The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-07-89 - HUNT FLOYD - GRADE AND FILLFLOYD R. HUNT GRADING GRADING OF WOODED SITE S. 138T" ST / MACADAM RD EPIC 7 -89 DATE: 28 DEC 93 TO: File FROM: Darren Wilson — Project Manager RE: Status of File 89 -081 BUILDING PERMIT HUNT FLOYD EPIC -7 -89 The above files have been closed due to lack of action by the applicant. TO F R O SUBJECT ��k9e, ,c;�� .. _. � -- - _ _ DATE / > - MESSAGE: l/92 ..G _ /J77>>C ! %Gl, j- %OS 2 _ . v4 , W./e3 -SIGNED REPLY r -z. SIGNED _ . DATE / / 0RM; 45 472 SEND PARTS 1 ANDS INTACT `= PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY: DETACH AND FILE FOR FOLLOW -UP POLY PAK (50 SETS1- 4P472, 1 CITY OF T UKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 March 21, 1990 Floyd Hunt 18122 40th Avenue Seattle, Wa. 9 810 8 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor REs GRADE AND FILL PERMIT /ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Dear Mr. Hunt: This purpose of this letter will serve two functions. The first, your Environmental Checklist application (EPIC -7 -89) will remain open until the moratorium has been lifted. The moratorium deadline is scheduled for the second week in May of this year. The City Council at that time shall have developed certain criteria to follow. The second element is as a reminder no further action can occur until the moratorium has been concluded. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1845. Sincerely, Darren Wilson Assistant Planner cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner J. Colgrove, City Attorney To • Subject FtL aztoe • From - Speed Message V la ft1L-20,_ • 10).10 "111CzadkA AA """111Z511.- Zc'.4.1 Fa 1:ai011 116 ob, *. Irsit \onJones _ FORM 44-900 2-PART \ ANTED IN U.SA. Signed 483 611,10g1 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences July 18, 1989 Project No. T -1064 Mr. Floyd Hunt 18122 40th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98108 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Fill Pad Lot 2, King County Short Plat 179080 Seattle, Washington Dear Mr. Hunt: As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the proposed fill pad to be placed on your property in Tukwila, Washington. The approximate location of the property is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions in the area of the proposed fill placement in order to provide recommendations for subsurface drainage, site preparation, and fill placement criteria. The scope of our work included test pits, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. This report presents the findings and results of our study along with supporting data. We have presented our recommendations verbally to both you and your engineer, Mr. John Newell during the preparation of this report. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Our subsurface exploration indicates that the site is underlain close to existing grades by dense native silty sands (glacial till) and hard silts. These soils should provide adequate support for the proposed fills. During fill placement, consideration of the potential future development of the lot should be taken. Placement of large pieces of concrete and /or construction debris will make future construction of building foundations difficult. Organic laden or other similar debris fills should not be placed on the site. Unless the fill is compacted to the requirements of structural fill, side slopes on the fills should be no steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical). 15301 N.E. 90th Street • Redmond, Washington 98052 • Phone (206) 881 -5570 • FAX No. 869 -9173 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 • Redmond, Washington 98073 Mr. Floyd Hunt July 18, 1989 To reduce the potential for saturating the fills from groundwater seepage, we recommend that a toe drain be installed along the major slope break on the western portion of the site. Any other areas of near surface seepage should also be provided with subdrains. The following sections of this report describe our study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed development of the site is to place upto 25 feet of fill across the entire site. Slopes on the fill pad will be contained on site. A preliminary grading plan has been prepared and is shown on Figure 2. The source of the fill is anticipated to be excess soils from construction sites within the greater Seattle area. Although no buildings are planned for the site at this time, future development with light commercial or residential structures may occur in the future. If any changes in the above proposed construction are made, Terra Associates should be contacted to evaluate the proposed modifications. Following this review, we can prepare revisions to the recommendations to consider the effects of the proposed changes. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on June 15, 1989. Subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed fill was explored by excavating five test pits to a maximum depth of 10 feet below the existing grade. The test pits were excavated using a rubber tired backhoe provided by you. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by measurements from known points on the. property. The elevations of the test pits were determined by hand level measurements from known elevations and by interpolation between contour lines shown on the site plan prepared by your engineer. The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit and observed pertinent site features. All samples from our test pits were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, which is presented on Figure 4. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report as Figures 5 through 7. These logs represent our interpretation of the field conditions noted by us. Project T -1064 Page No. 2 Mr. Floyd Hunt July 18, 1989 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located along the east side of Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on Figure 1. The existing topography is shown on the Test Pit Location Plan, Figure 2. Generally, the site slopes down from the west to the east with overall relief on the order of forty feet. Most of this relief occurs in the western one third of the site where slopes are on the order of 2:1 to 3:1 (h:v). The eastern portion of the property slopes gently towards the northeast corner of the site. With the exception of the extreme northwestern corner, the site is covered by a dense growth of underbrush and native trees. The extreme northwest corner of the site has been cleared and a fresh fill pad is present immediately adjacent to the western property line. At the toe of the existing fill slope, seepage was emanating from the slope. Other local areas on the site were also wet. Subsurface Specific subsurface conditions at each location explored are shown on the attached Test Pit Logs, Figures 4 through 6. Generally, the westernmost margin of the site appears to be underlain at shallow depths dense by granular glacial till soils as encountered in Test Pit TP -1. Beneath the till and across the rest of the site, a dense silt to hard clayey silt is present. These soils are all glacially consolidated with the exception of the upper few feet which have been loosened by weathering. The exception to this is at Test Pit TP -4 located in the southeast corner of the site. At this location, the ground surface is immediately underlain by three feet of topsoil. This surficial mantle is in turn underlain by interbedded loose sands and stiff to very stiff plastic silts. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was noted emanating from the toe of the slope adjacent to Test Pit TP -1. Groundwater seepage was noted throughout the depth of Test Pit TP -4 and from below two feet in Test Pit TP -5. This seepage appears to represent a perched groundwater conditions. These near surface groundwater bodies are typically more widespread during the wetter months and may "dry up" during the dryer summer months. Project T -1064 Page No. 3 Mr. Floyd Hunt July 18, 1989 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that fill soils may be placed on the site as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. Regardless of the effort made to compact the fills, all fills should be placed in horizontal lifts no thicker than one foot. Provided 3:1 (h:v) side slopes and the potential need for piling to support future buildings is acceptable, track rolling will be adequate. To maintain fill slope stability, a subdrain should be placed to intercept and control the seepage adjacent to Test Pit TP -1, and at other locations where seepage is encountered during grading. Our recommendations are presented in more detail in the following sections. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Mr. Floyd Hunt and his representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Surface Drainage Positive surface gradients should be provided to direct surface runoff away from the top of any slopes toward suitable discharge facilities. Slopes Final fill slopes should be no steeper than 2:1 for fills placed in 12 inch thick horizontal lifts and uniformly compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D -1557. Fills placed to a lesser relative compaction should be sloped no steeper than 3:1. If final slopes steeper than 2:1 are desired, we will be able to provide additional recommendations for reinforced earth placement. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability. Site Preparation and Grading If the fill pad is intended to support structures with conventional shallow footings, all fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Designation D -1557. Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in uncompacted thickness. It should be noted that the soils commonly available for disposal from most construction sites contain a significant amount of fines and may contain some organics and will be Project T -1064 Page No. 4 Mr. Floyd Hunt July 18, 1989 difficult to compact in wet weather. These soils are moisture sensitive and may become disrupted and saturated if not protected during wet weather. Lower compaction may be permissible provided future buildings can be supported on drilled or driven piers. The topsoil should be stripped prior to placement of any fills. Topsoil can be stock piled on the site for later use in final site reclamation, if desired. Ideally, to allow for potential future placement of piles for foundation support, no concrete or other large debris should be incorporated into the fill. The maximum particle size within the fill soils should be six inches. All fills should be benched into slopes steeper than 4:1. Subdrains A subdrain should be installed in the vicinity of Test Pit TP -1 to intercept and control seepage that is present at that location. The subdrain should be constructed as shown on the attached Standard Detail, Figure 7. Subdrains will be required at other locations on the site, such as the vicinity of Test Pit TP -4 and other locations were seepage is encountered during grading. Additional Services It is recommended that we be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final project design and . specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our test pits excavated on the site. The nature and extent of variations between the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Project T -1064 Page No. 5 Mr. Floyd Hunt July 18, 1989 We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: (A) Perform field density testing of structural fills as needed during placement and observe the grading and earthwork operation. (B) Review any proposed building locations and provide supplemental recommendations for foundation support. We request that a minimum of two working days' notice be given to schedule our services during construction. The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figures 4 through 6 Figure 7 Vicinity Map Site Plan Soil Classification Chart Test Pit Logs Subdrain Detail We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. `�(w /; Charles R. Lie Engineering Geologist Ani Butail, P.E. President CRL /AB:tc cc: John R. Newell, Inc., P.S. 4r p eke, �o �r IFS isrST��,� �SA� Project T -1064 Page No. 6 sill ..o v ? AV ." f $ = I kin -"V . AV S . CO ! BTN ids`• AV `� $ I - CV $ T. • e - BTH 9iH Py] � N i • ' 9T8 PL S r� imp o p .. • __ Pl $ �i IOTH ; AV S IOrn S Av , cn ✓I 9TH .v 5 _. I_ 11TH z N -' I $ c '' 10TH v 5 N y1.TM AV -I2 rT . r ti A 2 vs�v 1 .N • ,:r.• I ITUA SO_ TT� `1 .'12TH '' Ws , N z1 �� i TI ; � V11 tA'..,... • Z 15TH � 4 / �d-- -. n AV s� - 5 N Is7H AV S 14 4V 1,.. n?1 S I ~! ~ C A:...:-r'c -'•'y_A\. I DES MOINES!: wy s ° /Sr 1sTH PE s 2 1 - �y • v, _ I ` /�`r ItTN I a H�: 1 m' as C. ^� �_, dip AVS 9a: __ 16TH _ 3 _ n° — 16TH N _y, - Ot• _ __ 16rn.__ .._ — A4. _.. ___s__: .. _ f .- 1,61‘6\ 0 _ _ .lyt,t _,� — — _ r. _ `' ._2° _ — 5 _ _ rsrN - ;4 . _ AV S to ,_,. - . c u .: nd AV 5 16rM .0 p1_ a.� y'!i�n m, � I4 l7TK _ ?'. S 5 _ i N Av S.2", -. An `-' 18TH AY,."$'' 1.--,,4 i� 18TH, © :: ... AV $ �_ An S��i I�S z __ 2y4A, ��• = j_' _ . N ROSfe, l n -• .__.'.. O 2 o O'' • 119 �'I AV IO N O /3/r ®2'4", 1 16TH V NIL.. • F.. to 20TH S'� z� 20T.. AV GpC ' rit J I a - • I- us 4 '-4< 1 A ~ ®® _� . 25iH AV::.S:n .:c 29,A AV z S ti A% an N -INi 21ST 2151 AV S10 qV .. S y `O i AV $ -2 N yo ®J .•.1 I' S ® ®22ND AV S I ' to �' L" :Is i AAn� 1 R' 23RD ;" AV 23R9 AV S- 234D AV i f:4- y im 1_ :... . :1 i „,L ,8 NSIWd - , . 24TH UZI-- _ �� P S i S AM: r' do S c V • ) AV IzIr21TN AV$ ^, 2STH AVS Y - ; • 301,14v3:, .. i Ooif ( - r r,.. 5''v�o• •A I 1 .4 • 76TH AV 6 y tA{N AVS N 126 TN AV 0 - ,112.,:', ^ °Y 25TH WI c y i- z ~ `J/ m I • $ 26TH N_ - • TNP 5 y -Ni t 2612 A\'5-- - __ 2 2 °� . S Ad H1E2 _3, _ PLS -1 . -.: 27„,,. lS ��> a --- >r mm -y 2 .Tr; AV $_ a` i„ .e E•„ A ,,.Y° _ _ r — __ ._ __ __ _ j - - AV S s H - 291H AV AV i� ' �v8 `' i1Sd1 Ask;; • ® jt5P3,srH P a ;�C /F /C�0 so2 .. A • ..n. , 1N! �r 53RD AV M - 1 IA ' vV , .. � _ �� S .. - .. p n iN _ i •.F . -1 : ^" UTn AV. r..