Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E08-023 - KOVACH ARCHITECTS - DRA PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGDRA PROFESSIONAL BLDG 13530 - 53 AVE S E08 -023 To: • city of Tukwila • Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 Dr. Padmaraj Angolkar 17000 SE 65th Place Bellevue, WA 98006 Ray and Jennie Noonan PO Box 777 Ravensdale, WA 98051 Office of Attorney General Office of Archeology Jack Pace, Director King County Assessor King County Transit: SEPA Official State Department of Ecology SEPA Division (checklist & site map attached) Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources Program Wildlife Program Fisheries Program Duwamish Tribe PROJECT: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: DRA Professional Building E08 -023 L08 -072 Austin Kovach, Architect SEPA DNS 13530 53rd Avenue South This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non - significance (DNS) for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor, who may be contacted at (206) 431 -3670 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). SM Page I of 1 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Buildine \SEPA NOD DRA DOC 05/01/2009 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: CitPbf 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 -023 12/31/2008 05/01/2009 PENDING Applicant: AUSTIN KOVACH Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: SEPA for a 4 story office building Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 13530 53 AV S TUKW 0003000038 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 43.2 lc.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 5/151 09 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Jack Pac ' - sponsible Official City of la 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) • • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Jim Haggerton, Mayor !FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E08 -023 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION Jack Pace, Director The proposal is to construct a three -story plus basement, approximately 12,593 square foot medical - dental office building on a vacant, .71 acre site. The project includes 39 parking spaces, frontage improvements, and landscaping. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: DRA Professional Building Applicant: Austin Kovach, Kovach Architects Location: The site is located at 13530 53rd Avenue South. The tax parcel number is 0003000038. The property is situated at the southeast corner of 52nd and 53rd Avenue South southwest of Interurban Avenue. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: Regional Commercial Mixed -Use (RCM) The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated November 25, 2008. 2. ESA Screening Checklist dated January 6, 2009. 3. Architectural drawings and Landscaping Plans prepared by Kovach Architects; Civil drawings prepared by Harmsen and Associates, Inc. Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment prepared by the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development, dated May, 1990. 5. Geotechnical Report prepared by ABPB Consulting dated December 3, 2008 and revised March 2, 2009. 6. Geotechnical Peer Review by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. dated April 30, 2009. SM Page 1 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • 7. Tukwila land use file L08 -072 (Design Review for DRA Professional Building). NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and /or obtained by contacting Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: (206) 433 -7166. III. REVIEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197 -11 -800. The proposal includes an estimated cut and fill of 3105 cubic yards and a building over 12,000 square feet both of which exceed the categorical exemptions - flexible thresholds established by Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.110 (A5). IV. BACKGROUND /PROPOSAL The proposal is to construct a three -story plus basement, 12,593 square foot modern office building. The development is to house the property owner's orthodontic practice with additional office space to lease to other professional tenants. Thirty -nine parking stalls, landscaping, and frontage improvements to include curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 52 "d Avenue South and 53rd Avenue South are a part of the proposal. Additional right -of -way along 53rd Avenue South will be dedicated to the City. The site is bound on the southeast and southwest by low- density residential zoning and to the northwest and northeast by Regional Commercial Mixed -Use zoning. 53rd Avenue South defines the southwest boundary, a duplex is to the southeast, 52 "d Avenue South forms the northwest boundary, and the southern portion of the Interurban Park and Ride Lot abuts the northeast property line. The site is a vacant, sloping lot with mature trees and shrubs. Currently undeveloped, the site acts as a buffer between the existing single family neighborhood and the commercial development along Interurban Avenue. The parcel is near the northern edge of the City's Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Area. The site is also designated a Building Height Exemption Area, allowing a height increase from three to four stories, as shown on Figure 18 -3 of the City of Tukwila's Zoning Code. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1 -5. Concur with checklist. SM Page 2 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc 6. The construction will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and Design Review and after obtaining all :required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. 7. Concur with. checklist. 8. In addition to the geotechnical report and downstream drainage report, the applicant also submitted a revised geotechnical report and a peer review of the original and revised geotechnical reports. 9. -12 Concur with checklist. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -c. Concur with checklist. d. The site falls under the City of Tukwila's Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Area Report that places the site in the vicinity of the reported Tukwila Mine. The geotechnical reports and peer review find no evidence of coal mining having occurred at this site. The majority of the site is mapped showing Class 3 areas on the City of Tukwila's geological hazard maps. e. Concur with checklist. All impacts associated with hauling the_grade and fill amounts including the truck route and number of trips shall be addressed as part of the construction permit. f. Erosion could occur. According to the geotechnical peer review by Nelson Geotechnical Associates (NGA), "Best Management Practices should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. ... The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low." (NGA report, page 4) g. Concur with checklist. h. Project is to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by ABPB Consulting, dated December 3, 2008 and March 2, 2009, Geotechnical Peer Review by Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) dated April 30, 2009 and subsequent geotechnical reports. Where recommendations between the reports are inconsistent, the most aggressive environmental protection recommendation shall be implemented. ESC measures as recommended in the 1998 KCSWM must be utilized along with specific and general recommendations as detailed in the NGA report. General recommendations include: SM Page 3 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc • • "Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and /or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the neighboring slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no closer than 25 feet from the adjacent slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low." (NGA report, page 4) 2. Air: a -c. Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a -b. Concur with checklist. c(1). The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. The application states that soils will infiltrate into existing soils where possible. Infiltration is not expected at this site. c(2). Best Management Practices must be followed to ensure that no construction debris enters the storm drainage system. All impacts related to construction debris will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. The application states that soils runoff from roofs will be discharged into the infiltration system. The initial SEPA checklist states that water will be infiltrated on site where possible, at this time infiltration is not anticipated at this site. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. d. The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. All impacts associated with drainage will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. The application states that soils runoff from roofs will be discharged into the infiltration system. An infiltration is not anticipated at this site. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. 4. Plants: a. • Concur with checklist. SM Page 4 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc • • b. The landscape plan shows that the entire site is cleared of vegetation and all areas without structures or paving will be landscaped. The project is subject to Tukwila's Tree Ordinance and shall meet the requirements for tree replacement. c -d. Concur with checklist. 5. Animals: a. Concur with checklist. b. There are no known threatened or endangered animals on or adjacent to the property. c. Yes — This area is part of the Pacific Flyway, a primary corridor for migratory bird species. d. Concur with checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c. Concur with checklist. Environmental Health: a(1-2). Concur with checklist. b(1). Concur with checklist. b(2 -3). The project must meet City of Tukwila noise ordinance requirements. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts associated with the project. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -e. Concur with checklist. f. The comprehensive plan designation of this site is Regional Commercial Mixed Use. g. Concur with checklist. h. The site is designated a sensitive area for areas of potential geological instability (Class 3 areas) covering most of the site and because of its location mapped as an abandoned coal mine area. i(1). Concur with checklist. 9. Housing: a -c. Concur with checklist. SM Page 5 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building\SEPA_SR.doc • • 10. Aesthetics: a. Concur with checklist. b. The site is vacant with a number of trees. The view of trees on the property will be replaced with the proposed project. Views beyond the site will not change significantly and may open up to valley development below the project. c. The project is subject to design review by the Board of Architectural Review and aesthetic impacts will be mitigated as part of that review process. 11. Light and Glare: a -d. Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a. The Green River trail is located three hundred feet to the east with access off of Interurban Avenue. b -c. Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. Applicant will comply with all local, state, and federal laws in the case that archaeological or paleontological artifacts are encountered. 14. Transportation: a. Site design and access shall be reviewed as part of the design review application process. Dedication of additional right of way on 53rd Avenue South to the City of Tukwila will be included in the project. b. The site is adjacent to the Interurban Park and Ride lot and is served by five Metro bus routes. c. The number of parking spaces provided shall meet the requirements of TMC Chapter 18.56 Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations. d. Frontage improvements will be required per TMC 11.12 and will be reviewed as a part of design review. e. Concur with checklist. f -g. The applicant has applied for a traffic concurrency certificate. The certificate will determine the amount of traffic mitigation fees required for this project. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the SM Page 6 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc • • building permit. All temporary traffic impacts associated with construction shall be mitigated as part of the construction permit. 15. Public Services: a. Concur with checklist. b. Fire and Park impact fees will apply and shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 16. Utilities: a -b. Concur with checklist. VI. COMMENTS: On January 27, 2009, notice of application was posted on the site and mailed to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project. Written comments were received from one property owner who raised concerns over potential geological instability, traffic and the assumption that on- street parking will occur on the existing narrow streets. VII. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -340 a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project. This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist File No: E08- 023, and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City-of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner - Date: May 1, 2009 SM Page 7 of 7 05/01/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \SEPA_SR.doc • Dept. Of Community AFFIDAVIT of .Jail 'a IP Development OF DISTRIBUTION Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing x Determination of Non - Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Stacy MacGregor Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Mailer's signature: Board of Appeals Agenda Packet k__________ ,(, (JO Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed /attached on this 1 day of May in the year 2009 P: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC Project Name: DRA Professional Bldg Project Number: E08 -023 Mailing requested by: Stacy MacGregor Mailer's signature: k__________ ,(, (JO P: \USERS \TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Sent via email to Austin@KovachArchitects.com (no hard copy to follow) NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION January 13, 2009 Mr. Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 2115 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201 RE: DRA Professional Building L08 -072, E08 -023 Dear Mr. Kovach, Your application for a Public Hearing Design Review and SEPA Environmental Review is considered complete on January 13, 2009 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. As the next step, the City will coordinate the required public notice for your project. Please contact Julie at FastSigns (206- 757 -2110) to prepare your sign. Information was provided with your application. The posting and notice of land use application will occur by January 27, 2008 and continue until the date of your public hearing. Upon posting, the public comment period will start and will continue for fourteen days. 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. SM H:U.08 -072 DRA Professional Building\NOC.DOC Page 1 of2 01/13/2009 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206- 431 -3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Your project is under review with various City departments. When the review is complete, I will be contacting you to discuss your project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431 -7166 or via email at smacgregor @ci.tukwila.wa.us. Sincerely, to Ass Gregor Planner SM Page 2 of 2 01/13/2009 H: \L08 -072 DRA Professional Building \NOC.DOC Main Office 17311 —135ti' Avenue NE, A -500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486 -1669 FAX (425) 481 -2510 (425) 337 -1669 Snohomish County April 30, 2009 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Mr. "Dave McPherson, P.E. City of Tukwila Public Works Department/Engineering Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, No.100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 Dear Mr. McPherson: Engineering - Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665 -7696 FAX (509) 665 -7692 This letter summarizes our review of the geotechnical and coal mine hazard reports completed by ABPB Consulting for the DRA Professional Center project located at 13530 — 53`a Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. Coal mining was conducted in the area in the 1930's and a coal mine hazard assessment was also conducted on the site. We have also reviewed coal mine hazard aspects of the project. INTRODUCTION The project consists of constructing a multi -story building with a partial daylight basement, along with a parking area and underground utilities. The building is planned for the western portion of the site, and the parking is planned for the southern/southeastern portion of the site. We visited the site on March 27, 2009 to observe the existing conditions. We observed that the site is gently to moderately sloping to the north and northwest. Short steep slopes are located along the western and northern perimeters of the site, and tall, steep slopes are located along the northern side, above an existing park -in -ride lot. For our use in preparing this review letter, we were provided with the following documents: • a report titled "Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment — DRA Professional Building," prepared by ABPB Consulting, dated March 2, 2009 Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 April 30, 2009 Page 2 • a project description report titled "DRA Professional Center," prepared by Kovach Architects, dated December 14, 2008 • a geotechnical report titled " Geotechnical Engineering Report — DRA Professional Building," prepared by ABPB Consulting, dated December 3, 2008 • a coal mine hazard report titled "Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment — Tukwila, Washington," prepared by Hart Crowser, dated May 3, 1990 • a site plan titled "DRA Professional Center," dated November 21, 2008 SUMMARY We reviewed all of the above listed documents. The ABPB geotechnical report provides general geotechnical recommendations for site development. They excavated four test pits on the site and generally encountered weathered sandstone underlain by hard bedrock. A minor coal seam with siltstone was observed in one of the test pits. They recommended a bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). They also noted that the building setback will be approximately 15 feet from the top of the steep slope, and that the northern portion of the planned parking lot will be located over the top of the steep slope and that a wall will need to be created to retain the fill needed for the parking lot. The site is located within an area that Hart Crowser reported as being in the vicinity of the Tukwila Mine coal mine. The Hart Crowser report focused on five different mines and/or areas of coal mining activity, including the Tukwila Mine that was in production from 1932 to 1935. This was a smaller mine, and was abandoned due to groundwater issues made it too dangerous to continue operations. Several mining related features were noted. Based