seasonally. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS- GENERAL Most of the site is suitable for construction of residences in our opinion, provided our recommendations are followed with regard to earthwork, drainage, and foundation support. We expect that conventional construction procedures will be satisfactory for dealing with these elements of the work. Based on site conditions, we recommend against development of the westerly low lying area in proposed Lots 8 and 9. A geotechnical engineering review of the design of individual residences is recommended. We recommend that a representative from GeoEngineers, Inc. be present during site preparation and earthwork to observe the work and to evaluate whether our recommendations are being implemented properly and to provide additional consultation as needed. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be accomplished .during periods of prolonged dry weather. The on —site soils are moisture sensitive and will become very difficult to work during wet weather. If these activities must take .place during wet weather, we recommend that measures be implemented to reduce disturbance and softening of the soils, • • Lourie Contracting, Inc. April. 24, 1989 Page for example from construction traffic and precipitation. These measures may include stabilizing the subgrade with filter fabric, covering stockpiled fill with visqueen and placing gravel and crushed rock for temporary access roads. Building, driveway and access road areas should be cleared of vegetation and stripped of topsoil or disturbed silty soils prior to placing fill. We expect that the depth of stripping will generally be about 6 to 18 inches. A greater depth of stripping may be necessary during wet periods since it is probable that the subgrade soils will be disturbed. The stripped material may be reused for landscaping purposes. We recommend that the native soils exposed by stripping within buil'?;iig, driveway and access road areas be,proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or heavy compaction equipment. The proofrolling should aid in detecting any soft areas which may require further excavation before fill placement. During wet weather, proofrolling and compaction of native soils will not be practical and identification of soft zones should be done by probing. We recommend that all fill in building and roadway areas be placed as structural fill. Structural fill may consist of on —site clean to silty sand and gravel and /or imported clean pit run sand and gravel. The fill should not contain, material larger than 6— inches in size or deleterious materials such as debris, wood or organic matter. During placement in wet .weather, fill soil should contain less than 5 percent fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) by weight relative to the fraction.. finer than the 3/4 —inch sieve. A higher percentage of fines (not exceeding 12 percent) in the soil may be practical for placement during periods of prolonged dry weather. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts less than 10— inches in thickness. Each lift should be appropriately moisture conditioned and compacted to the specified density using heavy vibratory compaction equipment. The upper 5 feet of structural fill placed in building pad 1 d'+ i`� li ICI I ll'l'I :N Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page b areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in general accordance with ASTM D -1557 test procedures. Deeper till should be compacted to at least 90 percent. The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fines and are well . above the optimum moisture content for compaction. We recommend that on- site soils not be used as structural fill unless the material can be successfully dried during long periods of dry weather. Drying the soil may require spreading the soil into thin, loose lifts and allowing it to air_ �Iry. SLOPE CUTS Based on our observations and explorations, we recommend that 'all permanent slope cuts be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). However, it appears that much of the proposed cuts would be in rock. Steeper slopes may be appropriate below the weathered zone of the rock. This would require verification by additional explorations or by field examination as the cuts are made. The rock obtained from the cuts may be suitable for use onsite such as roadway foundation material. This will depend on the size and quality of the excavated material. Excavation of the rock to the depths anticipated is considered to be feasible using ripping techniques provided extra heavy equipment is used and there is opportunity to work towards a slope or face. We recommend that the sides of any temporary excavations other than shallow drainage ditches be sloped no steeper than 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Permanent cut slopes in structural fill should be made at 2:1 or flatter. All slopes, whether in rock or soil, should be hydroseeded as soon as possible after cutting to minimize erosion. SOU111 CENTRAL LOW AREA Prior to placing fill in the low lying area in the south central