*. . a m In • __ v34 AV AV S YTN iw�N ��v+ r 4 V or_ .. M „ •aC. .4 •,',;, AV 5 y z© I ty i y o Lti \1 m D +L ��®�.� ®IE m . A.. 1no S�6 .33.,.9.1- m soT +� AV ..r 1111 Ilin�.,Iil�S Ada:= 38TH AV e y ..... a r a _ > S :-.1,t.1.°: 1,9„4_ �'37,N ZAV S c. e N ��7�3�� a0 �N� �, S {rn 1�N'�uvw 3b, — — — — — Av 4IST qyN ,7, `sC AV dr y _ _ _ 1sT+ _ © <' 2 y 39*N Ai �'S ®� y'� O AV $ 4. E r 2 NAR SEEN 7, „,..8 • 41sT AVS r�5 r'1., soTN Av 4 T 40 PE A UAV 971 AV S I '':.':� 3 N OS I— ow, 5 1` / • S I~ FER AY L ET .,,II 4354 AV S I L .:,h , • .42.4 r� a =1 4,,,„ —A o `� . ;i, T,A s 4 4... <1s. „ Av s g a1s • � 62N.' ,I S _� N r-• . T • 42ND I,T1:4.1A r AV S !..'i''. 44TH AV _� .c' 43R4�1A,D ^• x-1 i S �L' s 5,5 S5,3 A W Hpti�=rTT� =,v1 g A .... /s, : tk \' 1v AW y I 1n S u' S il/�► bdW Mf>' < a 44rN d�'-� .4' `" Il z y w 45TH AV.: ut >= C� -5 . p A _ N • x An -+ •F a''•' - ;tti, L €'.45T.AV is •A ,N - !!f 1JN1 Hlnl Av 5 1 45TH PL S p7 ; • •,r ® ,� T S ,' •^ « . N '• TJH. O 'I 16Th, s f ��y'l/� C• 4� '::r,' `�►��:'{5��1�1 .47 ?nlnat. 5 -4.‘"1.„. -- -eS� .rNSv mo .._ E,.. . •4 I S O�'Y .. I `,,' +.2 .. ;: • LLAl1I:1'/� / 48:XAV DS I1_ 47TH Av to o nu, Av3 s _rao Z I //A vQ j - i = aTr A ____ i s 3 :-.4..t.';'.-; 6j -/ 9r,„..-1 ..• xAV: i S r •� NA0d v',r. Oti m N 7$_-47.-._;,•,- e T SOTN y / y 4 •N N 1 I1. r•sv •6., MTH <AV Sip r+ :{.d y -/ ..w 4 :.r._ "\ _— ....... .•�" �'• // -:_ �+ F �.T i`_'i '^ : S .. _ • 5orN r /J8 .. 0 a 0 I -'' OBTII ST I "ry 14 4 5 117111 < 105011 ST RAINIER GOLF COUNTRY; CLUBS 130TH 126TH $ 145714 T 122110 g SI3 HILLTOP S. i7 BARTON \ S BENEFIT 5. 0- yMLRIIOGE oS 10E�o1 STS \73 SOSBO'r 3 T $ 3U:i`ss o S BOEI G REFERENCE: Thomas Bros. Atlas of King County, page 33 not to scale S DIRECTOR TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Vicinity Map Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 1 Date 7/89 1 Figure 1 "A Ao° /' Z// 1T-2' ;/7 N &a 22, 5/1..T FENCE /SL. ¥TAIL W 60 CLE,AR/N6 L/41/ TS I (TYP/CALl I ' TOE OF Fil..L. <7- YP/CA 1_ - _ N N " A " N `N, \\' \ -108 .. • -- '\ - 88 90 92..- - 94 . / -82 -- - 4 86 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TP-4 SCALE: 1";-..40' LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT 11.1110°' RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN LOCATION REFER TO TEXT FOR DISCUSSION OF SUBDRAINS Reference: FINAL GRADING PLAN prepared by John R. Newell Inc. P.S. Test Pit Location Map Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 2 /00 95 90 85 80 75 /00 BENCH FILL INTO SLOPES \`, STEEPER 'THAN 4H:1V £ '/S77N6 c /A SECTION "A " - "A" NOT TO SCALE SUBDRAIN (REFER TO TEXT) 2H:1 V FINAL SLOPE IF COMPACTED AS STRUCTURAL FILL OTHERWISE 3H:1V REFER TO TEXT FOR DISCUSSION OF GEOTECHNICAL RECOMENDATIONS 2.J SUBDRAIN (REFER TO TEXT) SY.vi TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Section AA Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 3 COARSE GRAINED SOILS More than 50% material larger MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVELS No. 200 sieve size. FINE GRAINED SOILS To 0) E 0 c -r_ 0 More than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve. SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM LETTER GRAPH SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean Gravels (less than 5% fines). Gravels with fines. Clean Sands (less than 5% fines). Sands with fines. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is less than 50 %. GP off o• Well- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. GM GC SP SM SC ML Poorly- graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no fines. Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non - plastic fines. Clayey gravels, gravel- sand -ciay mixtures. plastic fines. Well- graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. Poorly- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. :f Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, • non- plastic fines. Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, Z. plastic fines. CL OL rrr 11 ill 11 Inorganic silts and very ,fine sands, rock flour, silt or clayeyy fine sands or clayey silts with Slid-hi Plasticity Inorganic clays of low to. medium plasticity, grala welly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit is greater than 50 %. MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT i Organic clays of medium to high plasticrty, organic silts. Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS I P 2" OUTER DIAMETER SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C 2.4" INNER DIAMETER RING SAMPLER OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION WELL qu w pcf LL PI N TORVANE READING,-tsf PENETROMETER READING, tsf MOISTURE, percent of dry weight DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot LIQUID LIMIT,percent PLASTIC INDEX STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Soil Classification System Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 Date 7/89 Figure 4 Logged By CRL Date 6-15-89 Depth (ft. 1 USCS TEST PIT NO, 1 Soil Description Elev 72± (%) i.:....::, -- : Brown silty SAND with organics (disturbed by clearing) 10 10 27 chi- 74.5 -- - __ )--- __ -- . 1 1 iAs II • Brown silty SAND with gravel, wet, loose. above, becomes gray, moist, very dense (Till) Becomes sandy SILT, very dense. Becomes clayey SILT, moist. Test pit terminated at 10 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. 15 Logged By CPI Date 6-15-89 0 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev 98± 5— 1 0 15 (6 inch Duff) Brown silty SAND with gravel; dry to moist, loose. As above, very dense (Till) Becomes gray. 8 13 Test pit teillanated at 10 feet. No groundwater seepage observed. f TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Floyd Hunt Parcel ' Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 5 Logged By CRL Date 6 -15-89 Depth (ft.) 1 USCS TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 66± • W ( %) O No groundwater seepage observed. TEST PIT NO. Logged By CRT. Date 6-15--89 1 1 Elev. 72± 1 — I �I�I — �I I Brown organic SILT /topsoil, wet. 77 Viil I — %. :: Gray -brown and thinnly bedded SILT, silty fine SAND and 5— �: clayey SILT, wet medium dense and stiff to very stiff. — 28 _ Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Moderate groundwater seepage observed below 3 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 6 - T TOPSOIL 24 (41=74-5 __ - ''1. T Tan SILT with clay, dry to moist, dessicated. 2 __ T Test pit terminated at 7 feet. TEST PIT NO. Logged By CRT. Date 6-15--89 1 1 Elev. 72± 1 — I �I�I — �I I Brown organic SILT /topsoil, wet. 77 Viil I — %. :: Gray -brown and thinnly bedded SILT, silty fine SAND and 5— �: clayey SILT, wet medium dense and stiff to very stiff. — 28 _ Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Moderate groundwater seepage observed below 3 feet. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 6 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 6 Logged By CRL Date 6 -15-89 Depth (ft.) 1 USCS TEST PIT NO. 5 Soil Description Elev 74± W ( %) ' - ' 'TOPSOIL 33 __ M ML T Tan SILT with clay and sand, moist to wet, loose. - - - - - - - 1 18 1"L B Becomes tan gray and plastic, moist. 