on their review of the available documents, APBP concluded that a coal mine hazard does not exist on this site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review of the provided documents, and the reports prepared by APBP, it is also our opinion that a coal mine hazard does not exist on this site. Coal mine features were not observed on the site or within the explorations conducted by ABPB. The mining associated with the Tukwila Mine was minor NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 April 30, 2009 Page 3 and only in operation for a few years. Subsidence was observed in areas to the south of the site, but no subsidence or mining activities were observed on the project site or immediate vicinity. As for the geotechnical report, it recommended that structural fill be placed using ASTM D -698 Standard Proctor, which we agree should be adequate. Also, based on the anticipated, there should be adequate room to slope the excavation walls back at a 1 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1H:1V) or a 0.511:IV as recommended in the report. However, due to the close proximity of some of these cuts to existing utilities, care should be taken during construction to not disturb the utilities. The geotechnical engineer should observe and approve all excavations. The geotechnical report recommends the use of 4,000 psf for foundation design. In our opinion, this value is adequate if the foundations are advanced down to the competent bedrock and/or the minimum foundation dimension is 36 inches. If the foundations are not advanced down to the bedrock, but rather placed on medium dense material, and the footings are less than 36 inches in width, a more appropriate design soil bearing pressure value of 2,500 should be utilized. This should limit settlement to a tolerable level. The ABPB geotechnical report states that some deepening of the foundations may be needed where the building is located close to the steep slopes. We recommend that the foundations close to the slope be keyed into competent bedrock. If competent bedrock is not encountered at the planned footing elevations, the footings should be deepened until the rock is reached. This should be stated on the plans. The report also states that a retaining wall may be needed on the northern side where the parking lot will be extended over the top of the existing slope. We recommend that this wall and building foundations in this location, as well as drainage system be designed and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to construction. The report did not clearly discuss the surficial condition of the steep slopes on adjacent properties and how to protect the slopes during and after construction. Specific language regarding slope protection NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 April 30, 2009 Page 4 during construction and permanent erosion control and drainage systems on this site should be included in the plans. The following paragraph provides general recommendations for slope protection and maintenance. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the neighboring slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no closer than 25 feet from the adjacent slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Protection of the adjacent slopes should be performed as required by the City of Tukwila. Specifically, we recommend that the adjacent slopes not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No additional material of any kind should be placed on the slopes or be allowed to reach the adjacent slopes, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings, and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the adjacent slopes. All erosion control measures should be reviewed and approved prior to construction. USE OF THIS LETTER NGA has prepared this Letter for the City of Tukwila and their agents for use in the review of the above referenced project. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures. We recommend that the final plans be reviewed and approved by a licensed geotechnical engineer. We also recommend that a licensed geotechnical engineer be retained to monitor the earthwork phase of the project to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 April 30, 2009 Page 5 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 performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. o-O -o NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Consultation Services Peer Review Letter DRA Professional Center Tukwila, Washington NGA File No. 810409 April 30, 2009 Page 6 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ala Dodoye -Alali Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:pkw Two Copies Submitted NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECH nCALIEARTH SCIENCES PAUL ' ©HIFACI, REG. ANIL &TAIL, RE. 12525 Vdiliows Road, Suite 80 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425- 820 -2544 Fax: 425-820-2613 March 2, 2009 Project No. 1253 Dr. Raj Angolkar 17000 SE 65th PI Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment DRA Professional Building 13530 — 53rd Avenue S. Tukwila, Washington Dear Dr. Angolkar: As requested by the City of Tukwila Public Works Department, we have made an evaluation of the Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazards at the site of the proposed DRA Professional Building. We earlier conducted a geotechnical engineering study for this project and presented our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction in a report dated December 3, 2008. To make this evaluation, we reviewed several documents and had communication with individuals familiar with mining operations in this area. We reviewed documents on file at the Department of Natural Resources Library in Olympia. Our review included: 1. Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment, Tukwila, Washington, by Hart Crowser Inc., May 3, 1990 Dr. Raj Angolkar March 2, 2009 2. Northwest Improvement Company, Map Showing Location of Coal Mines, Pierce and King Counties, November 10, 1932 3. Preliminary Geologic Map and Brief Description of the coal fields of King County, Washington, Walter Warren, Haans Norbisrath, Rex Grivetti, and S.P. Brown, 1945. 4. Geologic Map of Des Moines Quadrangle, by Hank Waldron, 1962. 5. Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection, Map PK -1, 1932 6. Historical topographic maps of the area (1900, 1949 and 1968) obtained from the files of Environmental Data Resources (EDR) 7. Personal Communication with Mr. Tim Walsh, Chief Hazards Geologist with the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Our review indicated that this general area is in the vicinity of the Tukwila Mine which was operated by the Foster Coal Company between 1931 and 1935. Published reports indicate that 824 tons of coal were produced from this mine and the mining was terminated when it became difficult to handle water inflows and the amount of coal being obtained was small. There are no maps that indicate the precise locations of the mine workings. The general area of the coal seam associated with the Tukwila Mine appears to extend roughly from the project site southward to S. 141st Street. The general extent of the coal mine area appears to be from the base of the hillside adjacent to Interurban area to extending about 50 to 75 feet up the hillside. There were apparently three reported areas of depressions or minor collapses associated with this mine. These were all in the area south of S. 139th Street, approximately one - quarter mile south of the subject property, and were apparently associated with small mine shafts. Our review of the old maps also indicates that three mine prospect areas (adits) were also located in the general area south of S. 139th Street. There are no reported or mapped areas of mining, entries or subsidence in the immediate vicinity of the project site. From our review of the information from the above references, it is apparent that some mining was conducted in this general vicinity. The amount of coal removed was small. The mining areas as well as some areas . of reported localized subsidence appear to be primarily in the area south of S. 139th Street, about one - quarter mile south of the site. Project No. 1253 Page No. 2 Dr. Raj Angolkar March 2, 2009 Based on this information, it is our opinion that no significant mining, if any, occurred in the immediate vicinity of the subject site. Therefore, the potential hazard to the site from abandoned underground coal mines is minimal. We trust this information is sufficient for your current needs. Please call if you have any questions or if you need any additional information. Sincerely yours, ABPB CONSULTING, INC (,(4/?,L,t' Paul K. Bonifaci, P.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Anil Butail, P.E. Principal Engineer 'EXPIRES 12/910q-1 Cc: Mr. Austin Kovach, Architect Project No. 1253 Page No. 3 f ABPB CONSULTING GEOTECHNICALIEARTH SCIENCES PAUL BONIFACI, P.E.G. ANIL BUTAIL, P.E. Dr. Raj Angolkar 17000 SE 65th PI. Bellevue, WA 98006 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report DRA Professional Building 13530 — 53rd Avenue S. Tukwila, Washington Dear Dr. Angolkar: 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80 Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425- 820 -2544 Fax: 425 - 820 -2613 December 3, 2008 Project No. 1253 As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed new DRA Professional building in northwest Tukwila, Washington. This report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. SUMMARY Our field exploration indicates that most of the planned building area is underlain by medium dense grading to dense, highly weathered to weathered Sandstone Bedrock to the full depth explored by our test pits. No significant groundwater seepage was noted in any of the test pits scattered across the site. In our opinion, the site conditions encountered are suitable for construction and development of the new building and its southeastern parking lot. Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 The undisturbed native soils and weathered bedrock are suitable for supporting the proposed structure, "walls and utilities provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction. The site soils and weathered rock are very moisture - sensitive and will not be suitable for use as structural fill except during the summer months. The excavated fractured rock will need to be broken up and crushed with a sheep's foot compactor to be used as structural fill during compaction. Due to the proximity of the new building's northeast wall and the north and northeast section of the parking lot to the very steep east slope, care will be needed in positioning foundations and walls to protect the footings adjacent to the slope. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of the construction of a large, multi -level building with several floors over a basement and mechanical room level. The lowest levels will be at the northwest end and have floor Elevations of 44 and 47 feet. The basement will extend under the northwesterly three - quarters of the building envelope. It appears that the lower building level will be based about 15 feet laterally from the top of the steep slope which exists extending down to the existing park- and -ride lot below. Concrete retaining walls will be used to support the lower-level cuts for the building. The main building level will be at Elev. 60 feet and will match most of the southeastern parking lot. However, the easterly one third of the parking lot will slope moderately down to the east towards the park - and -ride property. The far northeast end of this parking will extend over the top of the steep slope which descends down about 20 feet to the park- and -ride. A retaining wall system and some fills will be needed to maintain the proposed grade of Elev. 50 at this end of the planned parking lot. Cuts of up to about 12 to 14 feet will be needed for the lower level of the building and about 6 feet for the south edge of the parking area. Additional cutting and excavation for underground utilities below these levels may be required. Preliminary building sections and plans have been prepared by Kovach Architects, dated and revised October 29, 2008. We anticipate that foundation loads for the new structure will be on the order of 5 to 10 kips per lineal foot along perimeter walls and up to 250 kips for individual columns. The general site location is shown on the attached Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The proposed development plan for the property prepared by Kovach Architects is shown on Figure 2, Site Exploration Plan. The design recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on our general understanding of design concepts discussed above and provided to us by the architect. Project No. 1253 Page No. 2 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 SCOPE OF WORK Four test pits were dug with a backhoe for the project on November 18, 2008. Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, we conducted analyses to develop geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: • Soil and groundwater conditions • Slope Setback and Slope Protection for new construction • Site preparation, Excavation and Grading Recommendations • Foundation and Basement/ Retaining Wall design • Slabs -on -grade • Drainage • Pavements FIELD EXPLORATION On November 18, 2008, we conducted our field exploration by observing the excavation of four backhoe test pits dug with a rubber tired backhoe provided by Mountain View Excavating of North Bend, Washington. The test pits were dug to a maximum depth of about 11 feet to excavation refusal on the site bedrock. We also observed the general surface conditions around the project area. The test pit locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2. These locations were approximately determined by pacing and from the site survey prepared for the Site Plan by Kovach. Architects. The individual test pit logs describing the soil and rock conditions in detail are presented on Figures 3 through 6. An engineering geologist maintained a log of each test pit as it was dug, classified the soil and groundwater conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All soil samples were visually classified in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and returned to a laboratory for further examination and testing. Project No. 1253 Page No. 3 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The project site is located just southwest of Interurban Avenue and the I -5 freeway. It is an irregular shaped parcel located on the east corner of the intersection of 52nd Avenue South and 53rd Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington. The properly measures about 180 feet in a northwest to southeast direction and up to about 250 feet from the northeast to the southwest. City streets lie along the west boundaries with a vacant street and homes to the southeast. The irregular northeast boundary is bordered by a park -and ride lot Tying at near the grade of Interurban Avenue at Elev. 25 to 30 feet. This is about 20 feet below the site margin over a very steep 0.5 to 0.75:1 slope. Observations of this slope indicate that weathered bedrock underlies most of its height. The general slope over the subject site is down to the northwest over shallow gradient and covers about 30 feet of relief. Subsurface Much of the development area is underlain by a relatively shallow layer of very silty fine Sand with occasional weathered bedrock fragments and roots. Up to one or two feet of old topsoil and scattered fills overlie the native soil horizon. The very silty Sand is a residual weathering product from . the underlying bedrock. The silty sand grades with depth into the firmer and hard weathered Sandstone Bedrock at depths of four to six feet. The transition to the consolidated rock is slow with depth but hard sandstone with some fractures was noted in most pits below depths of seven to ten feet. The rock could not be excavated with the 580 size backhoe below about 11 feet. Several of the pits met with refusal at shallower depths in some portions of the individual test pit where looser pockets were noted next to the hard rock. The Sandstone noted in the test pits and observed throughout the cuts for the eastern park- and -ride slope is part of the Tukwila Formation of the Puget Group. These sandstones are Tertiary in age and consist of interbeds of siltstone and coal /siltstone layers. A coal or carbonaceous seam of siltstone was noted in Test Pit TP -3 at depth. The bedding planes within the bedrock could not be observed to determine the dip or angle of the subsurface layers. The Geology of Seattle, Washington map indicates that this area of the City is underlain by Tertiary bedrock at shallow depths. Glacial soils are found in other surrounding areas and overlie the rock units in this part of the City. The mapped geologic units are consistent with our observations of the test pits. Project No. 1253 Page No. 4 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 Groundwater During our field work, we did not observe seepage and groundwater zones within the upper silty sand layer or down in the weathered bedrock horizon. The site soils and bedrock are typically not very permeable and do not transmit perched seepage. Some perched groundwater might be encountered during the wet season of the year within the upper six feet over the tighter bedrock layers. The soils and rock will probably be significantly drier in the summer months. Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Based on the soil and rock conditions encountered in the test pits and the local geology, the project should be considered as Site Class C for design in accordance with the International Building Code. We reviewed the results of our field and laboratory data, and assessed the potential for soil liquefaction during an earthquake. Based on our subsurface exploration and analysis, it is our opinion that the potential for seismically induced subsidence or liquefaction at the site is minimal. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, the site is suitable for the proposed construction. The building can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils and bedrock below the topsoil and loose near surface soils located around the property. However, due to the site constraints, some deepening of some footings may be required where they are located in close proximity to the Park - and -Ride slopes to the northeast. Concrete slabs can be supported on the thoroughly recompacted native subgrade present at the planned excavation level or on new compacted structural fills. Where excavations deeper than about 8 feet are planned, the contractor should anticipate difficulty in making excavations through the sandstone bedrock on the site. Site Preparation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, any vegetation, organic surface topsoils, and other deleterious materials should be removed from below footing, slab -on- grade, utility, and . pavement areas. Soils containing organic material will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be used in non - structural areas or for landscaping purposes. Project No. 1253 Page No. 5 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 Much of the planned building area will be excavated for the new building and its lower levels. We anticipate that some of the materials and excavated soils will be trucked to another location. Once a lower level footing or slab subgrade is reached, all areas should be examined for soft or loosened materials. Any such areas should be overexcavated and replaced with clean ballast rock such as railroad ballast (1 to 2 inch diameter) rock or compacted structural fills. Most of the excavated soils will be too damp for use as general compacted structural fill during many times of the year. The very silty nature of the upper site soils will make them difficult to compact without aeration or drying in the sun. Grading is best conducted in the drier summer months when the native soils can be reused as fill materials. As needed, clean granular materials may need to be imported for use. Prior to use, ABPB Consulting should examine all on -site or imported materials proposed for use as structural fill. Imported soils should be predominantly granular, have a maximum size of three inches with no more than 5 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 Standard sieve. As noted previously, railroad ballast or small quarry spalls may be used over wet subgrades as structural fill material. The contractor should be made aware that bedrock underlies the entire site at variable depths. Some of this rock will be difficult to excavate below depths of 8 to 10 feet with small conventional equipment. Additional excavation for utilities below the lower level or the parking lot cuts may also be in tough excavating bedrock. The contractor should make provisions to utilize suitable equipment such as armored trackhoe buckets and teeth to reach the required excavation depths. Any structural fill used for the project for slab support or backfill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches in thickness and then compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D -698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this ASTM standard. In non - structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of four feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90 percent. Due to the silty nature of the soils, and the potential that some of the weathered blocky rock may be used as fill, we recommend that a "sheep's foot" type of compactor be used for larger areas of compactive surfaces. This type of compactor will do a better job of compacting these types of soils and breaking down and crushing some of the rocky blocks. Where large areas of blocky intact rock are found, the blocks should not be used as fill without thorough mixing with the silty/sandy materials. The rock will tend to weather with time and disintegrate if used solely in void filled rock fill areas. Project No. 1253 Page No. .6 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 Temporary Excavations and Adjacent Slope Protection All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, excavations and utility trenches, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the on -site soils would generally be classified as Group B soils. Shallow trenches cut in the granular soils should not be prone to caving above depths of four feet. The contractor should use appropriate safety precautions and trench boxes. Excavations of up. to 14 feet may be required in the building area to reach footing grade for the lower level. We suggest that the building cuts be sloped back at a 1:1 configuration for the upper soils and then 0.5:1 (H:V) in the weathered to unweathered bedrock areas. The transition between these types of soils and rock will need to be verified in the field for the final temporary construction slope. The new building excavation will be about 15 feet southwest of the existing Park -and - Ride lot slope. It is our opinion that this setback for the new building is suitable for support and long term stability of the slope. Construction of the building should have not adverse impact on the stability of the existing slope. However, the north corner of the planned parking lot appears to extend over the top of the steep slope as shown on the referenced site plan. The top of the slope in this north corner appears to be represented by the Elevation 50 contour line on the site topographic map and site plan. The new parking grade of Elevation 50 will require the construction of some type of wall and some fill in the north corner of the lot above the Park and Ride. We understand that some sort of wall will be needed to support the five foot deep fills to be placed in the northerly 20 feet of the parking from the corner in each direction. Some difficulty will occur in constructing a wall footing trench on the steep slope. We suggest that the engineer design an L — shaped footing to minimize the outward flange of the footing at this location. For stability considerations, we recommend that the footing trench for this wall extend to a depth that would ensure that a 0.5:1 (H:V) influence line from the outside footing edge downward does not extend out of the existing slope. We anticipate that most of this footing grade will be based in weakly cemented bedrock. Prior to wall footing excavation, the alignment should be staked and reviewed by the soils engineer at the time of construction to provide additional comments on the sequence of construction of this slope wall. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that ABPB Consulting assumes any responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Project No. 1253 Page No. 7 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 Foundations The new building may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent dense native soils and weathered bedrock, compacted structural fill or on quarry rock. Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section. Perimeter foundations should extend at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. All footing excavations should be thoroughly cleaned of loose materials following excavation disturbance. We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a 1/3 increase in the above allowable capacity can be used. All footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings and buried portions of the foundation stem walls can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. The above values assume the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. Settlements We anticipate that the total settlements of foundations bearing on the competent native soils, bedrock or on compacted structural fill will be less than one -half inch. Long -term differential settlement foundations spanning between firm bedrock and the shallower highly weathered silty sands should be less than one -half inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction. Slab -on -Grade Floors We understand that the new building to be constructed on the site will have a lower level based about 12 to 13 feet beneath the existing grade at the lower level wall location. We anticipate some minor subsurface seepage in the native soils over the bedrock at that depth. The slabs may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section. Immediately below these floor slabs, we recommend placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free - draining pea gravel that has less than two percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. This Project No. 1253 Page No. 8 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed below the slab, above the capillary break. This membrane is commonly covered with one to two inches of clean, moistened sand to protect damage during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Other methods are available for preventing or reducing water vapor transmission through the slab. We recommend consulting with a building envelope specialist for additional assistance regarding this issue. Basement and Retaining Walls Some of the perimeter areas may be open cut to reach grade for construction of the basement. These areas will require compacted backfill after the walls are built. The magnitude of earth pressures developing on any proposed lower level basement and retaining walls will depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D -698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To prevent hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed behind basement walls and behind traditional cantilever retaining walls. With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as adjacent structures, will act on the walls. Passive earth pressure and friction will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations section. For seismic loading conditions, a surcharge of 7H psf, where H is the wall height, should be added. Drainage Surface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the new building area at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent Project No. 1253 Page No. 9 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum . distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent the structure. Subsurface We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the perimeter foundations or footing base for retaining walls. Cantilever retaining walls should be provided with a good drainage board and which is hydrologically connected to the footing drainpipe placed at the footing toe. The foundation drains and lower level retaining wall drains should be tightlined separately to approved discharge facilities. Subsurface drains - must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. All surface and subsurface drains should be provided with cleanouts at appropriate and easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at regular intervals. Considering the presence of weathered to unweathered bedrock under the site, we do not expect large amounts of seepage adjacent to the walls and below the floor of the building. However, if the owner desires a completely dry lower level floor, all perimeter basement walls should be provided with .waterproofing. In addition, a network of sub - floor drains should be provided beneath the basement floor. Pavements Pavement subgrades should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. Regardless of the degree of relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively 'unyielding before paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to verify this condition. The pavement design section is dependent upon the supporting capability of the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. For the onsite driveways, with traffic consisting mainly of light passenger vehicles with only occasional heavy traffic, and with a stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement sections: • Two inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) • Two inches of HMA over three inches of asphalt- treated base (ATB) Project No. 1253 Page No. 10 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for 1/2 inch class HMA, ATB, and CRB. Long -term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly- drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as .a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing .their supporting capability. For optimum pavement performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some degree of longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotechnical and testing laboratory services should be provided during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will also allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the test pits excavated around the site. Variations in soil and groundwater conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, ABPB Consulting should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. We also recommend that ABPB Consulting be retained to provide geotechnical observation services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations. It will also allow expedient design changes in the event subsurface conditions are encountered that differ from those anticipated. Following the initial excavation, foundation excavations should also be observed to assess that they have been dug down to soils and weathered rock with adequate bearing capacity. It is requested that we be given two working days notice to provide any of the above services. The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Figure.2 Figures 3 through 6 Vicinity Map Exploration Location Plan Test Pit Logs Project No. 1253 Page No. 11 Dr. Raj Angolkar December 3, 2008 1 We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering 1 practices. This report is the property. of ABPB Consulting and is intended for specific application to the DRA Professional Building project in Tukwila, Washington. This report is for the exclusive use of Dr. Angolkar along with his authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of the subject project 1 and look forward to working with you during the construction phase. We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. 1 1 1 1 1 Principal Engineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sincerely yours, ABPB CONSULTING, INC Paul K. Bonifaci, P.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Anil Butail, P.E. IEXPIRES 12/9/09 Cc: Mr. Austin Kovach, Architect Project No. 1253 Page No. 12 Foster Golf Links ;t' ti,_ r� NTS Ref: Windows Live Search ABPB Consulting Geotechnical Consultants Kirkland, Wash. Vicinity Map DRA Professional Building Tukwila, Washin ton Proj. No. 1253 I Date : 12 -08 Figure 1 • • • TP -2 -- —1 .f ,i• .:E :: ::: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project : DRA Professional Center Test Pit TP - 1 Project No. 1253 Date : 11-18-08 Client : Angolkar Elevation 53 feet Location: Vacant Lot Logged By: Paul Bonifaci SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Field Strength Tests Laboratory Results Moisture Content Depth (ft) >, cr) = 0 o z 5 Soil Description IWater Level 1 E (1) USCS 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 111 1 1 1 1 •>, •>, •> )>, /, , )>, ,, ,>, )>, ''1:‘.-r \-1- Topsoil: Black and grey, silty Topsoil, loose, wet with roots SM SS • -T- T: T. *7-• :r. •_r: 71-. _r 71-. 1- • ' 7r. ' • 1- • • -1-. ' -I- -I- • • 71-. • -1- • • -r. • • 7T. 71-. -7 -T. T :r• .-r. :7: -r 7/-* .-r -r 7-• -r • • 7r. ' • -r. -1-.1_ 7...• ._r-r. •„... 7r. T 7r• .-r: 7r• 71-. 7r" .-1-: -"s-r: 71-• .:-1-.. 7-• 71-. 71-* .-r. T. •-r• -r. . T.: 7-. 7r* T. -r 71-. 1 . -r. " T.T. r. • • •-r• .-r. -T. T. 71-. '-r. 7T. ,..,... :T. T. 71-. • 71- -r. .-r. ,..r..-r. „T.:. .T: ,:..r.• T. 7r: 71-. m 71- 71-• ' 'T. • 'T. -"T. •_i_. .-r. ...r. 71-. •_r 7-. '-r. 7r. „,....- .' 7I-. 1- ' -t- :r. • :r. _r: .-r. ,r.- .-T. 7r. .-r. _i_. -1- •-r• T 7r' -r 7T-• 71H 1- -r. • • 7T" ' -r. • -r. ' -r • -r. • Silty Sand: Tan Mottled with orange, very silty Sand mixed with weathered rock pieces, and roots, loose grading to dense with depth, moist to damp • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ............. • • • • — • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• •• •• •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..... • •• •• •• •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sandstone: Mottled tan, highly 0 weathered grading to less weathered SANDSTONE BEDROCK, hard to dense, moist, grading to chunky fractured rock at base, refusal to dig further at bottom of pit — No groundwater encountered ABPB Consulting Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544 Date : November 08 I Project Name : DRA Professional Center Figure 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project : DRA Professional Center Test Pit TP - 2 Project No. 1253 Date : 11-18-08 Client : Angolkar Elevation 44 feet Location: Vacant Lot Logged By: Paul Bonifaci SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Field Strength Tests Laboratory Results Moisture Content Depth (ft) >, cr) a — -I soil Description Water Level Sample USCS 0 -1 -2 -.3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 110 111 1 1 1 1 'A 'A ') ), ', /5, /, Topsoil: Black and grey, mixed silty fill andTopsoil, loose, wet with roots SM SS • , ,. -1- -r " :r • • -r. 7• 77 717 7T. _r• :r. ,r• .-r. ,..r. 7r. _r. ' "T. • 77 • -r. • -r• .-r. 7r• :r. 717 .-1- 71-• 1-• 717 :r. " 'T. • -r: :r. 77 ' 7-..7- :1-• -r 7r• -r 7r: -s-r • • -r • • 7r- • • -r. -I- • :T: -1- -r. 17 7r. :r. -r. -r. 7-. • 'T -1- 7r. • -r. ■ . T. •_r•• -r :r. ,r.7r• 717. -1- 7- " 7 "T. .1: 77 ,r..• .-r. ,T..• .-r. . 1-• 7r 7-• . -r. * :r. • 7- • 'T: 1- m• -r. •-r• :r. 7r* 7: -r. -r * -1- -r. • 77 1- T :T." :T" -r. -r. • :r. • 'T. • :r. • :r. -r. 7- -1- 7r. • -r. • • :r " :r 7r. 7: 1- 7: " -1- -r. -r. • • 7- • • :17 77 • -1- 77 Silty Sand: Tan Mottled with orange, very silty Sand mixed with weathered rock pieces, and roots, loose grading to dense with depth, moist to damp Grades to: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ............. • • • • • • • • • • • • -- • •• •• •• • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • •• •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sandstone: Mottled tan, highly weathered grading to less weathered SANDSTONE BEDROCK, hard to dense, moist, grading to chunky fractured manganese stained rock at base, refusal to dig further at bottom of pit No groundwater encountered ABPB. Consulting Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544 Date : November 08 Project Name : DRA Professional Center Figure 4 1 1 1 1 Project : DRA Professional Center Test Pit TP - 3 Project No. 1253 Date : 11-18-08 Client: Angolkar Elevation 58 feet Location: Vacant Lot Logged By: Paul Bonifaci SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Field Strength Tests Laboratory Results Moisture Content Depth (ft) >, cm 5 — cn 2 .L SOil Description Water Level a) E m co USCS 1 11 I -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 -3 - 4 - 5 -6 -7 •10 111 1 1 1 1 '> ,5, )>, Topsoil: Black and grey, mixed silty fill andTopsoil, loose, wet with roots SM SS • F F F F F F F F F F F F F E E I I:. F. I: I:. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. EFEKKEEEEF.EFF.EFEEKIH Silty Sand: Tan Mottled with orange, very silty Sand mixed with weathered rock pieces, and roots, loose grading to dense with depth, moist to damp Grades to: •.--. •r" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •°•°•°•°•°•°• • • •• •• •• •. — ••••••••••••• :•:•:•:•:•:•: .•.6.6.*.°.°. • • • • • • • *• • • °• •• '• -- ..*.°.•.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -- .°.°.°.•.'•°. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ •:.:.:.:.:•:. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .°.6.6.°.°.'• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • __ ............. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sandstone: Mottled tan with black seams, highly weathered grading to less weathered SANDSTONE BEDROCK, grading to carboniferous coal mixed with sandstone at 8 feet, hard to dense, moist, refusal to dig further at bottom of pit No groundwater encountered ABPB Consulting Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544 Date : November 08 Project Name : DRA Professional Center Figure 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Project : DRA Professional Center Test Pit TP - 4 Project No. 1253 Date : 11-18-08 Client : Angolkar Elevation 77 feet Location: Vacant Lot Logged By: Paul Bonifaci SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Field Strength Tests Laboratory Results Moisture Content Depth (ft) >. o) . 0 0 -6 (0 -c Soil Description Water Level a) a. E as (1) USCS 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 )>, , , 1, /, Topsoil: Black and grey, silty and rooty Topsoil, loose, wet with roots SM SS • -r -1- • 'T' ' 'T. ' 7 1- • -r. -r. :r. -r. • 7 • 7'. 7r. • 'T'. -'-u- Tr 7r. m ir. m• -r. r. • • 7. M 7 7r* .7. -r. 7- • • -r • • 7' 71-. ' 7 'T • • 7' :r • • 71-. • -r. • • 7 • -r. 'T. • -r • :r. • -r. •,,...: -r. m m 7r: :r• .-r. 7. -r .71-. • -1- -r. • • -I- -r. -1- 7- 7. • • :T: • :r. " -r -r. T. 7 • • :T: • -r. I . 7' • :r. :T. :r. • • -r :r. 'T. 7. • • :r. 71-. 7 :r. :T • -r. • 'T. -r. • :T: ' -1- ' 7. • 71-. :r. • 7. 7r. 7. • 7 • ' -r • -r. -•-r • • 7-. • • :T: • :r. • T 7-. :r. 'T' • • :r. :r. "T: • 7: -r. :r. • -r • :r • -r -r. 'T :r. :T• ' -r. ' 7. -r. • 7: ' 'T. • :T. ' 7. ' :r. 7 ' • 7' 7 71-. • :r. " 7T. • :r. Silty Sand: Tan Mottled with orange, slightly silty to silty Sand mixed with hightly weathered rock pieces, and roots, loose grading to dense with depth, moist to damp •••• l., rades to: / \ Sandstone: Mottled tan and white tan, highly weathered grading to less weathered SANDSTONE BEDROCK, hard to dense, moist, undulating with depth of hard rock surface, refusal to dig further at bottom of pit No groundwater encountered • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• • •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — • • • • • • • .•••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• •• •• •• ............. — • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ABPB Consulting Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544 Date : November 08 Project Name : DRA Professional Center Figure 6 LEVEL 1 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS FOR THE DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER TUKWILA, WASHINGTON November 21, 2008 HARMSEN & WAI ASSOCIATES INC A N T I C I P A T E U N D E R S T A N D G U I D E D E L I V E R 17614 West Main St PO Box 516 Monroe, WA 98272 -0516 t (360) 794-7811 t (206) 343 -5903 f (360) 805 -9732 www.h- ai.com DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This downstream analysis and has been prepared for the DRA Professional Center located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of 52nd Avenue South and 53`d Avenue South. The proposed development is to construct a medical building with associated parking on the 0.65 acre site, See Figure 2: Developed Conditions. The property is bounded to the north by 52 "d Avenue South, to the west by 53`d Avenue South, to the south by unopened South 135th Street and to the east by a park -in -ride. The ground covering is primarily trees and brush. The site slopes steeply toward 52nd Avenue South and generally sits 2- 8 feet above the roadway. See Figure 1: Existing Conditions. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS The Level I downstream analysis for this site was performed in October, 2008. The City of Tukwila online resource mapping was also reviewed, these maps are included in Appendix A. Multiple requests have been sent to King County for a review of the Drainage complaint files. No response has been received at this time. When the complaint records are received they will be reviewed and incorporated into the report. The following body of text describes the downstream observation. The downstream investigation begins at the new proposed access on 53`d Avenue South to the development's parking lot, Station 0 +00. There is an asphalt thickened edge along the 53`d Avenue South directing runoff toward 52nd Avenue South. The drainage path along the thickened edge is at a 16% to 18% slope along the roadway. At Station 1 +50, there is a catch basin on the east side of 52nd Avenue South at the intersection with 53rd Avenue South. The storm system on the east side of 52nd Avenue South is 18" CMP flowing to the northeast. At Station 4 +25, the storm system crosses under Interurban Avenue South. There are two catch basins on the west side of the intersection and the storm crossing under Interurban Avenue South is through a 30" concrete pipe. At Station 5 +25, the 30" pipe is collected in the SD manhole in the landscape strip. The 30" storm continues northeasterly under a paved parking lot. At Station 6 +00, is a catch basin at the northern end of the paved parking lot. The 30" storm continues north through a vegetated area north of the parking lot towards the Duwamish Waterway. At Station 6 +25, there is a storm drain manhole at the outfall of the 30" storm system. The concrete 30" pipe outfalls into the Duwamish Waterway. No further downstream investigation was performed as the Duwamish Waterway is a major waterway with no known constrictions. See Downstream Photographs & Map in Appendix A. There were no apparent drainage problems along this downstream drainage route and the storm system appeared to have received routine maintenance. J:\Kovach \Tukwila DRA 08- 200 \CE\drainage \DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRM /DWH DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE2 EXISTING AND DEVELOPED RUNOFF The City of Tukwila has adopted the 1998 King County Drainage Manual that specifies the use of the King County developed KCTRS software for runoff calculations and facility sizing. It is proposed that the Department of Ecology WWHM3 software be used for sizing the flow control and treatment facilities for the site. The King County KCRTS software does not allow orifice sizes less than 0.5 ", making it impossible to use on small sites. The two modeling softwares are considered equivalent as determined by the Department of Ecology that has overseen and approved the King County Drainage Manual. EXISTING SITE The runoff from the existing site has been calculated using WWHM3. The site basin consists of 0.50 acres. The basin has the following land uses and areas: Ground Cover Acres Till Forest 0.50 acres The runoff rates are as follows: Storm Event Rate 2 year 0.0191 cfs 10 year 0.0353 cfs 100 year 0.0493 cfs DEVELOPED SITE The runoff from the developed site has been calculated using WWHM3. The site basin consists of 0.50 acres. The basin has the following land uses and areas: Ground Cover Acres Impervious(asphalt/building) 0.44 acres Till Grass (landscaping) 0.06 acres The runoff rates prior to the proposed flow control facilities are as follows: Storm Event Rate 2 year 0.1231 cfs 10 year 0.1684 cfs 100 year 0.2259 cfs See WWHM3 screen shots and output in Appendix B. The lower portion of the site can not be collected as it is significantly lower than the building and parking areas. These areas consist of the landscaped areas around the building and adjacent to 52 ❑d Avenue South J:UCovach \Tukwila DRA 08- 200 \CE\drainage\DOW NSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRM/DWH DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE 3 STORM DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC DESIGN The following flow control and treatment facilities will be implemented on the site as described below. These facilities will be fully designed and detailed as part of the submittal package to be prepared for construction permitting. SITE BASIN FLOW CONTROL FACILITY Flow control will be accomplished through the use of a detention vault. The vault will be located under the parking in the southeastern portion of the site. A roof drain stub and collectors will be installed to collect the roof runoff from the building. The flow control will discharge to the storm drain system in 52 ❑d Avenue South. WWHM3 was used to size the detention vault. The vault and flow control structure have the following dimensions: Vault Length Vault Width First Orifice Elevation First Orifice Diameter Second Orifice Elevation Second Orifice Diameter Third Orifice Elevation Third Orifice Diameter Riser Height 60 feet 18 feet 0 feet 0.35 inch 4.5 feet 0.75 inch 5.6 feet 0.62 inch 7 feet The discharge rates from the detention vault are as follows: Storm Event Rate 2 year 0.0124 cfs 10 year 0.0318 cfs 100 year 0.0728 cfs See WWHM3 screen shots and output in Appendix B. TREATMENT FACILITY Storm water treatment of the parking lot runoff will be accomplished through the catch basin cartridge filter treatment systems by Contech Stormwater Solutions. The system is approved for general use by the Department of Ecology and is sized to treat the 6 -month developed stormwater runoff rate while safely conveying larger stormwater systems to the vault. An internal bypass system can convey up to 1.8 cfs, much greater than the 100 year runoff rate. The western portion of the parking lot contains approximately 6,300 sf and will require a single 27" cartridge filter catch basin structure. The eastern portion of the parking lot contains approximately 7,200 sf and will require a two 18" cartridge filter catch basin structure, see sizing calculations by Contech Stormwater Solutions in Appendix B. J:\Kovach \Tukwila DRA 08- 200 \CE\drainage \DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRMIDWH ' DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE 4 RIGHT -OF -WAY IMPROVEMENTS I The frontage improvements will result in a minimal increase in impervious area, approximately 1,100 sf, and a corresponding minimal increase in runoff. Much of the area along 52nd Avenue South is already gravel shoulder that will be replaced with a sidewalk. Minimal road widening I and a curb and gutter will be installed along 53`d Avenue South. The majority of the roadway is at an elevation well below the site and can not be collected into the proposed drainage system. No detention or treatment of these areas is proposed and the runoff will be collected in the Iexisting storm drain system in the roadway. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONCLUSION With the installation of flow control and treatment BMPs meeting the City of Tukwilla and Department of Ecology drainage standards, as part of the development for the DRA Professional Center there should be no adverse impacts to the downstream properties resulting from this proposed development. J:\Kovach \Tukwila DRA 0 &200 \CE\drainage \DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRM/DWH DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE 5 1" = 60' 0 30 SADDLE MANHOLE 60 PROPOSED BUILDING r • , CARTRIDGE CA TCHBA SIN B Y- ,CON TECH S TORM WA TER SOLU TIbNS ss 120 S 3AV NVBMIk13LNI S 135TH ST (Not Open) 1 CARTRIDGE CA TCHBASIN BY CON TECH STORMWATER SOLUTIONS DETENTION VAULT 60'x 18'x 7' DEEP FLOW CONTROL MANHOLE FIGURE 1: EXISTING SITE J:\Kovach \Tukwila DRA 08- 200 \CE\drainage \DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRM/DWH DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS NOVEMBER 21, 2008 DRA PROFESSIONAL CENTER PAGE 6 1" = 60' 0 30 60 120 30* 3AV NVE18118 1NI tn S 135TH ST (Not Open) FIGURE 2: DEVELOPED SITE JAKovach \Tukwila DRA 08-200\CEdrainage\DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DRA.doc SRMIDWH APPENDIX A DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS & RESOURCE MAPPING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Station 0 +00 This is a photo of the site looking to the north down 53r1 Ave. South along the drainage route. There is an asphalt thickened edge along the roadway at the toe of slope. The power pole shown is in the vicinity of the proposed access to the development. The drainage path along the thickened edge is at a 16% to 18% slope along the roadway. Station 1 +50 This is a photo of the receiving catch basin on the east side of 52nd Ave. South at the intersection with 53r1 Ave. South. This street storm system is 18" CMP. Station 4 +25 This is a photo of the street storm system crossing at Interurban Ave. South. The storm crossing under this roadway is a 30" concrete pipe. Station 5 +25 This is a photo of the site looking back to the south across Interurban Ave. South. The 30" pipe under Interurban is collected in the SD manhole shown. The 30" storm continues south under a paved parking lot. Station 6 +00 This is a photo of the CB at the north end of the paved parking lot. The 30" storm continues north through the NGPA area shown towards the Duwamish Waterway. Station 6 +25 This is a photo of the storm drain manhole at the outfall of the 30" storm system. The concrete 30" pipe outfalls onto a rock spillway and apron lining down to the water at the Duwamish Waterway. 0,ontot nlop.pdf(appfir:Jion /pdf ulgrct)- Mn:iIla Fn eft. 8s Edit Yid • 4? w : hap: dwww .atads.wa.usldcNaa+wjnao•rlaf C7 0.0",t. LWs 0 Fro. tbtnat 0 WYda+s Merktgtace an Karmen l Assadat.... [I Windom Media 0 Windows Harmsen B Associates lr6eiat v (application/pa —® � HT" - �i �;c c ■Ills ►> fPI'• , s t sT, WNW �IIIIIII� \��•�� is =1"mM" r■w MINA 1JJ -l''' /'4tiomeg 9ia 1' �hlll �In! ill■ 24.00 42.Ctlin Boone•: iyjsta'c1 Atmda.fta...11CaJm ma.pe(awl- JLeaend UDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential 0 Office MUO Mixed Use Office RCC Regional Commercial Center NCC Neighborhood Commercial Center RC Regional Commercial RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use TUC Tukwila Urban Center CILI Commercial Light Industrial TVS Tukwila Valley South LI Light Industrial HI Heavy Industrial MICIL Manufacturing Industrial Center/Light Industrial MIC;H Manufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial Overlays and Sub Areas .�� Tukwila City Limits Public Recreation Overlay Shoreline Overlay (Approximately 200' each side of the river) CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING MAP -40e OL:1ie 10:30 AM j Legend LDR Low Density Residential MDR Medium Density Residential HDR High Density Residential 0 Office MUO Mixed Use Office RCC Regional Commercial Center NCC Neighborhood Commercial Center RC Regional Commercial RCM Regional Commercial Mixed Use TUC Tukwila Urban Center C /LI Commercial Light Industrial TVS Tukwila Valley South LI Light Industrial HI Heavy Industrial MICJL Manufacturing Industrial Center /Light Industrial Pr11CIH hi1anufacturing Industrial Center /Heavy Industrial ■11".1■ Tukwila City Limits Potential Annexation Area Tukwila Urban Center --- -- MIC Boundary Tukwila South Master Plan Area Public Recreation Overlay Shoreline Overlay (Approximately 200' each side of the river) wrra •_ :=11- ''ioi—'�■ ,a • INWEE CITY OF TUKWILA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UnaV J Geolwly.wlf (.PV6cntmntpdr u6)crr) - MmJln f ireluw ge Ede Y.. MSm). IPob Cab - '-�e - _1 W _1 • V 0 Cust9m,Lrau 0 hasHomai 0 9nm..MOdetd6ce In Ham.me4rsanete... G kxda•awae lJ xem., [Q Harmareesseriro trbnet ..a ®wmseneea.daln lrtre.ec .r 1'�1,4naceduvradr(ypGceiNn —® • r:n Cdr . _ in* .I 0 Bao 9:1644 aeme9►odrt� ¢)4umcencwsm�- ...1 ®J 9ad9ei. aoc.6ta9aaR .•.Iulejim`'9darudoe- NOCd.,.� ._ --.•• Leaend 9 Tukwila City Limits Potential Annexation Areas m, Modified land (Holocene) Ow, Wetland deposits (Holocene) - Ob, Beach deposits (Holocene) NM Ols, Landslide Opf, Sedimentary deposits of pre - Fraser glaciation age (Pleistocene) ow ()plc Otb, Transitional beds (Pleistocene) Ou, Surficial deposits, undivided (Holocene and Pleistocene) Ova, Advance outwash deposits ® Ovi, Ice - contact deposits ® Ovr, Recessional outwash deposits Ovt, 1111 _ Oyu, Vashon Drift, undivided ® Oyal, Younger alluvium (Holocene) _ Tb, Blakely Formation of Weaver (1916) (Miocene and Oligocene) IN 11, Intrusive rocks (Miocene, Oligocene, and Eocene) Tpr, Renton Formation (late and middle Eocene) ® Tpt, Tukwila Formation pate and middle Eocene) UM Water - Streams - Freeways CITY OF TUKWILA GEOLOGY MAP ()nap a rupu „nd t{ydroinoy.udt (.mvihr:ruun /vdf smjrrt) - Mardi„ Flrekm Be 8.dt fJaw [Vary godeneds Ions tlem - ` ' 1 1 httreffieww.d.biarlanaueStkdfsInrelnedMap%20136201131911.20ter8420113903303.0 Q Customize Uras Q Free stxmal 0 W dews tterta4lace ® M n sen & Msodate... G Windows Made G windows ®wrmsen a nssode<n Intranet c j 1 ®wrmsen nassodsses Intranet r 1 Man 4 Taro and ssyaromor.vdt(a— ® 1 FM ■ 01% 16 ai1�s i a8 come eudAOC Merced. 8jstm�l C warmsen aassodxos In... 1109 Mao 4 ropo and ttyae_ � auteCAD CM ao zoom • ... , ID • eticroseft ... II � Legend QTukwiia Drainage Basins Gilliam Creek Southgate Creek Riverton Creek Green/Duwamish River - Wetlands Watercourses 10 Foot Contours ` =° a Tukwila City Limits 46 is • Potential Annexation Areas Streets ril urk !lee a'? 9:t9ase ;l CITY OF TUKWILA DRAINAGE BASINS MAP tr Mond k- Gnohi¢i.Jgaarnnttrat inn /pJt(lbV =t) @e edt Item Mttay @whneks Inds 1:Ie0n ( +- la e0.0we•dddod.au04sar _ .. _ El Castanets tele U tree MoUnd D W ebws Marketplace [1! Mamsen a assodate... Q Windom Mode C1 wa plows t.9 : I ®Mamoen &Assodetes Intranet ---c.:3 1I :,;.,1 Map 7 Flood & Geoha:asdvdr(av - ®i i -1 —_ 11IJ Kansan & asmeees Intranet ikjsaael Mermen& Paso— I QJ map ?Rood R_�3 Mak&CM]D...114149dogr.mc -w... . 1_]rnGno ax ...j4)draamsMS.doc...I. al scam*- ra,os...f:I���droxad.dx ...I wo 'I (� ®ifaa e:m u+ Legend El 100 -Year Floodplain Landslide Potential Slope Classifications j� 2 Moderate: Slope Is between 15% and 40 %; underlain by permeable soils. El 3 High: Slope is between 15% and 40 %; underlain by impermeable soilslbedrock. (-i 4 Very high; includes areas with mappable zones of groundwater seepage and landslide deposits. Green/Duwamish River Shoreline Planning Area — Streets `Tukwila City Limits gPotential Annexation Areas CI= OF TUKWII LA FLOOD ]P LAIIN/LANDSUDIE ]H[AZA I': D MAP eMily 1 Hislunc tides,pd! (applti um/p11(11bieul)::•luzilla Els Edt WN, ptIta,y ••1101,11 10111 Li* 41 • t r It) [®I .4. 0 Custard= L11113 0 hen Hotrod Wndows Marlditztleat DE Harmsen & Agodate... 0 Virddittilitilte Li 4416:xis I IlarM5e. & Assad atos 1^"net - Kr*. &Assad.* crtik*• - 11 V..."1 11.9.11 HIstork Sitesp• (appl/ca-0 siait Harmsen &Assn... ft M- , '''SA,Iptronk,o,L.,,,,,,\•, • ver"• isolated Knoll Oxb CM= 7 '3 S 1121h SI \ ii_gil %Planks by Su ,,l,n P6btt F211 Granite Potroglyph 'ellini with Basko4lesigk ' k rurben Bridge (/19 ) rt )..,.,---..-..-1-ilL'7. ••'S-57-) Duwa Ca‘idsfrok (luso (1882) bArloger Fernandes •:... 99 Sri os. .__,.. c ard DliwaUh ch;g41911) • vt■ cu, .• 1201h SI (19 ‘ • .. - — ca \I (1860411gy tO S 136th S1 S 142nd St S 1441h St" CZ= S Pt6ntins Legend • Rm. Puma Hiztoly e Etsiytt.M AIIIVIC315425 • 1•113txte Flacedievents • tr1:1proltva • Ildasxnatan tiltaty INN %wet* Ptannirt2 ked Tukr.lts CIO Limb Pattnttal Amexalat Arest to Mill (1149) — sown Station ,, • hvg Hole ' • . t eddg° "Ma :I to i I 01/90 • • Red Adintown Covered Bridge (1903) `45, 71 whi.Forry,Landing I \,... ? Langstcn Rd. .._ , •••••,,,,. S 132rd St S I32na St ?