part of the site, we recommend removing part or all of the soft soils. Based on our explorations, the area below approximately elevation 142 is „(1,00, ICI I Il' Ts ILourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 7 (;('t i�� l i tullh'l'I'ti Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 8 SURCHARGE If the soft silt is not excavated from the low lying area in the south- central part of the site, we recommend that building areas overlying the soft silt (preliminary Lots 12, 13 and part of 14) be surcharged to accelerate the settlement that will occur due to the weight of the structural fill and the proposed buildings. This will reduce future settlements. If the same material used for structural fill is also used for the surcharge, the surcharge portion may be used as structural fill in the other areas. We recommend using at least 3 feet of surcharge above the antici- pated final grade. The crest of the surcharge should extend a minimum of 15 feet outside of the anticipated building lines. We expect up to 40- inches of settlement from the weight of the surcharge and the struc- tural fill. The surface elevation of the fill should be maintained during the surcharge period by adding additional fill as necessary. The surcharge should be monitored to evaluate the magnitude and rate of settlement. This data will be essential to evaluate whether con- solidation of the underlying soils has slowed sufficiently to allow removal of the surcharge. We will develop a settlement monitoring plan if this option is selected. We anticipate the surcharge to be in place from 8 to 12 weeks. ROADWAY SUPPORT Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as described under SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK. We recommend_ that part or all of the soft soils underlying the proposed roadway alignment be excavated as described under SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK prior to placing the roadway fill. If the soft silt is not removed, we recommend that the roadway not be surfaced until after the settlement: data described under SURCHARGE indicate that the majority of the settlement has occurred. If the roadway is surfaced too soon, there is a risk of damage to the pavement due to differential settlement. • • �c'r %1� t U'.I IgI I Il'l'I'1 Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 4 The pavement subgrade soil should be compacted such that the upper 2 feet of soil attains at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. Fill placed deeper than 2 feet below subgrade in roadway areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent. Access roads and paved areas should be underlain by a subbase of at least 6 inches of sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 5 percent fines by weight. DRAINAGE We recommend that surface runoff be tied into a storm drainage system. Concentrated runoff should be prevented from flowing over the top of slopes. Roof, pavement and foundation drains should be connected to a tightline disposal system. Roof and foundation drains should NOT be combined around the structures. A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed around the building footings. The system should consist of perforated drains located at the outside base of the perimeter footings. These drains should consist of perforated PVC pipe surrounded by 6 inches of pea gravel wrapped in appropriate filter fabric and connected by a tightline to an appropriate disposal point. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Provided the lowlying area is treated as described in our report, shallow spread footings are recommended in all areas of the site. Spread. footings should be founded on the medium dense to dense silty sand and weathered rock or on compacted structural fill. The footings should be founded at least 18- inches below the lowest adjacent grade. We recommend that basements not be constructed in the fill areas without additional evaluation by our firm. We recommend that continuous and isolated foundations be designed with minimum widths of 16 and 24- inches respec- tively. For foundations designed and constructed as described above, we recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot applicable to the total of all dead and real live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing. For total loads, including wind or seismic, the allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one - third. 