24 q qu 74.5 Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. Logged By Date 0 5— 10- 15 TEST PIT NO. Elev. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 I Date 7/89 I Figure 7 depth varies NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL IF NO FILTER FABRIC INSTALLED, TOP OF GRAVEL SHOULD BE COVERED WITH CONSTRUCTION PAPER OR EQUIVALENT COVER. 12" min. width FREE- DRAINING BACKFILL COMPOSED OF WASHED GRAVEL, PEA GRAVEL, ETC. FILTER FABRIC IAS RECOMMENDED 1. MINIMUM 4" PERFORATED PIPE WITH POSITIVE GRADIENT TO SUITABLE DISCHARGE FACILITY. Typical Interceptor Drain NOT —TO —SCALE NOTES: 1. FILTER FABRIC MAY BE NECESSARY AS TRENCH LINER. 2. METHOD OF THE DRAIN INSTALLATION AND THE TRENCH SIDEWALL STABILITY SHOULD BE ASSESSED BY THE CONTRACTOR. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Typical Interceptor Drain Floyd Hunt Parcel Tukwila, WA Proj. No. 1064 1 Date 7/89 1 Figure 8 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Development Review Committee Becky Davis, Permit Coordinator April 25, 1989 Hunt, Floyd Grading /Fill Permit Application Please add this item to your agenda for this week's Development Review Committee meeting. Please review the attached information prior to the meeting. -L' L L,S_ 511V1 W f S ' N v>- -4AVIV o l 11 ITGII Syi ovvo 1-N12 kf L/L c c 4 - S'e-4 Ito 0 u rvk ►\^ ✓ • . oi 5 s 4 • • PARKS, PLANNING & RESOURCES DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION REPORT TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE -• APRIL 25, 1989 9:15 A.M. HEARING ROOM 2 - EASTPOINTE PLAZA BUILDING 3600 - 136TH Place Southeast, Suite A Bellevue, WA 98006 (Call 296 -6662 to confirm hearing date, time and place.) APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATION FILE: 3061 -33 (HUNT) A. GENERAL INFORMATION: Project Description: Applicant: Appellants: Location: A grading permit for 27,100 cubic yards of fill on 1.67 acres in the SR(Suburban Residential) zone. 5,100 cubic yards will be filled during the first year, with the balance through 1995. The site is in a Seismic hazard area. Floyd R. Hunt 18122 - 40th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Craig Hittle 4631 South 138th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Greg DeAno 4628 South 138th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Ray Vomenici 4822 South 138th Street Seattle, WA 98188 About 200' northwest of South 138th Street /MacAdam Road intersection on the east side of the roadway. STR: SE 15 -23 -04 NOTE: The entire SEPA file will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner and is available for public review. B. SEPA DETERMINATION: On February 7, 1989, a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) was published and posted. Mitigation under SEPA for this proposal includes: 1. Hauling will be allowed only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., except no trucks shall enter or leave the site prior to one(1) hour after sunrise or after one(1) hour before sunset. 2. The intersection of the proposed access road / MacAdam Road will be ..:feared as needed to provide adequate sight distance per King County Road Standards. 3. Place the following covenant on this property: "The fill on this property may not be suitable for structural support.. All future development on this site shall require thorough geotechnical review for soil bearing strength and foundation design." APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERIMINATION FILE: 3061 -33 (HUNT) C. SEPA APPEALS: On February 21, 1989, Mr. Hittle filed a timely appeal with the Building and Land Development Division. Mr. Hittle requests that the permit not be issued. On February 22, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. DeAno filed a timely appeal. They request, presumably, that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Also, on February 22, 1989, Mr. Vomenici filed a timely appeal. He also requests that the permit not be issued. D. APPEAL ISSUES: Mr. Hittle expresses his concern for wildlife, loss of trees, increased noise, the applicant's long range goals, and the applicant's past record in support of his request. Mr. and Mrs. DeAno express their concern for drainage, loss of trees, increased noise, wildlife, and increased air emissions in support of their request. Mr. Vomenici expresses his concern for drainage, loss of trees, increased noise, wildlife, and aesthetics in support of his request. E. BALD RESPONSE: In making a threshold determination the responsible official is directed by WAC 197 -11 -330 to review the environmental checklist and any supporting documents. If the responsible official concludes there is insufficient information available to make a threshold determination, additional information may be requested from the applicant and /or agencies with expertise, and the site may be physically investigated. For the Hunt project, the applicant's Environmental Checklist, the applicant's Final Grading Plan, the King County Comprehensive Plan - 1985, the Highline Community Plan Area Zoning, the King County Sensitive Area Map Folio, and site inspections by various professional staff members provided the responsible official sufficient information to make a threshold determination. The applicant's Environmental Checklist and Final Grading Plan indicates that the permit is to allow the placement of approximately 27,000 cubic yards of fill material on a 1.67 acre parcel. The maximum depth of file is approximately 25 feet. The King County Comprehensive Plan - 1985 designates the area in which the Hunt project is located as Urban. An Urban Area is one that is planned for growth at a range of residential densities (from very high to very low), where urban public facilities and service standards will apply. The Highline Community Plan Area Zoning indicates, on page 61, that the area in which the Hunt project is located has an SR( Suburban - Residential) zone classification. The prine'inal objective and purpose to be served by the SR classification and its application is to provide for the orderly transition of areas presently largely suburban in character but which are rapidly becoming urbanized. The King County Sensitive Areas Map Folio indicates, on Map No. 4, that the site is within a Class III Seismic Hazard Area. Seismic hazards include ground failure, ground shaking, liquefaction and the triggering of events such as landslides and submarine slides in Puget Sound. Liquefaction is a major cause 2 APPEAL OF THRESHOLD DETERIMINATION FILE: 3061 -33 (HUNT) of damage in many parts of the world but has not been identified as a major effect in King County; however, the basic physical conditions for its development are common and widespread within the major river valleys of the county. Having obtained sufficient information, WAC 197 -11 -330 (1) (c) directs the responsible official to consider mitigation measures which an agency or the applicant will implement as part of the proposal in making a threshold