-2•I Black River Ferry Landing -Py _a1G,tr• A \ ' mmh 1\\t 0.) ma 11 Hisb111- 14111•16017-401.11-1••• 1110-3 co,"9"P11n. • I :4-1 cl•an burn- :tbc NJ -141cros...1 d?.] gentle:zed- .do; P.i7;-00;n AMC- "". • t;*5 0,10 :7 ?;42oird CITY OF TUKWILA HISTORICAL SITES MAP APPENDIX B WWHM3 SCREEN SHOTS & OUTPUT OM= Cbone11121 Re Edt New Meta 0 ES El 181 , E SITE LOCATION Oatan DsviciODUE raElb Fore Edit V w Help o 61211 Gbh 3 SCENARIOS �F Rtrcdrvc-,=1 gflMitiQated Rut Scenario Fl FMFNTS LAO Move Elements — Save kid ny �'. Q),D,T Q predavelnped X Vn 1 Y m Subbasin Name I_ I Flows To : IBaan 1 Surface Area in Basin Available Pervious 1 Forest Flat JA/B. Forest Mod A/B. ForesL Steep jAIB, Pasha. Fat A/L Pasture. Mod CA/B. Pasture, Steep 0A/B. Lam. Fat 1.2A/111, Lawn. Mod A/B.Lawn.Sleep QC. Forest. Fat jC. Forest. Mad EC. Forest Steep JC. Pasture. Flat LC. Pasture. Mod 0- C.Paxue. Steep LC. Leers. Fat MC. Lawn. Mod Lein Steep LIMN PeviaeToal p5 Baser Total ( Aaas Groundwater Fn-snow Oay Sdecledi Available Impervious j ROADS/FLAT 0 ROADS/MOD 0 QROADS/STEEP 0 ROOF TOPS/FLAT Ld DRIVEWAYS/FLAT DRiVEWAYS/M0D DRIVEWAYS/STEEP SIDEWALKS/FIAT J SIDEWALKS/MOD SIDEWALKS/STEEP 01 PARKING/FLAT Et PARKING /MOD PARKING/STEEP D POND 105 Deselect Zero 1 Select By:1 0 0 0 Impervuiu Total Acres 1 GO 1 MOM P EXISTING BASIN INPUT PARAMETERS 1 ,�SVL'lIIM3 Kovach URA Fie Ede New Heil ❑IS®I151�4G].: Stenniline SCENARIOS r Redeveloped Miipated Rtn Seenado 1 FI FMFNTS save- avetyl ;L.eadXyI r1 1 XIn I Y min 1 Mitigated Subbasin Name Flows To : Surface (via 1 Area in Basin Available Pervious 1r) AA. Face. Fla 0AJ9. Forest Mod .A/8. Faest. Steep O'A/B, Pasture. Rat 0A/8. Peslue. Mod LIA/8. Pasture. Sleep 1Aie.Lawn.Flat 0A/8. Lawn. Mod r--)A/13. Lawn. Sleep 0C. Feel& Flat rl C. Fatett. Mod C. Faest. Steep nc. Padua. Rat I DC. Pastue.Mod GC. Pasture, Steep Fie. Lawn. Flat 0E. Lawn Mod IC. Lawn.Steep 0 0 0 0 0 LIME MINN 0 0 0 0 PaviasTaal .06 106 Benin Total Deselect Zero I Select By: DEVELOPED BASIN INPUT PARAMETERS rLR«!W!eteat Bypen.raPOc ] Interflow Groundwater Nail 1 Acres r'IShowbrJysebded ] Available Impervious 0 ROADS /FLAT D ROADS/MOD hROADS/STEEP !J ROOF TOPS/FLAT rJ, DRIVEWAYS/FLAT n DRIVEWAYS/MOD 13 DRIVEWAYS/STEEP SIDEWALKS /FIAT r SIDEWALKS/MOD D SIDEWALKS/STEEP 0 PARKING/FLAT jlPARKINGMOD PARKING/STEEP Ca POND 0 0 p.5 Impervious Taal Acres G0 I n _j WWI IM Kovach DNA nem Fie Ede Am Feb 0(a®Id1Y. Epp FlelpeuttrE SCENARIOS kir Redeveloped ER tog:1.1 Rim Santana FI FMFNTS Move Element:— � save tyl o--ad-4,1 x l Y' I be 1111 I Downstream Connection Facility Type r RecpielonApPledtoFecal. rjEvapaalion Applied ' o faulty ] Facility Bottom Elevation (ft) Facility Dimensions Lvgh Width EOecfive Depth 60 18 8 Infiltration NO --1 Outlet 1 0 Vent Outlet 2 Outlet 3 ID 110 Auto Vault 1 Quick Vault 1 ri Faed width For Auto Vault IO Outlet Structure Rea Height 00 r 7 -:-1 Riser 0iametefnl 12 ''.I Rise Type IFt -� Notch Type Orifice Diameter Height OMox Number (In) (Ft) (cis) 1 03S -11r :-1 0.0091 2 1E717 4177 0.02764 3 062 -i 36 -H 0.01465 PendVoAme at Rise Head (ene-tt) .198 Panel Increnent 010 Show Pond Table OpenTetY -1 DETENTION FACILITY SIZING WWI-M7 KovachURA Fie Eft Max Hots 0 1 ® 1 u, Gil. e Asalysis Plow Pregnancy Plow(CPS) PredeveloDed Mitigated 2 Year - 0.0191 0.0124 5 Year - 0.0294 0.0228 10 Year - 0.0353 0.0318 25 Year - 0.0417 0.0458 50 Year - 0.0458 0.0584 100 Year - 0.0493 0.0720 An doturets RUH AIW.YSIS. 501 PSC 1 Piedove!caed flow E01 00C 1 1.l ■liaaled flow Yearly Peaks 1949 0.0228 0.0062 1950 0.0366 0.0172 1951 0.0425 0.0436 1952 0.0156 0.0056 1953 0.0111 0.0167 1954 0.0158 0.0066 1955 0.0305 0.0065 1956 0.0243 0.0223 1957 0.0217 0.0066 1958 0.0201 0.0140 1959 0.0164 0.0064 1960 0.0290 0.0355 1961 0.0161 0.0211 1962 0.0110 0.0057 1963 0.0141 0.0123 1964 0.0154 0.0178 1965 0.0130 0.0207 I5ult I AI Datasets I Flow I stage I PRecV I Evao POC 1 1 FLOW FREQUENCY FOR EXISTING AND MITIGATED BASINS J WWI-IM :I Kovach DItA g ,Aealysis 0m10E4 10E -3 10E -2 10E -1 1 10 100 R .O.. +t Timor 10222sodirap LFbw Frequency I Was: Quality 1 HSfo?aM I Welland FtrAuation Durations (nom datasdt RUN ANALYSIS 501 POC 1 Predev loped flow 001 P01. 1 Mitinab d flow The Facility PASSED She Facility PASSED. Plow(CPS) Predev Der Percentage Pass/Fail �It I 0.0096 2585 1648 69 Pass 0.0099 2395 1584 66 8855 _ 0.0103 2242 1538 68 P053 0.0107 2083 1483 71 Pass 0.0110 1936 1428 73 Pass 0.0114 1816 1378 75 Pass 0.0118 1685 1329 78 P823 0.0121 1585 1272 80 Pass 0.0125 1496 1214 81 Pass 0.0128 1402 1163 82 Pass 0.0132 1308 1117 85 Pass 0.0136 1218 1069 87 Pass 0.0139 1159. 1027 89 Pass 0.0149 1074 983 91 Pass 0.0147 1014 938 92 Pass 0.0150 954 887 92 Pass 0.0154 899 845 93 Pass 0.0158 855 802 93 Pass 0.0161 808 760 94 Pass i4 0.0165 758 722 95 PU33 T 35 0.0169 728 683 93 Pass u_� DURATION ANALYSIS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OM= ((,oIn Re Edit Vlev, Mete ra ®ill [42.. T, Aaattogta u_u 4 Wate, Quality Run Analysis Ovations Analyze datateli On-Line BMP 00 -Line BMP 24 hour Volume face feet! Standard Flaw Rate (cis) 15 Minute Flow Rate l00123 1 10.(062 10.0069 1 Standard Flow Rate (d=) 15 Minute Flow rate 10.0043 1 1 Flow Flerpnncy Water Qumay 1 Mydogaph 1 Weiland Fluctuation 1 RUN ANALYSIS Mil bl Al Datasev 1 Fbw 1 Stags' Pm* 1 Evan FDC 1 l -- WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATES MAO Carararailb% Re UM lbw Hem ❑ Cei®141 Gt9 16J11I J DEVELOPED UN- MITIGATED FLOW RATES w ® 10E 1 /I 501 POC1 Predeve'aped li 801POC1 MaigatedIow i•lea Frequency ` lou(CPS) Predeveloyed Un- mitigated ' 0 111E 0 J 111£.1 ■ ` 2 Year 0.0191 0.1231 ppp°°°°aaaa°°aeA°°°°°o� =O°pp° °p°A°°e°a°ap ° °eeaa 00000ppppppp0®0� � 00000000000 0000eo 5 Year 0.0294 0.1503 10 Year a 0.0353 0.1604 25 Year 0.0417 0.1913 50 Year - 0.0458 0.2085 1 = 100 Year - 0.0493 0.2259 early Peak° 1949 0.0228 0.1236 it 1950 0.0366 0.1910 1951 0.0429 0.1190 1952 0.0156 0.1032 1953 0.0111 0.0991 1954 0.0150 0.1167 1955 0.0305 0.1173 1936 0.0213 0.1201 1957 0.0217 0.1344 1958 0.0201 0.1240 1959 0.0164 0.0930 1960 0.0290 0.1122 1961 0.0161 0.1063 1962 0.0110 0.1099 1963 0.0141 0.1093 1964 0.0154 0.1149 1965 0.0130 0.1069 ,v1 - l' 10E• 1 40' 20 30 40 50 60 M 80 90 99 cCumulative Probability Durations Flow Frequency (Water Qua, 1 Mydogaph 1 WeUa�F3xhrdatmrr 1 Arnalyw de(ameti RUN MVU YSM - { r `f °" e P nitatamts Flow Stage Resin E■ap POC1 1 DEVELOPED UN- MITIGATED FLOW RATES Western Washington Hydrology Model PROJECT REPORT Project Name: Site Address: City Report Date : Gage Data Start . Data End Precip Scale: Kovach DRA 11/20/2008 Seatac 1948/10/01 1998/09/30 1.00 PREDEVELOPED LAND USE Name Bypass: No Basin 1 GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use C, Forest, Steep Impervious Land Use Acres .5 Acres Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Name Basin 1 Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use C, Lawn, Steep Impervious Land Use PARKING MOD Acres Acres 0.44 .06 Element Flows To: Surface Vault 1, Vault 1, Interflow Groundwater Name Vault 1 Width : 18 ft. Length : 60 ft. Depth: 8ft. Discharge Structure Riser Height: 7 ft. Riser Diameter: 12 in. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.35 in. Elevation: 0 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.75 in. Elevation: 4.5 ft. Orifice 1 Diameter: 0.62 in. Elevation: 5.6 ft. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Vault Hydraulic Table Stage(ft) Area(acr) Volume(acr -ft) Dechrg(cfs) Infilt(cfa) 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.025 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.178 0.025 0.004 0.001 0.000 0.267 0.025 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.356 0.025 0.009 0.002 0.000 0.444 0.025 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.533 0.025 0.013 0.002 0.000 0.622 0.025 0.015 0.003 0.000 0.711 0.025 0.018 0.003 0.000 0.800 0.025 0.020 0.003 0.000 0.889 0.025 0.022 0.003 0.000 0.978 0.025 0.024 0.003 0.000 1.067 0.025 0.026 0.003 0.000 1.156 0.025 0.029 0.003 0.000 1.244 0.025 0.031 0.004 0.000 1.333 0.025 0.033 0.004 0.000 1.422 0.025 0.035 0.004 0.000 1.511 0.025 0.037 0.004 0.000 1.600 0.025 0.040 0.004 0.000 1.689 0.025 0.042 0.004 0.000 1.778 0.025 0.044 0.004 0.000 1.867 0.025 0.046 0.004 0.000 1.956 0.025 0.048 0.004 0.000 2.044 0.025 0.051 0.005 0.000 2.133 0.025 0.053 0.005 0.000 2.222 0.025 0.055 0.005 0.000 2.311 0.025 0.057 0.005 0.000 2.400 0.025 0.060 0.005 0.000 2.489 0.025 0.062 0.005 0.000 2.578 0.025 0.064 0.005 0.000 2.667 0.025 0.066 0.005 0.000 2.756 0.025 0.068 0.005 0.000 2.844 0.025 0.071 0.005 0.000 2.933 0.025 0.073 0.006 0.000 3.022 0.025 0.075 0.006 0.000 3.111 0.025 0.077 0.006 0.000 3.200 0.025 0.079 0.006 0.000 3.289 0.025 0.082 0.006 0.000 3.378 0.025 0.084 0.006 0.000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 3.467 3.556 3.644 3.733 3.822 3.911 4.000 4.089 4.178 4.267 4.356 4.444 4.533 4.622 4.711 4.800 4.889 4.978 5.067 5.156 5.244 5.333 5.422 5.511 5.600 5.689 5.778 5.867 5.956 6.044 6.133 6.222 6.311 6.400 6.489 6.578 6.667 6.756 6.844 6.933 7.022 7.111 7.200 7.289 7.378 7.467 7.556 7.644 7.733 7.822 7.911 8.000 8.089 8.178 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.086 0.088 0.090 0.093 0.095 0.097 0.099 0.101 0.104 0.106 0.108 0.110 0.112 0.115 0.117 0.119 0.121 0.123 0.126 0.128 0.130 0.132 0.134 0.137 0.139 0.141 0.143 0.145 0.148 0.150 0.152 0.154 0.156 0.159 0.161 0.163 0.165 0.167 0.170 0.172 0.174 0.176 0.179 0.181 0.183 0.185 0.187 0.190 0.192 0.194 0.196 0.198 0.201 0.000 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.018 0.019 0.020 0.021 0.022 0.022 0.023 0.027 0.029 0.030 0.032 0.033 0.034 0.035 0.036 0.038 0.039 0.040 0.040 0.041 0.042 0.043 0.076 0.406 0.917 1.559 2.309 3.153 4.082 5.088 6.166 7.312 8.521 9.791 11.12 12.50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 MITIGATED LAND USE ANALYSIS RESULTS Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.019117 5 year 0.029351 10 year 0.035258 25 year 0.041651 50 year 0.045761 100 year 0.049325 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfe) 2 year 0.012391 5 year 0.022816 10 year 0.031821 25 year 0.045843 50 year 0.058371 100 year 0.072821 Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1950 0.023 0.006 1951 0.037 0.017 1952 0.043 0.044 1953 0.016 0.006 1954 0.011 0.017 1955 0.016 0.007 1956 0.030 0.007 1957 0.024 0.022 1958 0.022 0.007 1959 0.020 0.014 1960 0.016 0.006 1961 0.029 0.035 1962 0.016 0.021 1963 0.011 0.006 1964 0.014 0.012 1965 0.015 0.018 1966 0.013 0.021 1967 0.013 0.010 1968 0.030 0.019 1969 0.017 0.007 1970 0.018 0.007 1971 0.016 0.015 1972 0.013 0.013 1973 0.033 0.034 1974 0.016 0.022 1975 0.015 0.010 1976 0.026 0.006 1977 0.016 0.007 1978 0.002 0.006 1979 0.016 0.018 1980 0.008 0.005 1981 0.023 0.030 1982 0.012 0.010 1983 0.028 0.035 1984 0.020 0.009 1985 0.015 0.006 1986 0.008 0.006 1987 0.037 0.020 1988 0.032 0.037 1989 0.013 0.006 1990 0.007 0.006 1991 0.049 0.039 1992 0.039 0.039 1993 0.016 0.015 1994 0.016 0.006 1995 0.004 0.005 1996 0.020 0.022 1997 0.040 0.040 1998 0.041 0.032 1999 0.009 0.006 Ranked Yearly Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0491 0.0436 2 0.0425 0.0400 3 0.0409 0.0391 4 0.0402 0.0387 5 0.0395 0.0366 6 0.0375 0.0355 7 0.0366 0.0347 8 0.0329 0.0337 9 0.0317 0.0320 10 0.0305 0.0302 11 0.0295 0.0223 12 0.0290 0.0222 13 0.0281 0.0221 14 0.0264 0.0211 15 0.0243 0.0207 16 0.0228 0.0201 17 0.0225 0.0193 18 0.0217 0.0178 19 0.0203 0.0178 20 0.0202 0.0172 21 0.0201 0.0167 22 0.0182 0.0151 23 0.0171 0.0148 24 0.0165 0.0140 25 0.0164 0.0130 26 0.0163 0.0123 27 0.0161 0.0098 28 0.0161 0.0096 29 0.0159 0.0095 30 0.0158 0.0091 31 0.0158 0.0075 32 0.0156 0.0068 33 0.0156 0.0067 34 0.0154 0.0066 35 0.0151 0.0066 36 0.0148 0.0065 37 0.0141 0.0065 38 0.0132 0.0064 39 0.0130 0.0064 40 0.0129 0.0062 41 0.0128 0.0060 42 0.0121 0.0060 43 0.0111 0.0059 44 0.0110 0.0058 45 0.0094 0.0058 46 0.0080 0.0057 47 0.0077 0.0057 48 0.0074 0.0056 49 0.0043 0.0053 50 0.0022 0.0051 POC #1 The Facility PASSED The Facility PASSED. Flow(CFS) Predev Dev Percentage Pass /Fail 0.0096 2585 1648 63 Pass 0.0099 2395 1584 66 Pass 0.0103 2242 1538 68 Pass 0.0107 2083 1483 71 Pass 0.0110 1936 1428 73 Pass 0.0114 1816 1378 75 Pass 0.0118 1685 1329 78 Pass 0.0121 1585 1272 80 Pass 0.0125 1496 1214 81 Pass 0.0128 1402 1163 82 Pass 0.0132 1308 1117 85 Pass 0.0136 1218 1069 87 Pass 0.0139 1153 1027 89 Pass 0.0143 1074 983 91 Pass 0.0147 1014 938 92 Pass 0.0150 954 887 92 Pass 0.0154 899 845 93 Pass 0.0158 855 802 93 Pass 0.0161 808 760 94 Pass 0.0165 758 722 95 Pass 0.0169 728 683 93 Pass 0.0172 687 651 94 Pass 0.0176 655 623 95 Pass 0.0180 627 591 94 Pass 0.0183 595 556 93 Pass 0.0187 568 526 92 Pass 0.0191 540 498 92 Pass 0.0194 511 458 89 Pass 0.0198 486 420 86 Pass 0.0202 458 387 84 Pass 0.0205 434 364 83 Pass 0.0209 413 336 81 Pass 0.0213 384 318 82 Pass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0216 366 295 80 Pass 0.0220 342 267 78 Pass 0.0224 319 245 76 Pass 0.0227 301 225 74 Pass 0.0231 286 208 72 Pass 0.0235 272 199 73 Pass 0.0238 266 196 73 Pass 0.0242 256 195 76 Pass 0.0246 233 189 81 Pass 0.0249 221 183 82 Pass 0.0253 214 178 83 Pass 0.0256 204 169 82 Pass 0.0260 195 167 85 Pass 0.0264 187 164 87 Pass 0.0267 179 160 89 Pass 0.0271 169 155 91 Pass 0.0275 164 152 92 Pass 0.0278 162 147 90 Pass 0.0282 153 144 94 Pass 0.0286 149 142 95 Pass 0.0289 144 131 90 Pass 0.0293 140 126 90 Pass 0.0297 129 118 91 Pass 0.0300 124 114 91 Pass 0.0304 120 108 90 Pass 0.0308 116 105 90 Pass 0.0311 111 97 87 Pass 0.0315 104 91 87 Pass 0.0319 101 86 85 Pass 0.0322 98 81 82 Pass 0.0326 94 78 82 Pass 0.0330 85 73 85 Pass 0.0333 82 69 84 Pass 0.0337 78 63 80 Pass 0.0341 73 59 80 Pass 0.0344 68 56 82 Pass 0.0348 63 50 79 Pass 0.0352 59 47 79 Pass 0.0355 54 43 79 Pass 0.0359 51 40 78 Pass 0.0363 43 33 76 Pass 0.0366 39 31 79 Pass 0.0370 38 28 73 Pass 0.0374 33 25 75 Pass 0.0377 27 24 88 Pass 0.0381 25 22 88 Pass 0.0384 24 18 75 Pass 0.0388 22 15 68 Pass 0.0392 19 12 63 Pass 0.0395 15 11 73 Pass 0.0399 15 10 66 Pass 0.0403 12 7 58 Pass 0.0406 10 7 70 Pass 0.0410 7 6 85 Pass 0.0414 7 5 71 Pass 0.0417 5 4 80 Pass 0.0421 3 3 100 Pass 0.0425 3 3 100 Pass 0.0428 2 2 100 Pass 0.0432 2 2 100 Pass 0.0436 2 1 50 Pass 0.0439 2 0 0 Pass 0.0443 2 0 0 Pass 0.0447 2 0 0 Pass 0.0450 2 0 0 Pass 0.0454 2 0 0 Pass 0.0458 2 0 0 Pass Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC 1. On -line facility volume: 0 acre -feet On -line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off -line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions and the Washington State Department of Ecology disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions and /or the Washington State Department of Ecology be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions or the Washington State Department of Ecology has been advised of the possibility of such damages. 11i 71 i MU STORMWATER . — SOLUTIONS iNc. Prepared by Kathryn Thomason on November 20, 2008 Size and Cost Estimate DRA Professional Center — Stormwater Treatment System Tukwila, WA Information provided: • Structure ID =F:2; `^ • Total Area (acre) = 0.144 6.165 23 • Percent Impervious = 100 : ,100'':': Assumptions: • Media = ZPG cartridges • Presiding agency = City of Tukwila Size and cost estimates: The StormFilter is a flow -based system, and therefore, is sized by calculating the water quality flow rate associated with the design storm. The number of cartridges shown below is a preliminary sizing based on the impervious areas for each basin. Structure Basin Cartridge No. of Approximate Estimated ID Area Height Cartridges System Size Depth Cost 1 0.144 2 27" 18" 1 Catchbasin 3.0' $6,800 Catchbasin 2 3': The estimated costs are for complete systems delivered to the job site. The contractor is responsible for setting the StormFilter systems and all external plumbing. ©2006 CONTECH Stormwater Solutions contechstormwater.com 12021 -B NE Airport Way, Portland OR 97220 Toll -free: 800.548.4667 Fax: 800.561.1271 Page 1 of 1 TS -P027 ABANDONED UNDERGROUND COAL MINE HAZARD ASSESSMENT May 1990 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT . PLANNING DIVISION i 3 HIRTCROWSER J -2860 May 3, 1990 Ms. Moira Carr Bradshaw City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Abandoned Underground Coal Mine Hazard Assessment Tukwila, Washington Dear Ms. Bradshaw: Hart Crowser, Inc. ' 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 -3699 FAX 206.328.5581 206.324.9530 Hart Crowser is pleased to present this report discussing our assessment of potential hazards related to abandoned coal prospects and mines in Tukwila. Our work was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated January 5, 1990. Figure 1 shows the locations of the areas discussed in this report. The purpose of our work was to document available information on the six areas which the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identified . for you, as well as identify any other areas where coal mine hazards could be anticipated. From our review of available information on coal mining activities in the Tukwila area (see Bibliography), we assessed the areas identified by DNR and shown on Figure 1 as: 1. Tukwila Mine (multiple entries); 2. Beacon Hill Mine; and 3, 4. Abandoned rock quarries. 5. Strain Coal Company; and 6. Black River Mine. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 J -2860 Page 2 Other potential mine hazard areas in Tukwila were identified from 1936 aerial photographs (see Figure 1) but no other evidence of mining was found, as discussed herein. SUMMARY Hart Crowser accomplished a historical and geologic review to identify abandoned underground coal mine hazards in Tukwila. • Location No. 1, the Tukwila Mine, is the best documented underground coal mine Subsidence in this area was described to Hart Crowser and it appears there is some risk of future subsidence problems at this location. • Locations No. 2 and 6 are abandoned underground coal mines where subsidence has occurred, but these areas are not within the City of Tukwila. • Locations No. 3 and 4 are surface excavations (quarries) and no evidence of any underground workings was identified. • Location No. 5 is not positively identified as an abandoned mine, but represents a likely location for coal mine workings identified in this general area. HISTORIC INFORMATION The following section characterizes efforts to identify mining activities in the Tukwila area using historical information sources. We reviewed historic clipping files related to mining (at the University of Washington), reports of the State Inspector of Mines, mineral plat records, regional histories, historic maps (U.S. Geological Survey 1900 and 1909; Kroll Map Co., 1920, 1940, and 1958), and an early aerial photo set (King County Assessor, 1936). No recorded documentation of coal mining activities within the City of Tukwila was located through the historic review for areas other than those previously identified by DNR. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 3 The presence of coal in the Duwamish -Black River area near Tukwila was known from the early days of settlement in the 1850s. The limited historical discussions indicate that the majority of the finds were opportunistic, namely readily visible coal within formations outcropping in the river floodplain or along bluffs. A small mine was opened on the Black River as early as 1853 and was subsequently noted as being the closest source from Seattle for extractable steamboat coal. The. limited description available indicates that this mine was located on the southeast slope of Beacon Hill near Renton, outside the Tukwila study area boundaries. Recorded surveys of surficial geology within Tukwila City Limits, and logs of water wells available from the Washington State Department of Ecology indicate the area is typically mantled with a thick cover of glacially deposited soils, with only limited bedrock exposure. The potential for exploiting coal resources in Tukwila was apparently overshadowed by the larger, better known fields elsewhere in King County. A number of these are well documented as having been actively exploited since the 1860s. The Black and Duwamish Rivers served as a transportation corridor for barging coal from the Newcastle area to Seattle. By the late 1870s, the railroad line of the Seattle and Walla Walla Railway Co., extended along the east side of the Duwamish Valley to Renton. This provided cost - effective transportation for the larger mines and probably precluded exploitation of less productive seams. Similarly, coal exploration elsewhere in the county was typically focused in areas adjacent to known coal producing areas, and where bedrock exposures indicated coal likely to be present. The examination of aerial photos from 1936 and review of the historic . maps also did not disclose any specific coal mine features except in areas identified by DNR. • None of the geologic or property maps show information indicative of mining activities. • The reviewed land ownership maps (within Tukwila) do not indicate names of known companies associated with coal production, companies with names indicative of coal mine ownership, or corporate ownership of lands in areas of known coal outcrops. The Tukwila Mine, Beacon Hill Mine, northern abandoned quarry, and the Black River Mine were noticeable on the aerial photo set. These were noticeable because of pits, mine waste or tailings piles, or cleared areas with possible mine - related activity. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 J -2860 Page 4 Two cleared areas of possible mine workings, numbered 7 and 8 on Figure 1, were noted on the photos and are discussed later in this report. A small gravel pit (labeled No. 9) was evident in the SW 1/4 of the SW '/ of Section 35, but did not appear to relate to subsurface activities. ABANDONED MINES AND /OR PROSPECTS This section discusses recorded information, Hart . Crowser field observations, and anecdotal information on each of the reported or inferred potential coal mine hazard areas. 1. Tukwila Mine The Tukwila Mine, located in the SE '/., SW '/a of Section 14, was operated by the Foster Coal Company. From 1932 to 1935, state production records indicate 824 tons of coal were removed (Tim Walsh, 1990) from the mine which consisted of three underground water -level prospects (Waldron, 1962). The mine was reportedly abandoned when the inflow of water into the workings .became too rapid. The mine is identified on a 1962 USGS map by Waldron and on a 1932 Map (PK -1) from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection. Figure 2 shows the approximate location of the entries at about 75 feet in elevation along the hillside. However, these locations are very rough since they were copied from the 1 inch to two thousand foot. scale Waldron map. The former mine area identified on the map is a steeply sloped, heavily vegetated hillside between 56th Avenue South and Interurban Avenue. Our field reconnaissance identified a linear depression approximately_50_feet long at the bottom Qf the hillside ..downslopeof 56th Avenue South. At the northern end of the depression, small coal fragments were observed. The depth of the depression could not be determined because of thick blackberry bush overgrowth. Another, smaller depression was observed near the base of the hillside below the residence on the east side of 56th Avenue South at South 139th Street. The depression measured about 3 fe.etin_diameter._and..a_small .opening _in its b9ttom. was visible extending into the slope. The extent of the small opening,approximately 1 foot in diameter, could not be deter'iriined:, City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 5 Although downslope of the mine entries located on the 1962 map, the two depressions appear to be possibly subsidence related, which would suggest entrances to the mine are somewhat farther east. A local resident, Mrs. Marilyn Patton of 13930 56th Avenue South, told us the porch on the house across the street (13925 56th Avenue) collapsed into a hole about 45 years ago. This hole was described as about 6 feet by 8 feet and 15 feet deep. Mrs. Patton also described a steep gulley between her property and her northern neighbor's, which had a hole at its base. She recalled that the gulley, the opening at its base, and the hole into which the porch collap§ed appeared to line up with each other. She believed that these features were probably related to the old abandoned mines. The gulley was reportedly backfilled in the early 1960s. Mrs. Patton indicated that her parents had observed an air chute to the mine oriented across the slope beneath their residence, but the location of this was not identified to Hart Crowser. We made a rough estimate of the possible extent of workings by assuming a nominal 5 -foot by 5 -foot mine tunnel size and the reported volume of coal extracted. If mining was accomplished to the same degree from each of the three entries reported by Waldron, maximum length of a single tunnel would likely not exceed about 300 feet. Actual extent of the workings is likely less than this, considering common local coal mining practice of excavating workings in a room and pillar (referred to as "breast and pillar") arrangement rather than single tunnels. However, there is no information on actual extent of workings and any one of the three entries could have extended much further than 300 feet. Considering apparent dip of the coal seam and topography in the area, depth of cover over a mine tunnel extending into the hillside is estimated to vary from zero at the entry, at an elevation at or below about 75 feet, to about 60 feet or more below 55th Avenue South. The available recorded information, information obtained from our field reconnaissance and discussion with long -time residents suggest that the hillside below 56th Avenue South and the properties between 55th Avenue and 56th Avenue South should be examined more closely before new or re- development is permitted. 2. Beacon Hill Mine The Beacon Hill Mine is located in the NE 1/4 of Section 14, South of Seattle in unincorporated King County. According to Waldron (1962), small amounts of coal were mined in the early 1900s, but nothing is known about production. The entry to City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 6 the mine was reportedly still open in 1960, but the tunnel was flooded and inaccessible. From apparently' similar stratigraphy, this mine location in Renton is likely on the same coal seam as the Tukwila Mine, across the Duwamish River. The area had subsidence occur in 1984 which was backfilled by the U.S. Office of Surface Mining. Our reconnaissance included this area but no information was obtained which is pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila. 3., 4. Abandoned Rock Quarries Two of the sites in Tukwila identified by DNR are abandoned igneous (hard rock) quarries which likely were excavated to produce building stone or possibly road material. The first of two abandoned quarries is located in the NE V4 of Section 23, west of Interurban Avenue, below South 144th Street. During our field reconnaissance, we observed a very steeply sloped hillside having partially covered outcrops and a lot of broken rock at its base. Waldron's 1962 map identified this area, which is presently undeveloped. The second quarry identified by Waldron in the SW 1/4 of Section 10 is located between Marginal Way South and Highway 599, north of South 124th Street. Our field reconnaissance revealed that this area has been completely developed and is currently a bus base for Metro. We found no information to indicate any underground excavation or related hazard at either quarry location. 5. Strain Coal Company The map PK -1 which we obtained from the Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection indicated an area in the south half of Section 23 and the north half of Section 26 where the Strain Coal Company operated. Available records and discussions with Tim Walsh of DNR, indicate that the Strain Company worked a number of small coal mines in King County at various times (typ. 1930s). However, there are only very poor records of any of the mining activity by the Strain Coal Company. Mr. Walsh felt that workings of Strain Coal Company in Tukwila were probably located in the vicinity of the intersection of Interstate 5 and 405, based on coal that has been observed in the freeway roadcuts. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 7 A surficial geology map contained in Water Supply Bulletin Number 28 identifies an outcrop of the Puget Group, a coal - bearing formation, in the south half of Section 23, T23N, R4E. No evidence of coal mining was observed in this area during our field reconnaissance' The majority of the area has been developed and the remaining areas are heavily vegetated. Outcrops of weathered sandstone were visible in the roadcut along Southcenter Boulevard at the time of our reconnaissance, but no coal was observed. Local development may already have obscured evidence of mining, if in fact it occurred in this area. The undeveloped area east of Denny's and the Arco Gas State on Southcenter Boulevard had been cleared of vegetation and contained graded slopes of fill. The closest recorded information on mining activities of the Strain Coal Company are located in Renton, T23N, R5E (Green, 1947), outside the study limits. 6. Black River Mine The Diamond Coal Company operated the Black River Mine located in Renton in the north half of Section 24 at the Black River Junction. The mine, which opened in the late 1880s, closed in 1892. This mine is likely on the same seam as the Beacon Hill and Tukwila Mines to the north, but differences in reported coal bed dip suggest some intervening faults or other bedrock structural changes exist. According to a report from the Office of Surface Mining, ground subsidence developed at the site in 1984. However, no information pertinent to mine hazards in Tukwila was available. The area where the entrance to the Black River Mine is believed to be located is presently fenced off by Metro. No information was available to allow us to determine the exact location of the entrance. We did not examine this area during our field reconnaissance as it was outside the city limits of Tukwila. 7., 8. Other Areas Two additional areas were identified by our review of aerial photographs of the Tukwila area, which appeared to be possibly related to mining activities. Because the air photos suggested possible mining, we included these areas in our reconnaissance. However, no mine- related information was found from other sources for these areas. Area No. 7, located in the NW '/., SE '/, SW '/. of Section 26, consisted of a road leading to structures in a gulley along the western valley bluffs of the Green River. City of Tukwila J -2860 May 3, 1990 Page 8 The aerial photo showed two buildings set on an excavated apron (cut -fill terrace) along the north side midway up the gulley. The terrace area extended further up the gulley where itdead- ended. Our field reconnaissance of the area revealed a gulley with a fenced, large culvert structure at the base of a slope below Interstate 5. Outcrops of weathered sandstone but no coal were observed in the gulley slopes which ranged from 40 • to 60*. We found no evidence of mining activities during our field reconnaissance. Area No. 8 is located in the SW '/., SW '/. of Section 3 at the southern base of Cabrini Hill. A small cleared and cut area with'one standing structure was identified on an aerial photograph. A review of a USGS surficial geology map of South Seattle, which is now Tukwila (Waldron, 1962), indicates that rock in this area is of a sedimentary nature but not coal- bearing. We were prevented from examining this area in detail during our field reconnaissance because of safety reasons. The Seattle Police Department currently operates a firing range in this area. Finally, area no. 9 was noted on the air photos as possibly mining - related excavation. Hart Crowser determined this location is a gravel pit, and not coal mine- related. Conclusions and Recommendations From our review of available information, we consider the Tukwila Mine (1.) and the Strain Coal Company workings (5.) to be the most likely areas where coal mine hazards exist or can be anticipated in the City of Tukwila. Mining in Tukwila appears to have been on a smaller scale overall, compared to the extensive workings located in adjacent Renton, because of the generally thick cover of glacial soils and apparently more limited amounts of economically feasible extractable coal. Except by fortuitous accident, more intensive efforts are unlikely to define the locations of mine entrances and extent of mine workings more accurately, in our opinion. For future zoning purposes, we recommend the City identify the area of the Renton Formation Outcrop south of 137th Street, shown on Figure 2, as an area of potential mine workings. In our opinion, the City could reasonably require a detailed site reconnaissance by a geologist or engineer to look for indications of mine entrances or workings prior to permitting new construction in this area. Because of uncertainty in the actual location of these mines, you may wish to expand the limits of the outcrop area to include a "buffer zone" of about 200 or 300 feet. City of Tukwila May 3, 1990 J -2860 Page 9 Although there is risk of undiscovered Strain Coal Company mine workings in the vicinity of the SR -5 and SR -405 interchange, we do not consider the available information sufficient to warrant restrictions on future development in this area. Similarly, we do'not recommend development restrictions on any of the other areas in Tukwila discussed in this report. Hart Crowser appreciates the opportunity to work with you on this assessment of potential abandoned underground mine hazards in the City of Tukwila. Please call if you have questions, or if we can be of additional assistance. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. STEPHEN A. SIEBERT MICHAEL J. BAILEY, P.E. Staff Engineer Associate SAS/MJB:aIm/tawTlm interavirp Attachments: Bibliography Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features Hart Crowser J -2860 BIBLIOGRAPHY Beikman, Helen M., Howard D. Gower, and Tony A.M. Lana. "Coal Reserves of Washington" Washington State Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 47 (1961). Diamond Coal Company. Map. Diamond Mine Workings, Renton Junction, Washington. N.d. Eggleston Smith, E. "Coals of the State of Washington" USGS Bulletin 474 (1911). Evans, George Watkin. "The Coal Fields of King County" Washington State Geologic Survey Bulletin 3 (1912). "Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southwestern King County, Washington." Water Supply Bulletin 28 (1969). Green, S.H. Coal and Coal Mining in Washington. Washington State Division of Mines and Mining Report of Investigations No. 4R (Revision of R.I.4, 1947). Kaldenbach, Ginger. Beacon Hill Mine Emergency, Seattle. King County. Washington [WA- 84 -008J. Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984). Kaldenbach, Ginger. Diamond Mine Emergency. Renton. King County. Washington [WA -84 -0111. Office of Surface Mining Final Report (1984). King County Assessor Aerial Photograph (1936). Kroll Map Co. (1920/1940/1958). Landes, H. "The Coal Deposits of Washington" Washington Geologic Survey. Volume II, Annual Report for 1902. 1903: 167 -277. McFarland, Carl R. Oil and Gas Exploration in Washington 1900 - 1982 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Information Circular 75. N.d. Northwestern Improvement Company Map Showing Location of Coal Mines. Map. Washington State Coal Mine Map Collection PK -1 (1932). Hart Crowser J -2860 Richardson, Bingham and Madison. Water Resources of King County. Washington. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1852 (1968). Seattle Quadrangle and Tacoma Washington Quadrangle. Maps. USGS (1900 and 1909). Waldron, Howard H. Map. Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle. Washington. USGS (1962). Waldron, Howard H. et al. Map. Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity. Washington. USGS (1962). Walsh, Tim, Washington State Department of Natural Resrouces, Personal Communication, April 1990. Washington Geologic Newsletter. Volume 10, No. 1. January 1982. Water Well Logs of Southwest King County. Willis, Bailey. Map. Structure of Coal Beds - Washington. Renton District. USGS N.d. Protect Vicinity Map Lake Washington RIV : RTON Vat* Atone . Beacon HMI Mice Northern Abandoned Quarry Southern Abandoned Ouany Strain Coal Company (General Vicinity) Black River Mine Area Considered as Posalbly lane Related Area Considered as Possibly lane Related Gravel Pit Reler to Figure 2 for Details 0 1/2 Scale In Miles NUS ■O _ KARTcR J-0000 4 /00 Flow I Portion of Section 14 Showing Vicinity of Reported Tukwila Mine and Related Features 0 � �' •1 0 0 ', o Boundary of Renton Formation Outcrop ,•, � including coal seam(s) according • ° to Waldron, 1962 " o . Approximate Locations \Tukwila Mine entrances from Waldron. 1962 10 . Note: Base map prepared from drawing provided by Walker 8 Associates. Inc., Seattle. WA entitled "City of Tukwila ". undated. 0 400 800 Scale in Feet Y H/.IRTCROYIISFR J -2860 4/90 Figure 2 • • 31 2000 12/14/08 Building Official Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: DRA Professional Center Dear Reviewer, We are pleased to provide the following Project Description and code compliance discussions in accordance with the submittal requirements for Project Design Review. Proposal Background: The project is comprised of a single parcel of property located on the southeast corner of 52nd Ave S and 53rd Ave S and just west of Interurban Ave S. The site slopes down slightly toward the northwest at a fairly uniform 14% -16% grade covering a 34 ft. gain in elevation from north to south, The site, a large dense sandstone outcropping, is slightly irregular in shape and totals 30,921 sf. in area and is currently vacant. There are existing residential structures adjacent to the south and across the street towards the west with established single family residential neighborhoods beyond. To the east lies an existing parking lot followed by Interurban Ave S. A local Park & Ride is situated directly across 53rd Ave S. towards the north. Design Concept: The Program The project program is to develop a minimum 10,000 sf. three story professional office building that will take advantage of the surrounding territorial views to the greatest extent possible. The building Owner will occupy one level for his established orthodontic practice with the balance of the building in open leasable office space. Concept Goals 1. To engage urban interaction by creating dynamic, interesting architecture for such a highly visible location while remaining respectful to the surrounding existing neighborhood. 