6(101%0011R l \001.1ltil1I(( Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Pagc2 Ili Settlement of the foundations from elastic compression should be less than 1/2 -inch for footings founded on the native soils. Total settlement for footings founded on structural fill is expected to be up to 2 inches with differential settlements of approximately 1.5 inches. We anticipate that exposed bearing surfaces in excavations will become softened or disturbed if not protected from exposure to moisture and construction activities. Therefore, we recommend that these excava- tions be made during periods of dry weather and the footings poured on the same day as excavated. If this is not practical, the excavations should be protected from moisture. If the bearing surface becomes softened, the disturbed soil should be excavated and replaced with structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The silty sand and weathered rock encountered in the upper areas will provide satisfactory support for on -grade slabs if the subgrade is not disturbed by construction activities. Disturbed areas should be repaired in the same manner as described for footing excavations. Slabs may also be supported on structural fill placed and compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. We recommend that a 4 to 6 -inch base course layer of imported granular fill or crushed rock, containing weight, of that fraction finer than 3/4 capillary break beneath the slab. A positive hydraulic connection should be provided between the base course layer and the footing drains. This connection should be on the downhill side of the residences. A vapor barrier should also be installed to reduce the potential for migration of moisture through the slab. less than 5 percent fines by inches, be placed to form a USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Lourie Contracting, Inc. and their architects and engineers for their use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective • • Lowrie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 11 contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The design details are not known at the time of preparation of this report. As your design develops, we expect that additional consultation may be necessary to provide for modification or adaptation of our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm. to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services 'related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions, encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work .differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express' or implied, should be understood. 0 1t 1 1'.IlAllil'l'1 N • • Lourie Contracting, Inc. April 24, 1989 Page 12 The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. We are available to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. DEA:WRC:cs Two copies submitted Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Douglas E. Argo Staff Engineer Gordon M. Denby, P.E. Associate William R. Clevenger Associate SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS i.ORE THAN 56% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL- GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY - GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN SAND sw WELL- GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY- GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO. 200, SIEVE SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT 50 OR MORE INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM 02488 -83. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487 -83. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and /or test data. SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 41/1°. GeoEnglneers ■0 Incorporated. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 2 • LOG OF TEST PIT • DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 FEET 0 - 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE, WET) 0.5 - 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 4.5 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY .FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ( :RAVE1. (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 4.5 - 11.5 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE: TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ,CRAVh:l. (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) 11.5 - 12.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FEET TEST .PIT 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 172 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITU.ORCANICS (LOOS,E, .WET) 1.0 - '.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROUTS TO DEPTH OF 3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 9.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH CRAVF.I.. (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 3 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET - l.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, • WET) 1.0 - 3.5 ROCK CRAY WEATHERED ROCK WIT11 NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND WITH REDDISH -BROWN SAND TEST PIT COMPLETED AT-3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON 3/9/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TIIE DLI'TIIS ON TIIE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 Fh:ET. (,�'U �p �:11�111t'('1'ti LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 3 • LOG OF TEST PIT • DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL 0. 1 0.1 - 4.0 DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 4 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 161 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITII GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED KOCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE. SAND WITH ORGANICS (LooSE, WET) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE. MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET - 0.4 SM 0.4 - 2.0 SM 1.0 ML /SM s.0 - 3.5 ML /OL f.'