determination, WAC 197 -11 -660 (3) (e).directs the responsible official to consider whether local, state, or federal requirements and enforcement would mitigate an identified significant impact before requiring mitigating measures under the authority of SEPA. The responsible official then considered the mitigating measures that have been offered by the applicant, the provisions of the King County Code, Title 9, relating to surface water run -off, and Chapter 16.82, relating to grading. KCC 16.82.010 provides that the purpose is to safeguard life, limb, and property, and the public welfare and to minize adverse effects upon the environment by regulating excavations, grading, and earthwork construction including cuts and fills. KCC 16.82.060 (E) provides that after an application has been filed and reviewed the director shall ascertain whether such grading work complies with the provisions of the chapter. If the application and plans so comply, or if they are corrected or amended so as to comply, the director may issue to the applicant a grading permit. KCC 16.82.080 provides that, prior to obtaining a permit, the permittee shall first post with the director a cash operation bond and a cash or a surety reclamation bond. The cash operating bond may be used at the discretion of the director to correct deficiencies affecting public health, safety and welfare, including effects on water quality. In the event of failure to comply with all the conditions and terms of the permit, the director shall notify the permittee and the surety, in writing, and failing to obtain a response within the ten days form the receipt of notification, may order the work required by the permit to be completed to his satisfaction or perform all necessary corrective work to eliminate hazards caused by not completing the work. KCC 9.04.030(A)(1) provides that an erosion /sedimentation control plan and a drainage plan accompany grading permits. K.C.C. 9.04.010 provides these plans are necessary in order to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing uncontrolled stormwater and sedimentation by preserving and utilizing the many values of the County's natural drainage system including open area, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, education, urban separation, and drainage and erosion control facilities and by providing for the comprehensive management and administration of stormwater and erosion control. K.C.C. 9.04.050(F) provides that the drainage course for a minimum distance of 1/4 mile downstream from the development must be evaluated for its capacity to pass the design storm flow after completion of the development. The applicant's Environmental Checklist and Final Grading Plan indicate that erosion /sedimentation control fri13ties will be constructed in such a manner as to insure that sediment laden water does not enter the drainage system or violate applicable water standards, that the finished slopes will be at a 2:1 ratio, that denuded areas will be stabilized with approved ESC wetlands (e.g., seeding, mulching, netting, erosion blankets, etc.) and that silt fences are to be provided along the entire baseline of the fill. The responsible official concluded that these local requirements and enforcement and measures by the applicant would 3 • • APPEAL OF. THRESHOLD DETERIMINATION FILE: 3061 -33 (HUNT) adequately mitigate any significant adverse impact, the Hunt project may represent to environmental quality due to erosion or drainage. As a consequence, no mitigating measures were required under the authority of SEPA. The responsible official then considered the provisions of the Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 197 -11, relating to threshold determinations. WAC 197 -11 -330 (3) (c) (ii) requires the responsible official to take into account that a proposal may to a significant degree adversely affect endangered or threatened species or their habitat. None of the avian or mammalian species identified by the appellants are listed as threatened or endangered. For species that are not threatened or endangered, it has long been recognized that the expanding demand to accommodate human use will necessarily cause a reduction in land available for wildlife use. Some species more tolerant of human activity may be able to remain, albeit in reduced populations. Species less tolerant of human activity will be displaced and forced to compete with other species and populations in remaining habitats. In more severe cases, local extinction may occur. For example, there is no longer habitat to support cougar or black bear in downtown Seattle. The responsible official concluded that no threatened or endangered species had been identified and that filling on a 1.67 acre site did not represent a significant adverse impact on environmental quality. As a consequence, no mitigating measures were required under the authority of SEPA. The responsible official has considered the other concerns expressed by the appellants and concludes that they are either not proper environmental topics or that they do not represent a probable significant adverse impact to environmental quality. E. CONCLUSIONS: 1. There is no evidence to indicate that the proposed grading work cannot comply with the provisions of KCC, Chapter 16.82 or otherwise indicate that the permit should not be issued. 2. There is no evidence to indicate that the permit will be granted without complying with the provisions of the King County Code relating to surface water run -off and grading and with the provisions of the applicant's Environmental Checklist and Final Grading Plan. 3. There is no evidence to indicate that such compliance represents a probable significant adverse impact to environmental quality. F. RECOMMENDATION: DENY the appeals. TRANSMITTED to Parties listed hereafter: John R. Newell 231 Williams Avenue South, Renton wA 98055 Fred Henry 13723 MacAdam Road South, Seattle WA 98168 Tom McDonald, Manager, Commercial /Multi - Family Products ATTN: Randy Sandin, Grading Supervisor Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services ATTN: Pat Downs, Environmental Coordinator RC:AS:JF 4 King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600. 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 April 6, 1989 Mr. Floyd Hunt 18122 - 40th Avenue Seattle, WA 98108 RE: Grading Permit Application #3061 -33 Dear Mr. Hunt: This letter is to inform you that King County will continue to review and process the above referenced grading permit application. My previous letter to you, dated March 31, 1989, indicated that King County would no longer review your application due to annexation of your property by the city of Tukwila. Since that time we have learned that vested permit applications will be processed according to standard procedures. Inasmuch, the public hearing appealing your project, scheduled for April 25, 1989, will be conducted as planned. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jon Pederson of. the Grading Section at 296 -6610. Sincerely, '1111!4r.... d Sandie, Supervisor Grading Section RS:JP:jmb cc: Ralph Colby, Technical Services Section l// ATTN: Alton Smith, Planner Jack Pace, Senior Planner, City of Tukwila, 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188 ,yob \Q-y fro ``i iTY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: [:[ BLDG. PROJECT ❑ PLNG. P.W. [] FIRE [[ POLICE ❑ P. & R. ADDRESS /3/ /5??4e y1 iD DATE TRANSMITTED 3707 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY - 1,49 C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR J), /), 2& RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: -Rsgtat`ST "Tsrobt.AP-1 V2.0sAbi. v tTcttt:S vt=s1LT4flou POrvO S ❑ MPtt vzter-1 aa s c tt u LL S o u,.s Etv trt tom- STUO 1 1 pT c ❑ NtUAJ 10 Nn w IN 0 e S 5u3M1I T 11 AS 'RLtitLLf Y) 0 e-1 t'Y Lam. -4 10 o F 744 c . (1 c, tt:6) 0 ❑ l JUPST 'PLA -Mtv(Ws VE-Pr -D ft VISUYt olk1 ❑ MPS cr s OF 1 N-ts Ft . R L.S o t (.11 7.)-7 tAL-MS -ro 1)071 ,,AL ❑ ipv - s CIS. 2v o w >A0 Rig 5y_c i t s o ❑. Ctty c 3 V__V ATtf. ePbT T111L, IVAD), -S ❑ El '3 t\..vv\0v. ottkiLi c cdn..c s di= F-wv-) S 061.466 • ❑ -ro vet tR-01.)A_ uN i \a) wP FL_-D vo t� u�- �.v.�"� nwyc,TS ❑ l 1J -po wry S 1l1,ti'S,V S4S7 ■4 tct y ❑ IMll\Ame\ \.- (t r e , Co�r.stna 1. AA E-t / Dt >cilot.) FA -1 Lt-rt J 0 0 0 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[ PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED ❑ PLAN APPROVED 0 PLAN CHECK DATE. .S' /q/89 COMMENTS PREPARED BY L. \ _ C.P.S. FORM 2 King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 Febuary 24, 1989 Floyd R. Hunt for Floyd R. Hunt, Inc. 18122 40th Ave.45p. Seattle , WA 98108 RE: Appeal for File Number 3061 -33: Hunt Grading Dear Mr. Hunt, The threshold determination issued on 02/07/89 for your proposal has been appealed. (See the attached). A public hearing before the Zoning and Subdvision Examiner is scheduled for April 25, 1989 at 9:15AM in Hearing Room Number 2 , at the King County Building and Land Development Bldg., 3600 136th Pl. SE, Bellevue, WA 98006 -1400. You will receive a staff report approximately 2 weeks before the public hearing. Please contact the SEPA Center at 296 -6662 with your questions. Singerely, 1 Alton Smith Environmental Planner Appeal.prg /C /SEPA CC: Pat Downs, Environmental Coordinator Examiner's Office File Number: 3061 -33 SEPA Filenumber: 3061 -33 John R. Newell Craig Little Greg DeAno Ray Vomenici Craig Hittle 4631 South 138th Street Seattle, WA 98168 SEPA Center, King County Building and Land Development Bellevue, Washington I am appealing the issuance of grading permit #3061 -33 for the following reasons. Environmental Concerns; The long range grading plan calls for the removal of most trees and bringing in of fill on the property in question. Since the property has a considerable flow+P°oi -Ji_ ground water, I can only assume that the fill would beome -;aP badly eroded. - - - _ Even though the permit would not allow for dumping bf noxious or toxic materials, the applicants ?`pastWkiecdrd shows a trend toward non - compliance with county;::restiction as he has been bringing material to the site late at night. There are numerous red -tail hawks and other animals in the area, and this project would unquestionable destroy a portion of their habitat. Infringement of.Right to Enjoyment; The removal of trees on the property and subsequent filling would completely disrupt the right of enjoyment, as guaranteed by law, of adjoining and neighboring property owners. We would lose all protection against the adverse effects of the proximity to the freeway. Worse yet, we would have a long term eyesore and traffic nuisance. In short, we would have an organic dumping ground in our block. Intentions of Applicant; The long range goals for land use are unspecified and questionable. It is my understanding that the applicant has stated his intention to possibly use it for a single family dwelling. It is obvious to me that the property would be more desirable as a single family building site if the majority of it remain in it's natural state with some improvement thereof. To state it simple, I don't see how the county can justify the filling of over 1.5 acres to accommodate a single family building site. Further, the applicant is an excavator by trade, and it is my firm belief that he has no other purpose than disposing of .unwanted material. Why then should he be allowed to decrease the value of nearby residences and the quality of life in the neighborhood when there are sites specifically designed for his purpose? In conclusion, I would like to state that I have spoken to several of my neighbors none of whom approve of granting the permit as it is proposed. Our neighborhood has been a target of projects in the. past that have detracted from our quality of life, and we want this trend to stop. This area has unjustly been tagged as an undesirable neighborhood,. and I refused to let our wants and needs be ignored because of others attitude towards it. I see no reason why King County should allow this permit to be issued since it will only serve the profit and convenience of the applicant at the expense and harm of others. I would not deny a landowner use and enjoyment of their property, but Mr. Hunt's long range plan goes well beyond any reasonable use of residential land. The very concept of requiring permits is to prevent this type of travesty. Please use that system for it's intended purpose, and stop allowing my neighborhood to be used as a dumping ground. Thank -you, Craig Hittle 243 -4173 Home 244 -6400 Business M Greg and Diane DeAno 4628 South 138th Seattle WA 98168 SEPA Center King County Building and Land Development Bellevue, Washington I wish to appeal the issuance of grading permit #3061 -33 for the following reasons. Slippage of adjacent residential structure: I am concerned about natural drainage swale on wetland which covers the majority of the property in question. The earth movement on potential erosion associated with this proposal threatens my right to support of my property and it's accompanying structure. This threat is further compounded by the seismic sensitivity of the area. In addition,.the shifting of fill material will surcharge the land and cause considerable surface water on to adjacent properties. Increase noise: Current treed landscape provides buffer of noise from I- 5 freeway. The clearing Mr. Hunt has done so far has significantly increased the noise level from the freeway. Noise has been further increased by Mr. Hunts activities of dumping and clearing at night and early morning on weekends. I feel this added noise will far exceed standards for noise and pollution in a residential area, and see no evidence that this problem has been addressed. Aesthetics: This clearing and filling of this land will destroy my view of the natural landscape and replace it with a view of the freeway and the fill itself. It will present and eyesore, and disrupt the aesthetics of the existing contour of the land. Animals: Since I have lived here, I have seen hawks, blackbirds, blue -jays, raccoons, and squirrels. These