2. Provide an upscale sense of arrival for tenants and patrons. 3. Develop a core entry plaza that interacts with all components of the project and adjoining public way. 4. Create a brightly focused entry experience through the use of contrasting forms and tones, lighting, and pavement patterns. (glass, clear aluminum cladding and contrasting finishes) 5. Establish a sense of permanence through choice of building m aterials and details. (curtain wall cladding, metal siding, natural wood siding) 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425 259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 1 • • 6. Interject a subtle edgy, contemporary quality through contrasting materials and finishes.(natural wood siding juxtaposed with contemporary metal and glass cladding systems, and expressed structural elements) 7. Keep forms clean, concise with an urban like appearance without losing sight of the residential nature of the immediate surrounding neighborhoods. 8. Establish an Architectural character of a timeless nature through the use of time proven building materials and forms. 9. Utilize environmentally sound construction materials and technique to ensure the health and safety of occupants, minimize adverse effects of the construction process, and yield long lasting, low maintenance building finishes that will look fresh in the years to come. • Project Overview The building as designed can be described as a simple box with each level shifted slightly in relationship to the others, providing overhang protection and modulation opportunities. The structure is set high on the site in order to provide parking and building access on the same level as well as convenient access to the Public Way. This also allows the foundation to stair step down the site thus avoiding as much excavation of the dense sandstone substrata as possible. Roofs are flat and extended. for maximum facade protection and to encourage a more horizontal appearance for the building. The use of subtle tinted glazing variations between floor levels further helps stress the horizontal appearance of the structure and also successfuly breaks the building into separate componants which in turn helps reduce the overall scale of the structure. Expressed structural elements highlight the shifting of each floor level by weaving in and out of the building envelope, sometimes becoming visible at the exterior facade and other times hidden from view as the building skin shifts around the static structural column grid. The second level exit stair has been moved to the exterior of the building to visually and physically linking internal building function to the site and exterior environment. The parking area, is served by a single drive that provides access for emergency vehicle and fire fighting appuratice to all areas of the upper level building based on a drive in and back out approach (being that all if the building can be accessed within a150 ft. drive in reach). In addition, emergency vehicle and fire fighting appuratice may approach the lower side of the building via the service drive. Building mechanical systems, loading and service access are provided on the lower side of the site within a full,height gated screened enclosure and are completely separated from the buildings general parking and pedestrian access. It is our 'intention to keep rooftop mechanical equipment to an absolute minimum. 2115 COLEY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 2 Land Use Code and Policy Compliance Discussion. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site a. The site should be planned to accomplish a, desirable transition with the streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement. The particular configuration of the parcel does not offer much flexibility in site layout however, we have been able to situate the parking towards the south and bring the building forward to face both adjacent streets. With the main building entry situated on the high side of the property, access to 52nd Ave is impractical for general building access although we are proposing service access from that lower elevation via a tree lined drive leading to a decorative security gate at the screened courtyard that will house and screen the buildings mechanical systems and loading area. The buildings main entry court tapers to a wide sidewalk that leads directly to 53rd Ave. Being high and tucked back on the property, the building leaves ample room for large open landscape areas adjacent to both street frontages. b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas. Care has been taken to minimize the visual impact of both parking and service areas through location, screening, and landscaping. Parking is depressed from the street frontage and adjacent properties towards the south and screened by the building towards the north. (also, See description above) a. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to its site. Each level of the three story building has been offset slightly to provide modulation and scale. Each is capped with a flat plate roof to help keep the overall height to a minimum and to help ground the building. The use of color is instrumental in working with the modulations to further reduce the building into smaller more easily understood surfaces and forms. Shadows created by modulation also assist in reducing the perceived scale of the overall building. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area a. Harmony in texture, line and masses is encouraged. The site is unique to the area, it is generally a solitary solid sandstone rock outcropping with adjacent steep cuts towards the east and moderate slopes towards the north and west. The building is cut into the hillside, strongly anchored at the top by the central mass of.the structure, then stepping down the hillside through the use of solid foundation expression, a lower service court enclosure with overhead trellis, and expressed structural elements. The building scale is complimentary to surrounding existing smaller scale structures and neighborhood character. Each level has a unique glazing tint to help emphasize the horizontal rather than the vertical. Changes in siding material also draws attention to horizontal lines and the.use of wood siding helps transition to the adjacent residential uses. 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 3 b. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided. The site, being a corner lot, abuts only two adjoining properties. One, the parking lot towards the east is 30 ft below our site and separated by a very steep vegetated slope. Mass plantings of Staghorn Sumac are proposed along the high bank separation between the properties. Sumac thrives naturally on rugged steep sloped conditions and will provide a beautiful lacy high canopy with spectacular fall -color and interesting winter branching patterns. The adjoining property towards the south is separated by a moderate change in grade between 5' and 7' in height. A dense line of Pin Oak trees are proposed the upper bench above the parking area. Pin Oak trees have a strong layered horizontal branching habit that will repeat the enunciated horizontal lines of the building as they provide filtered screening between the two properties. A dense ground cover of Baltic ivy will help control weed growth and compliment the color and texture of adjoining lawn areas as a continuous border. c. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with the established neighborhood character. Though not a Public facility, the building modulation, subtle color variations, low roof profiles and use of natural wood cladding all help to create a harmonious vocabulary that is sensitive to the existing residential character of the neighborhood. This is a complimentary relationship and suitable as a transition from the low density residential zone to the high level of activity associated with Interurban Ave. d. Compatibility of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Parking has been organized as simple straight line single drive isle two way drive in and out. A wide sidewalk links the public street directly to the main building entry. An ADA accessible path will be described'further during the permit document phase of the project. A screened service loading area has been provided on the lower portion of the site that will have access to a loading platform and connection to the building elevator. It is completely separated from general public circulation. e. Compatibility of onsite vehicular circulation with street circulation should be encouraged. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment a. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced. Cut and fill will be kept to a minimum and the building foundation will be terraced to match the existing slopes. This is a very prominent site and offers a high sense of dramatics that will be enhanced by the chosen plant types. Mass plantings of ground covers will be highlyvisible on the slope gradient effectively softening the base of the building and providing a greater sense of open space as viewed from major vantage points below. b. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance. 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 4 • • The simple organization of all paved areas of parking and pedestrian circulation are easily understood and provide quick safe access from parking or public ways to the building. ' Concrete rail walls with lighting as proposed will offer a sense of safekeeping and protection from the steeper slopes towards the east. c. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen .vistas and important axis. and provide shade. The parking areas will be well protected from the southern sun by the impressive canopies of the Scarlet and Pin Oak trees. They also help provide directional clues. The highly structured Pin Oaks establish a strong edge definition for the entire length of the parking areas. The Scarlet Oaks draw attention to the buildings main entry by their impressive stature and significance. The perceived height of the building will be significantly reduced by a pair of giant sequoia trees that will flank the screened service area and stepped north bays. d. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken. Recommendation noted, most plantings are currently safely separated from vehicles by curbs or retaining walls. Pedestrian pathways are well defined and of ample width substantial enough to discourage travel over ground covers or other planting types. e. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged. Recommendation noted, the particular layout of building elements has provided for some very substantial areas for plantings and ground covers. f. Screening of service yards and other places, which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by the use of walls, fencing. planting or combinations of these. Screening should be effective in winter and summer. We are proposing to provide service access at the lower portion of the parcel via a tree lined drive leading to a decorative security gate at the screened courtyard that will house and screen the buildings mechanical systems and loading area with full height architecturally finished cmu walls. Trash containers ,will either be added to the lower service level or screened on the upper parking level with the same architecturally finished cmu wall treatment. g. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls, and paving of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used. Recommendation noted. Hardy, vigorous ground covers. have been selected for their ability to thrive under the harshest of conditions. Hard surfaces have been relegated to all areas of pedestrian and vehicular travel or access. h. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 5 • • All lighting fixtures selected have been specifically chosen for color, texture and finishes that compliment the building architecture while remaining understated with a primary goal to provide lighting in key areas for safety, way finding, architectural enhancement, and building identification. All fixtures have either a natural aluminum or black finish. Fixtures are recessed where ever possible. All lighting is directed downward through the use of directional louvers or narrow focal ranges, parking lot lighting is reflected source lighting with sharp cutoff range that restricts the amount of light leakage. All fixtures will be "dark sky" compliant. 4. Building Design a. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of design and relationship to surroundings. Comment noted, The building design has been thoughtfully developed addressing a myriad of critical components such as program requirements, budget, considerations, site constraints, environmental considerations, contextural needs, infrastructure restrictions, responsibility to the existing neighborhood and community, as well as others. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and be in harmony with permanent neighboring developments. Building modulation, subtle color variations, low roof profiles and use of natural wood cladding all help to create a harmonious vocabulary that is sensitive to the existing residential character of the neighborhood. This is a complimentary relationship and suitable as a transition from the low density residential zone to the high level of activity associated with Interurban Ave. Each level of the three story building has been offset slightly to provide modulation and scale. Each is capped with a flat plate roof to help keep the overall height to a minimum and to help ground the building. The use of color is instrumental in working with the modulations to further reduce the building into smaller more easily understood surfaces and forms. Shadows created by modulation also assist in reducing the perceived scale of the overall building. c. Building components, such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, should have good proportions and relationship' to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure. Each building component is well proportioned with the overall building composition and intentionally scaled relative to the surrounding structures. The roughly 12,500 sf building is distributed over 3 floors. The 'effective footprint is an,efficient 71'6" x 54'. This is a fairly modest structure size which lends itself to dividing easily into smaller scale components and all building elements have been design of a complimentary scale. Trellis work, knee braces, offsets and overhangs, expressed structural columns and beams are all designed to a common scale and weight, All building systems have been selected for ease of assembly and long term maintenance and life. Wood siding will be milled 1PE (known for durability) over'a rainscreen system to maintain airflow, backed by a SAM weather proofing system for redundant protection. The commercial glass curtain wall system is a proven effective method of cladding with a long life expectancy. The horizontal metal cladding will be easily maintained and fresh looking for the life of the building. All mechanical components have been located within the service area below the building rather than the rooftop, providing a clean and easily maintainable roofing surface. 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchitects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 6 d. Colors should be harmonious, with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent. Color has been used sparingly, the use of green and blue green tinted glazing is intentional as an opposite complimentary color to the warm rich natural wood tones of the lPE siding and fascia. This relationship brings a natural color balance to the building while breaking the structure into smaller components through the layering. The deeper darker gray is used only on the first floor level to add weight, to the base of the building and,the darker yet foundation. The blue -green tinted glazing for the second floor level is the brightest and most airy purposefully to lighten the building midsection and to help set off the colors of the trees and other landscape plantings. The evergreen tinted glazing of the third floor level is intended to help create a strong building capital in compensation to the simplified roofing details. e. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view. All mechanical components have been located within the screened service area below the building rather than the rooftop. f. Exterior lighting should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures. standards and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design. All lighting fixtures selected have been specifically chosen for color, texture and finishes that compliment the building architecture. Specified fixtures have either a natural aluminum or black finish. Fixtures are understated and recessed where ever possible. Lighting, signage, site accessories and building features such as knee braces have matching or complimentary finishes and textures. - g. Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and fitting should be used to provide visual interest. Recommendation noted, the proposed design offers many levels of interest, modulation, and detail. 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture a. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape. Materials should be compatible with buildings. scale should be appropriate, colors should be in harmony with buildings and surroundings, and proportions should be to scale. Lighting, signage, site accessories and building features such as knee braces and expressed structural elements have matching or complimentary finishes and textures. Each component has been specifically selected to work together from a standpoint of color, texture and scale, to build an overall building vocabulary that extends from the building interiors and exteriors through to site development and landscaping, and to the . public way. b. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structuhres.and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Recommendation noted, site lighting has been designed to provide safe access to and use of exterior seating. 