. - 5.5 SP -SM 5 - 1.0 DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) BROWNISH -CRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (100SE, MOIST) CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SANDY SILT TO SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM STIFF TO LOUSE, Ms)IST To WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET) BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SM CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1 /I0 /R9) TEST !'IT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CAVING RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 3.2, 4.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET - I).5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, . MOIST) 1.11 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOUSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 3.0 - 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITII OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETEU AT 5.0 FEET ON 3 /lOIRe TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED ROCK NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET Gco no 'leers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT R APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 145 FEET 0 - l.0 SM 1.0 - 2.5 SM 2.5 - 4.,0 OL /PT 4.0 - 10.1) SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE, WET) GRAYISH -BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH UCCASIONAL (;RAVEI. (1.0051; WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITH PEAT (SOFT, WET) CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 3 /10!89 RAPID CROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 4.0 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 3.5 FEET TEST PIT 9 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 171 FEET II _ 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SIL.TY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) 0.5 - 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOUSE 'r0 MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) %.O -- 8.0 SM LIGIIT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 8.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED /tII,. (i('() x:111 IlC'.e1'ti LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 0 • LOG OF TEST PIT - DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL - 0.5 ('.5 - 2.5 _.5 - 1.5 DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 10 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) SM /01. OL /PT SM BROWN VERY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND TO FINE. SANDY SILT WITH ORGANICS AND GRAVEL (LOUSE, WET) DARK BROWN SILT WITII PEAT AND FINE SAND (SOFT, WET) CRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (LOOSE. TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1/10/N9 TEST PIT ENDED DUE, TO SEVERE. CAVING BELOW ■.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 0.5 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5, 3.5 AND 6.0 FEET TEST PIT 11 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 140 FEET SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITII ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) ML BROWNISH -GRAY SANDY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY IiENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 1.5 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET !!1j (k ) \� �',I1o1 I1('C'1'ti LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 0 (u LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL • DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 12 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 150•FEET - 1).8 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) 0.8 - 1.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDLUM SAND (DENSE, MOIST) l it - 4.0 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDLUM SAND (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED TEST PIT 13 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE SANDY SILT WITH COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 3.5 FEET ON 3/10/89 GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.0 FEET i.0 - 3.5 SM /ML SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET TEST PIT 14 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET - 1.5 OL DARK BROWN FINE SANDY ORGANIC SILT (VERY SOFT, WET) 1.5 - 3.0 SM GRAY SILTY F1NE SAND (LOOSE, WET) 1.0 - 4.5 SM DARK BROWN VERY SILTY F1NE TO COARSE SAND WITH ORGANICS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) 4.5 - 6.0 SM DARK CRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 3/10/89 TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO SEVERE CAVING TEST PIT LOCATED IN AREA WITH APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FEET OF STANDING WATER SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 AND 5.0 FEET Vii% • (r('() �0 �',ilol Veers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 8 Exploration FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA Sample Depth (feet) • Moisture Content Soil Type (percent) TP -1 0.7 SM 20.4 TP -1 3.0 SM 20.6 TP -6 1.2 SM 12.5 TP -6 2.5 ML /SM 20.3 TP -6 3.2 ML /OL 64.1 TP -6 4.5 SP -SM 11.6 TP -6 6.0 SM 28.3 TP -7 2.0 SM 16.5 TP -8 1.5 SM 17.3 TP -8 3.5 OL /PT 168.7 TP -10 1.5 SM /OL 58.0 TP -10 3.5 OL /PT 107.6 TP -10 6.0 SM 24.7 TP -11 2.0 ML 42.9 TP -13 2.0 SM /ML 46.2 P -3 0 - 6 PT 346.6 P -3 6 - 8 OL /PT 110.7 P -3 8 - 10 OL 75.9 P -3 10 - 16 SM /ML 52.2 P -20 0 - 8 PT 263.9 P -20 8 - 12.5 ML 63.7 P -22 0 - 6 PT 223.6 P -22 6 - 9 ML/OL 62.1 Geoff Engineers FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA FIGURE 9 SCALE IN FEET 120 Property Line Oo 10_ NN--, TP-1 k at� ±E g Tr-r -� P i P-2S 10_ NN--, TP-1 k 12' Concrete Culvert EXPLANATION: TP-1 'TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER P-1 n HAND PROBE LOCA .fON AND NUMBER REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "LOURIE CONTRACTING INC., ALPINE ESTATES, PRELIMINARY PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 BY BAIMA S HOLMBERG INC. at� ±E g AP-2 iaary at r P i P-2S f p— Approx " Of St? \ PST 12' Concrete Culvert EXPLANATION: TP-1 'TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER P-1 n HAND PROBE LOCA .fON AND NUMBER REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "LOURIE CONTRACTING INC., ALPINE ESTATES, PRELIMINARY PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 BY BAIMA S HOLMBERG INC. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplanr•:.ci.tukwila.wa.us RECEIVED CITY OF lli wriA 'SEP,18 1000 PERMITC §frA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: ; ,C 4.., f File Number: 1_, 00 _ 0 tri' Application Complete (Date:'' /Z1/Of ) Project File Number: L Dr/ p q G Application Incomplete (Date: . Other File Numbers: L o'7 - bq7 A NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Jot, � x h, �I 1* e uu LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, an d nearest intersection. x 4V.. ‹dtA.4.4 L�- #1, 7:14diVet /We-a 98-in 504.4 or /57 5P C3 h 6S-• LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). - T7oc-- 3 6O -07 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. ri Name: /'[eve y hod c/ �, P /S2'ecir Address: %/ 5"1' 6)e, 4781V4 Phone: 20% '3Z ^ nefg FAX: E -mail: Signature: / Date: 7 /7 P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SEPAApp- 07- 07.doc July 20, 2007 City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: 47// 7/0 D RECEIVED SEP 1.8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Applicant Name: Street Address: City, State, Zip: Telephone: far./(SPec4/- 2/ 5,f /CZ ST 7 �c� f7'`i tlitt 9ff /Z1( ?32-- 221 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \SEPAApp-07- 07.doc July 20, 2007 Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -0 / Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 i 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 YES - 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 \SEPAApp- 07- 07.doc July 20, 2007 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (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 YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1 -1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. X 1 ..9.,- )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. !C NC 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) - Continue to Question 1 -4 Part B (continued) City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NNaContinue 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. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2 -2 2 -2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self - supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast- height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -3 YES - Continue to Question 2 -3 2 -3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -4 YES - Continue to Question 2 -4 2 -4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2 -5 2 -5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3 -0 (Page 2) City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross - sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8 YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of ppr�opjosed p of %ect, if pplicab e: (VC IGKc� /ieL�✓ 2. Name of Applicant: 3. Date checklist prepared: 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila /1?-5- OK Agency Comments 5. Proposed timing or schedule in uding phasing, if applicable): IV ff // arm a jeZoHi'tin �-o fierlibs-en lty J 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NA 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be p epared, d' ectly related to this p opo al. .6r C1S e to .0-1 &jilt) /-o /---. t_ Lt./4? sa- /'t i1 e�&I <'c.6Mi'1`3<` 4 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. N4 P: \Planning Forms \Applications \SEPAApp- 07- 07.doc July 20, 2007 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. /v4 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. 11% CSA /A b 12. 4/1 Acres Agency Comments 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. / Z'f i 7 , !C W 5-04411 of AS' 6C• 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? y e Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): olling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Agency Comments b. What js the steepes slope on the site (approximate perc nt slope / 1;74 y c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. / 4se farmland. C3 J L 5 14- e_c h /G4 / PF6ctithli///77 (L7 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. /1/v e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. A/4 /.C.Ag %'Air Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. /,e r► s /l'*y About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or b ldings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or gontrol erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 0,eh t , 7 /3e2GtAt'5 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. X �ezahPnj b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. /UD Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 4 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 intp. ` 7L-A ,e� L_ a i"�'- ✓ t /and 10 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. /vd 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. Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. rvo 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. 7V// t7- hsi5ty 2cc e Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 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: /V4 11AS%17 2-c ion'�- 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. /V A 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. /V II !fleas h7 e..-Zd e. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NA /De h5; � `.e2.0nfa Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NA fJc►,si Sif t.2c• r►� c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. G tie. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N4 nSI � /2,ezol e Agency Comments Deciduous tree: al er maple spen, other Evergreen tre it ce ar, pine,, other IShrubs A /c r A roily 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? NA fJc►,si Sif t.2c• r►� c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. G tie. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N4 nSI � /2,ezol e Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 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, eagl , songbird other: Deer, bear, elk, bea • o er: Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NA / -ehSi'y t2c k d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 1)-eh sIvy etc nz 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. -e h s i i• y .ezci Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. A/A l)4 h S 1140 .6,2 .. 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: sA kAs 177 it. "ion 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. _e2e € 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? NA t>w$ '21.41-e 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. NA P he ;'y 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: N4 D•eit S; 7y /Lezoh e. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use o the site and adjacent properties? U&t.'i i-/ p b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. !Y� Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? rle.p.5; ry e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? L i 2 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N4 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. rV© Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? N j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA D-e Ca% ; 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: l_1 -eng% 7ty 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? , ,A Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. NA x'r'C�}r c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: lV A Y 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building m aterial(s) proposed? 1ry b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce pogttrol aesthetic impacts, if any: -eh si 1- �Le ,he. Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? NA Agency Comments D-z h s i` r% b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NA I 3 . s■-hY c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: NA � � h %.71-1 -eZo kre 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? NA Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Al c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: r)-eis; �y lLe2o �e 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. N / A 1)-c h S ; .ty (Le2owt b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. e c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 4 Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 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 an es- o' A u- b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? A® c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? A/A. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. NA g. aek•1/ r/ Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N 15. Public Services G2.cti 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. b. Proposed measures to reduce N or control direct impacts on public services, if any. r 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system other: l V 6 n Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N4 C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: ON-PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). 