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KOvachArchitects.coin 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page 7 Consistency with adopted plans and regulations (TMC 18.100.030) ■ 6. Demonstrate the manner in which the proposal is consistent with, carries out and helps implement applicable state laws and the regulations, policies, objectives and goals of the City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan, the City of Tukwila's Development Regulations and other official laws, policies and objectives of the City of Tukwila. It is the intention of the proposed development concept to meet or exceed all state, federal and local jurisdictional rules, regulations, and objectives by providing all the necessary fees, review materials, documents, exhibits, drawings, and specifications as necessary to convey compliance to gain development approval rights. The conceptual plan has closely followed all available code&and regulations including the City of Tukwila Zoning Code and Comprehensive plan, to the extent that it has been developed as demonstrated by the information provided in the submitted documents and exhibits. End of Section Please feel free to call if you have any questions, require clarifications, or would like any additional support information. Respectfully yours, Andrew S. Kovach Architect, AIA, NCARB Principal Architect 2115 COLBY AVENUE EVERETT, WA 98201 Andrew@ KovachArchiLects.com 425.259.0609 Office 425.745.0897 fax Page.8 CITY OF TUKWIL• Public Works Department Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 htto://www.cl.tukwila.wa.us Permit No. Project No. (For office use only) TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY CERTIFICATE APPLICATION Applications and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mail or by fax. * *Please Print ** SITE LOCATION rr King Co. Assessor's Tax No.: Site Address: 1 3 •••0 �✓ k/, . Tenant Name: W. J Am%QL,' L f2PAT Way T1404 ,lc W 'ii . / City State Zip Type of Existing Use: V/�S � �1Efiiil Size of Existing Use: Is existing building vacant? N 7 For how long? AVA Property Owners Name: Mailing Address: & 7 20 po0 3 oeeo Ogho3 Suite Number: it fIN CONTACT PERSON - Who do we contact when your concurrency certificate is ready to be issued l fGvl L OZ // oor 2 1 � VA hone: 1'0 Co/ / A„t Name: Mailing Address: 47CAJM E -Mai l Address: A f%* "%'�'' / 42urnt,er: 9stf7g 4r Sco s e of Work (please provide detailed information): 1�I�. A.1 A 2 'Ai -ldo r •d% . Ii Wff ';=,.at/ M 'L�C , /T/Ii v tAli 3017 -1-Aivb, • Type of work: New ❑ Addition ❑ Change of use Type of Proposed Use: ❑ Remodel ❑ Tenant Impprovement Size of Proposed Use: / 7•l ,,41 .,ck ro PERMIT APPLICATION NOTES - 1 Expiration —.The concurrency test notice shall expire 90 days after issuance unless the applicant submits a SEPA or other documentation pursuant to TMC 21.04. If the submittal is made within 90 days, the test notice shall be valid for one calendar year from the date of issuance of the notice. Once the associated development permit or building permit is approved, the final concurrency certificate shall be valid for 2 years or as long as the developer possesses a valid building permit for the development. Extensions may be granted in accordance with TMC 9.50. Transferability — A certificate of concurrency is not transferable to other land, but may be transferred to new owners of the original land. A certificate of concurrency shall apply only to the specific land use, density, and intensity described in the application for a development permit or building permit. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF TH STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT. PROPERTY 0' R 0 t ,AUTHORIZ D AG �' ,/%� Signature: / /�1 r - ale Gy2� " t Print Name: i., Day Telephone: Mailing Address: 2i L` aeZe 001, YfCVSit City Date Application Accepted: Date Application Expires: PACyndylConcurtency & Impact Fees \Traffic Concnn cncy Application 3.26A7.doc State IJAIJ 0 7900q Staff InitabsmmuNiTy I oCVCLOF MCNiT Page 1 of 2 to EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: DRA Professional Center 2. Name of applicant: Kovach Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contract person: Austin Kovach Kovach Architects 2115 Colby Ave. Everett WA 98201 425.259.0609 Austin @KovachArchitects.om 4. Date checklist prepared: November 25, 2008 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (Including phasing, if applicable): Start construction spring 2009. Completion within 8 months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Geotechnical Report and downstream drainage report. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If explain. No. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Design review; Grading and Drainage Permit; Building Permits, Mechanical and Plumbing permits. 11. 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. (Lead agencies may modify this 1 RECEIVF:C DEC 12 2000: • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY form to include additional specific information on project description.) The site is 30,921 SF. It slopes to the Northwest, with a steeper slope to Northeast. It is situated to the southwest of Interurban Ave. S at the southeast corner of 52°d and 53rd Ave. S. The project will be a 3 story, 12,593 sf. professional office building with an Orthodontists office and other professional tenants TBD. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. At the Southeast corner of 52°d Ave S and 53rd Ave S. Please refer to site plan with Vicinity Map. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? There is a 45% slope on a very small portion of the parcel (3% of the lot area), near the east property line, in general the site has an average slope of 16% 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. According to the 12/3/08 Geotechnical Report by ABPC Consulting Engineers, the site is mostly fractured limestone over consolidated limestone bedrock overlain by a thin layer of silty fine sandy soil and duff at the surface. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 7 • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY 2,019 CY cut 1,086 CY fill. Source of fill will be crushed onsite material and possibly suitable material from off site borrow pits. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion could occur. Typical TESC measures will be employed to minimize erosion. Please review civil engineering plans for additional details. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Total impervious area: 62% 19,166.4 SF. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: see f, above. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust may occur for short periods during construction. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Water will be sprayed on the site to combat dust if necessary. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. 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. The project will have a water quality /infiltration /detention system. 2) Describe waste material 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. None. 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 into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will accumulate on roofs and in paved areas. These waters will be infiltrated into existing soils where possible, and detained and released as required by the City of Tukwila elsewhere. 4 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4. Plants 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Yes. Runoff from pavement, which will contain contaminants from automobiles, will be filtered. Runoff from roofs, which are presumed to be relatively clean, will be discharge directly into the infiltration system. Fertilizers and pesticides will be applied directly to the landscape beds. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: The above described potential sources of pollution of the ground water will receive water quality treatment prior to entering the ground water. Automobile pollutants, which fall on the pavement, will pass through these systems, which will be periodically maintained. Roof runoff, as stated above, is presumed to be clean. Runoff will be discharged into the infiltration system or offsite into existing drainage channels after water quality treatment. Fertilizers or pesticides will fall onto the ground, and will filter through the ground, to prevent them from reaching the ground water. a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, mil foil, other other types of vegetation EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The entire site will be cleared with the exception of specific portions of the steeper sloped areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY 5. Animals d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measure to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The site will be completely landscaped; please review landscape plan. a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site: None. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None. 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. Gas for heating and Electricity for lighting other office needs. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Building will be constructed to meet the current building regulations, which include energy conserving features. 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 F • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. While specific users of the office spaces are not known there is no anticipation that any uses will represent environmental health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Any industrial use which generates or uses hazardous chemicals would be required to do so with the approval of the King County Health District and DOE, if and as required by law. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short Term: construction noises from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Long Term: traffic sounds associated with the normal use of the office building. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is vacant. Single - family residences lie southeast, west and northwest of the project. Transit parking lies north and northeast of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not to our knowledge. Due to the rocky nature of the soils this is highly unlikely. 7 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 9. Housing 10. Aesthetics c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N /A. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Regional commercial Mixed Use (RCM). 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? N /A. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive: area? If so, specify. Not to my knowledge. i.: Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 30 people will work within the proposed building. J• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any? N /A. 1. Proposed measure to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The propose use complies with the current zoning, and the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low- income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. R EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • . • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The building will be built into the slope and is 44' on the south side and 57' on the north at the mechanical entrance. Building exterior will be glass with metal and wood siding. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Due to the height and density of existing scrub trees to be removed, views will not be altered by the placement of the proposed structure. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The Building design will go through a City Design review process, which includes public review and comment. Materials will be contemporary and attractive; colors selections likewise. Glazing will be tinted shades of green to help blend into the surroundings. Landscape screening will be provided in required areas. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Street and parking lot lighting; lights from the buildings, and automobiles. This light would occur for short periods in the early morning and early evenings in the winter months primarily. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Landscaping will soften glare impacts. Lighting standards will be designed to minimize objectionable glare, which could affect residences off site. Finishes will be matte surfaces. (except glass). Glass will be tinted low -e. 9 • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Foster Golf Links and Joseph Foster Memorial Park. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 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. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: If artifacts are encountered, the proper authorities will be contacted for review purposes. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any: The site fronts on 52m1 Ave. S and 53'd Ave. S and is near Interurban Ave. S. b. c. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. 1/2 block away. d. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 40; none. e. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or In • • EVALUATION FOR TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT AGENCY USE ONLY streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. Frontage improvements will be provided along all project frontages as necessary to comply with municipal requirements. f. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. g. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 640 10:00 to 12:00 am. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any Development of employee shared commuting plans, provisions of local available transit services information for employees and patrons. Payment of any necessary traffic mitigation fees. 15. Public Services 16. Utilities 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. Yes. Building will require fire protection and police protection typical for buildings of this nature. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Payment of any mitigation fees and increased tax base. a. Circle utilities currently available at this site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Water : City of Tukwila; Electricity: PSE; Sewer: City of Tukwila; Natural Gas: PSE 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT SIGNATURE EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best; of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is re ; g on hem lto�make i decis on. Signature: Date Submitted: „VAM ARCS- IITFCts City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: I • O. Oct Applicant Name: tsck$V Lt 11'004A- /t4i A S Street Address: —Lt\ti , ? City, State, Zip: 3 2..F.A " w ►1( 101-bl Telephone: 1-12-5- z' 1. O(v 05 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. 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 YE - 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 `tb- 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 a 1 1 ropriate response. . e> 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. P( O Continue to Question 6 -0 YES - Continue to Question 6 -0 Part A (continued) City of TukwWSA Screening Checklist 6 -0 Will the project involve landscaping or re- occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one -time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. e-0— 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. NO - Continue to Question 1 -2 YES.- Continue to Question 1 -2 1 -2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 1 -3 YES - Continue to Question 1 -3 1 -3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) F- Continue to Question 1 -4 1 -4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. N Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 2 -0 (Page 2) . -- ()1/.9.— 0.012\1 Ck D Qom. xo 14-\ - �. \ � a wS.— 72 Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include learing. Review each question Sst� 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. • City of TukwitOSA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 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 TukwieSA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish /Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3 -1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -2 YES - Continue to Question 3 -2 3 -2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man -made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -3 . YES - Continue to Question 3 -3 3 -3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -4 YES - Continue to Question 3 -4 3 -4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross - sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross- sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -5 YES - Continue to Question 3 -5 3 -5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. City of Tukw SA Screening Checklist NO - Continue to Question 3 -6 YES - Continue to Question 3 -6 3 -6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat . conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow /groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -7 YES - Continue to Question 3 -7 3 -7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3 -8. YES - Continue to Question 3 -8 3 -8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4 -0 (Page 2) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 31 2000 SEPA Department of Community Developlpirti illENVIRONMENTAL 1�" REVIEW 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E-mail: tukplan @ci.tukv■ ila.wa.us APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Diefr, -1>(b ,1 ht\ ptL. (.p4r a__ LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 153 0 6-g-0 1;1/4)e_ s • LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 0003 COOL) ES DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development . standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: AtA � A�.lk/ VhV IstAk AcitAirl'('ec Address: 21c G1L AJ.e_ viscAur W A• elfb7.O Phone: L42 S • Z-5q • O(v 69 FAX: E -mail: 'f F1 ! • ' ., _ e-Z Signature: Date: I2.3\ • c P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-07-07.doc July 20, 2007 FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P SEPA Planner: File Number: ei 0 ( _, O 2 3 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: 1- C —'161 Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: U d 5--- o'1 2— NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Diefr, -1>(b ,1 ht\ ptL. (.p4r a__ LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 153 0 6-g-0 1;1/4)e_ s • LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 0003 COOL) ES DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner /applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development . standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: AtA � A�.lk/ VhV IstAk AcitAirl'('ec Address: 21c G1L AJ.e_ viscAur W A• elfb7.O Phone: L42 S • Z-5q • O(v 69 FAX: E -mail: 'f F1 ! • ' ., _ e-Z Signature: Date: I2.3\ • c P: \Planning Forms \ Applications \ SEPAApp-07-07.doc July 20, 2007 site plan kovach architects basement plan level 1 plan level 2 plan level 3 plan southwest elevation northeast elevation southeast elevation northwest elevation landscape plan trees and shrubs landscape plan ground covers plants bed detail tree plamts landscape details