8002 g t d3S. Q3IU130SIA Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ION- PROJEC ROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project ac ("f /i STS Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposals %e likely/ to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, • ejease of toxic or hazar ous su stances; or production of noise? NA n T7 ego H.e Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N4 22c4�nt 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? N� si 7y '2an-42 Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: NA 0 - Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: to 1.3 ..siry 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? IJens! ry Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: �A 11. 11`y J L.e2o 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? N -eh Si fi Le2e1 ti� Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: I\/ 4 IJ-PrS - ry 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? Nl4 h5 7y �- -Vr.� Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: NA Iy,e h s .0r I2 ,eZ�ii� 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requir ments for the protection of the environment. requir Agency Comments Yvi Xr" -24y-705, 4.24/ ■- /7) ;/y' V)7 Ai 9/V / 4/W /3/ 9E17 l/f 0 01/v1 ?I91'11 i4_01/ y,-/ rt eV y Cvai / /0/ vi (22 -57117 cr477/-1f,i,vv - cif ut.._ e ) /---'—' 1-- / C -e_ ea 00 'e a: / / c' o e /.7.L97_,_____F`i_fir_.______J-_- A 0 Li' CA 1.. ; . 1 4 I 1 I 1 / e 411' h 0 1 '4 _ 41 e el- ql i ci A e i^6 rV ASO A v-- . a ! ijIi:11 OLIt tu al cl SPA011 /A( eAs-e p-74 /fie 3 4 rt 6A" t /3e,dcbn 46:12 No -74 CG k1 icy LUvii∎Ic� /vT 0.. ,D 1.2e 7' CeS- r_lv�.k4j • 5 fee.• C1/4,,F - A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 04 EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON BASIS OF BEARNG HEW N 6825'27'9. ALONG NORTH PROPERTY UNE AS SHONN ON THE PLAT OF MAPLETREE PART( VOL, 737. PAGE 77. • 50 • 0 60 .100. , 150. • WAN GRAPHIC SCALE - FEET, SURVEYORS NOTES WETLAND. TABLE Mr: N Z_7LiwtC �'72�'4Pt.�� fstS;la1Mly;.r�It[•- fcL +..Tf 1t;IILrcrf,*Thl� 1�.f.' ?a �4.kFX.V�th- ia�z,l�ta7. -,rr ^•'rf� 1�W 1711,11M tbk�lT ?� ft^17ra TT•Til� ��:illa �LSSY�1l� if• -7�Td1 � �1J ^f ^7�iFA® �d.FT� �:.ifR -7: t• �0.:clwfBN <r'2J'Tf.r•7�fE� .4 ( '+... Et•f♦f;1.r.1- S✓•1f^61J1?IJ^.' fs�1•F1♦ttl:riN/.fIfMUZU:! I•110"":21,P!IT"'� • I. DATE VISITED 37TE AND UONUYEN7S_ OECfSBER, 2007. 2. SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED: NIXON OTM -52 , TOTAL STATION JUNIPER DATA CQ(LCTOR.. .1 •FrEiD METHOD USED: FTEID TRAVERSE, • 4. 1105 SURVEY NETS OR EXCEEDS PRECISION REMIND/84M IND/ET4M AS: SET FORTH N W.A.C. 332-130-095 • • ALL UTILISES AND SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREIN ARE THOSE: OBTAINABLE BY PNY9GL 9fRFACE.ENOENCE ONLY. 40 INDERGRO(RJD SERVICE LOCATIONS AVAILABLE • . B. DOS MAP HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FROM ELEC7R07)IC DATA FILES • ANO PALS, LIE HOLDS. ME ORIGINAL HARD SPY, USNG 'SOS NF,LRYATTON WITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT, L5 ED UNAUTHORIZED ANY RE -USE MOOF7CATIDN 727 ADAPTATION 7O DOS DRAWING FILE IS AT 774E USERS RISE 7. THE BOUNDARY (NE P09TION07C AS SHOWN WAS:CAL ' TED . BY PILLS., U.C.FROM RECORD DATA AND,.FlELD7U. �TlIQQ'�755. NOTICING WAS SIT B7 P.N.LS, LLC 47 77E 6t)tlS<!DARY'7 J7NERS EXCEPT 700 10(ND CORNERS AS 740750 '�: ; !:. fl WETLAND DEIJNEAAON PREPARE0 B7 AIL '44 ASSOCYAIES NOVEMBER 2007. nap LOCATED DEC 2007 BYPN:LS • REFERENCE MATERIALS 1. 70NG COUNTY ASSESSOR MAP FOR SECTION 23. 77474 2P RNUE 45 W.M. . 2 OLAr SAN DEED RECORDED UNDER A.F.N. 20020927001977. 3. 274E FOLL0WIN0 Emmons -ARE RECORDS OF THE SWIG COUNTY AUOITO45 OFFICE PLAT OF MAPLETREE PARK, VOL I37, PACE -77 • PLAT OF INTERURBAN ADO. TO SEATTLE VUI_ 75 PAGE 55 VICINITY MAP O..vp(IOA tLF� t� tet�: i• iL. *3F�fff•.'Tt ^f"L6�� ��II� Felt3 ::�t7fl•'bidFJSe"SF� �7T�i�?I, T.i�t6i'SFTtar^.L�(,iFi� t_7� t }3t.�I' =Mali- �.°'17""If'(P:l� �tzsT.z3r• B� b� d"L�7L7� �� � tg�m 1tF?� e^is'�ru• t:'' % %� tI3F.7f �GT1�7R» S�I� Bt..iFt,t'Ii�di:���l� ;C�fl�Ib^ ..iii t Z ��[Ils �C!zF3l� 6I l':..'�t E?!�� �.�t���L�l♦�'S1�.J l�i�� �:'li��ltl��P!!iT7�1 � �.r71� tLL�f 01� •2�1� ��rs �:i��ZzAi�!!I)313:71�'.7rn. d�� �ir1le E� i4 e��� �-�f �r�1a ��3� rz�1�o• t9 LEGEND FOUND SEPANEN7, • WEILAND LOCATION FLAGGING MAPLETREE PARK, VOL. 137, PG. 76-77 A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 23, TONNSHIP'23N, RANGE 4E EU ui -- 242.9955' pps `'� al t DR zo�;vN9 1. , •mot -�,�, 3597000260 % e �� 1I6o1 5 . • (ti- f ti1V'fi7• 8014; .3597000.346 LEGAL DESCRIPTION .3597000341 6010 R1'3, Ict!3. 011 (TAX PAR 740. 397000260) tor' 10, 2TE2222AN'A0p77O1 TO 5ATRE ACCOENG T 774E 2U7 • WRY N L°L(97E 70 75 P1A13. PACE 65 RECORDS 'OF ON0 CORBY, • 50' J597000344 tkAPTIAS akikj 6/ SSfm. may uar - 1 Boa k ow (0(Z °o 0 lux u. q0 •0 g Z a� QW DATE DEMMER, 2007 PNLS JOB NUMBER 07- 554 -29B PNLS PRATING NAME . 07534857lANDONI&7M c