animals live on the proposed site, and they will all be displaced by the planed N 10 destruction of the environment. Health concerns: As I have diagnosed as having hypersensitive lungs, any increase in dust and exhaust from the project and freeway will create an in health hazard. The trees and other plant life on the property act as a buffer and filter for much of these pollutants. Easement: I have a 200 foot sewer easement crossing south to north through the middle of the east half of the proposed dump site.. This easement would be covered by the fill. In closing, I feel the concerns I have brought out have not been,addressed in King County's environmental review, and probable adverse impact statement. I live in this area, and wish to continue living in this area. Mr Hunt does not live here but wants to dump dirt that is unsuitable for structural support. Respectfully TO: SEFA Center, King County Building and Land Development Bellevue, Washington We are the neighbors adjacent to the propsed dumping site and are appealing the issuance of Hunts Grading Permit. The properties in question are in the I -5 corridor between I -5 and MacAdam Road. This area contains approximately 7 acres of land which is a natural drain- age for a major portion of the hillside between MacAdam Road and Highway 99. Topographically, the terrain averages twenty to thirty feet below a mean level of MacAdam Road. We do not want our neighborhood unfavourably impacted by the Hunts Grading proposal. This area is next to a recently developed comm- ercial warehousing and business properties directly north of the affected area. It is interesting to note that this area has changed to a beneficial attraction to the community, while this proposal would create a blighted dumpsite ruining the property for useful purposes. This area is currently in a proposed annexation to Tukwila. Recently in any Tukwila City Council Meetings this area was considered in a comprehensive plan for commercial zoning. This has passed all phases of annexation and the voting is in March. It appears that the King County Building and Land Development unit is trying to pass this proposal through before the people in the community have had a chance to change the jurisdiction by voting to accept Tukwilas annexation. Tukwila has been working with residents to determine desired zoning. It was noted' that. Floyd and Doreen Hunt did not participate in these efforts. They purchased the property, not to be neighbors or any part of the community. They obviously purchased the property to create a dump fill site to facilitate their excavating business. They have no concern for the detremental effect because-they are not living in this area. The trees in the area buffer the intense noise created by traffic on I -5 and its junction with 522 Foster interchange. This proposal would eliminate any dampening of the noise and severely impact the existing homes on the slope near MacAdam Road. The surcharging of the fill as porposed would alter current drainage patterns and force water to adjacent properties. As proposed it would also increase the hydralic effect of fill pressure and exude sediments which would flow to the ponds and creek below this area. The fill would alter the absorbtion of rain and increase the speed of water runoff from Westerly slopes and MacAdam Road. The general area is a habitat for numerous birds and animals. Birds us the trees and shrubs as mesting areas in the spring. Racoons and squirels are also evident in the area. This area is covered with trees, water plants and cattails. The creek has water cress and other bank plants. This proposal has no economic benefit to our community. At the completion, this proposal would create a permanent which would reduce values of all surrounding eyesore tuwo site uld also eliminate future potential for other more resuitable� development. In our submitted map you can review the relative location of the dump site relative to bordering properties. These other owners have unanimously joined in condeming thispermit. The aeals sent in to. SEPA Center from everyone completely surroundingathiseen location. Mr and Mrs Robinson, north of this location, have voiced their objections to the undersigned and wish to be included. In view of the above factors we do not feel the permit was addressed sufficiently as to our concerns. We request the King County Building and Land Development Unit reject this permit. Respectfully Submitted, Ray Vomenici 4822 S. 1382 Seattle, Wa. 98188 cc. King County Council Members: Gregg Nichols, Lois North King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400 �i Determination of Non - Significance Effective Determination Date: February 7, 1989 FILE: 3061 -33 Hunt Grading Proponent: Floyd R. Hunt for Floyd R. Hunt, Inc. 243 -7850 18122 40th Ave. Seattle, WA 98108 Proposal Description: A grading permit for 27,100 cubic yards of fill on 1.67 acres in the SR(Subur- ban Residential)zone. 5,100 cubic yards will be filled during the 1st year, with the balance through 1995. The site is in a Seismic hazard area. Location: About 200' northwest of S 138th St /Macadam Rd. intersection on the east side of the roadway. STR: NE /SE 15 -23 -04 Mitigation under SEPA for this proposal includes: 1. Hauling will be allowed only between the hours of 7AM to 7PM., except no trucks shall enter or leave the site prior to 1 hr after sunrise or after 1 hr before sunset. 2. The intersection of the proposed access road /McAsam Rd. will be cleared as needed to provide adequate sight distance per KC Road Standards. 3. Place the following covenant on this property: "The fill on this property may not be suitable for structural support. All future development on this site shall require thorough geotechnical review for soil bearing strength and foundation design." The Building and Land Development Division has determined that an environmen- tal impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C, WAC 197 -11, and KCC 20.44. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, other information on file at the Division's office, and mitigation proposed and /or required as part of this project. The proposal or required mitigation is now part of the proposed action. The conditions and /or agree- ments are deemed necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written comments or appeals will be accepted until February 22, 1989 Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON - REFUNDABLE $50.00 FILING FEE. N 00 P� g e 2 FILE: 3061 -33 Comments or appeals should be addressed to: King County Building and Land Development. Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Phone: (206) 296 -6662 PLEASE REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS WHEN CORRESPONDING. Responsible Official Yo"c--t LEGEND: NGPE = NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT BSBL = BUILDING SETBACK LINE KC BALD = KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 • 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 February 2, 1989 TO: Applicant /Agent FM: Ralph C. Colby, Supervisor RE: Required Posting of Property for Environmental Determination FILE: 3061 -33 Hunt Grading The County Environmental Procedures Ordinance requires the applicant to post notice of environmental determination or Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) availabitity on the proposal property. As applicant or agent for the above referenced proposal, it is your responsibility to post the enclosed notice on the proposal property in a minimum of three locations. THREE POSTERS MUST BE VISIBLE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THREE POSTERS MUST BE VISIBLE FROM PUBLICALLY DEDICATED STREETS. Call BALD SEPA Center if you need more posters to enable THREE posters to be seen from adjacent properties and THREE from public streets. You must post the enclosed posters no later than February 7, 1989. Failure to do so will invalidate the referenced environmental deter- mination. After posting the property, please sign the enclosed affidavit, describing where the property was posted. The affidavit must be notarized and then returned to the Division in a timely manner. Failure to do so may result in delays of subsequent permit review. You will be notified within 30 days of posting if an appeal is filed. If you have any questions about this procedure, please contact the SEPA Information Center, at 296 -6662. DF: sr Enclosure King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600 - 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 Determination of Non - Significance Effective Determination Date: January 31, 1989 FILE: 3061 -33 Hunt Grading Proponent: Floyd R. Hunt for Floyd R. Hunt, Inc. 243 -7850 18122 40th Ave. Seattle, WA 98108 Proposal Description: A grading permit for 27,100 cubic yards of fill on 1.67 acres in the SR(Subur- ban Residential)zone. 5,100 cubic yards will be filled during the 1st year, with the balance through 1995. The site is in a Seismic hazard area. Location: About 200' northwest of S 138th St /Macadam Rd. intersection on the east side of the roadway. STR: NE /SE 15 -23 -04 Mitigation under SEPA for this proposal includes: 1. Hauling will be allowed only between the hours of 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM. 2. The intersection of the proposed access road with McAsam Rd. will be cleared as needed to provide adequate sight distance as provided on the KC Road Standards. 3. Place the following covenant on this property: "The fill on this property may not be suitable for structural support. All future development on this site shall require thorough geotechnical review for soil bearing strength and foundation design." The Building and Land Development Division has determined that an environmen- tal impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C, WAC 197 -11, and KCC 20.44. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist, other information on file at the Division's office, and mitigation proposed and /or required as part of this project. The proposal or required mitigation is now part of the proposed action. The conditions and /or agree- ments are deemed necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Any interested party may submit written comments on this proposal. Written comments or appeals will be accepted until February 15, 1989 Any appeal shall state with specificity the reasons why the determination should be reversed. ALL APPEALS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON- REFUNDABLE $50.00 FILING FEE. (q0e1L, (At Page 2 FILE: 3061 -33 Comments or appeals should be addressed to: King County Building and Land Development Division 3600 - 136th Place SE Bellevue, WA 98006 ATTN: SEPA Center Phone: (206) 296 -6662 PLEASE REFERENCE FILE NUMBERS WHEN CORRESPONDING. Responsible Officjal LEGEND: NGPE = NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT BSBL = BUILDING SETBACK LINE KC BALD = KING COUNTY BUILDING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION C if-TO Washington3tate Department of Transportation District t 15325 S.E. 30th Place 3N: +ew�a. 'h'ashing:on 9803 -6568 (206)562.4000 SEPA Center Building and Land Development 3600 - 136th Place SE, Suite A Bellevue, WA 98006 Dear Sir: January 30, 1989 Duane aerentson • This letter is in response to the Determination of NonSignifi- cance reviews that we received from King County on January 30, 1989. The following is a list of developments that are remote to or have no adverse impacts upon any state highway in their vicinity: King County Description 3037 -35 3057 -23 89 -05 -AC ORD88 -622 43061 -33 C88 -0480 C88 -1650 Stuth Grading Carlson Fill High Park Water Tank Fence Ordinance Hunt Grading Salmon Creek Village Woodview Business Park SR No. 900 King Co. 90 King Co. 5 509 522 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Donald Hurter -(562 -4274) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562 -4297) of my Developer section. JAMES L. LUTZ, P.E. Utilities /Developer Engineer RE:cmi APPLICATION FOR GRADING PERMIT "WING & LAND DEVELOPMENT ,ION KING COUNTY, WASHING this block for staff use only GRADING FILE NO. 30 lo I -33 ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: )5 —14 Sec., T., R. :3A''j� �'% d �S - 773n -2 467 Zoning: 5i■ - z PROJECT NAME: PROJECT LOCATION: S 13 (Zr )crk. , .0, 4- 9 7W Nl nr' 4; Alf Received by :,��, Date: BONDS yes no amount Cash (Operating) ( ) ( ) $ Surety (Reclamation) (') ( ) $ Reclamation /State ( ) ( ) $ Insurance ( ) ( ) expires FEES Plans Review S.W.M. SEPA Sens. Area Surcharge Acreage yardage Surcharge yep no amount a (1) ( ) $ (,){ ( ) $ (v (v) $ �HQ.oD ( ) (✓f $ $ SUB TOTAL $ RJgHq, z3 ( ) ( ) $ () () $ TOTAL $ THIS APPLICATION PERMIT WHEN APPRO AND STAMPED. APPROVED subject to ;=?? -_:; approval attached ha supplemental sheet -_, : BUILDING & LAND DE KING COUNTY, WA. Date: I certify that the niched for this pe correct and I guara applicable King County . and operating conditions .pa/ be my respon}l .pil Oy dq174 ;violation thereof will be- :causd for code enforcement action, `'s na I fully understand that no work can continue beyond he expiration of this permit thout first ecuring a n, . pe ;e t. Date: / lovag .swelsv.~r 4T On I g APPLICANT: complete the following items only Total size in acres of site: 1.67 acres Total amount of material in cubic yards to be moved: 27100 c.y. Number of acres open and not rehabilitated during next 12 months: 0.57 • Cubic yards to be filled or excavated during next 12 months: 5100 c.v. Number of acres to be rehabilitated during next 12 months:. 0.57 If this permit is for work to be done in conjunction with any of the following, please check and note file number. Unclassified Use Permit Subdivision Planned Unit Development Shoreline Management Permit Building Permit APPLICANT ADDRESS: CITY /STATE /ZIP: • TELEPHONE: • • OWNER: • ADDRESS: CITY /STATE /ZIP: TELEPHONE: Floyd R. Hunt, Inc. 18122 40th Avenue Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 243 -7850 ( ) File It ( ) File # () File # ( ) File # ( ) File # Floyd R. & Doreen J. Hunt 18122 40th Avenue Seattle, WA 98108 (206) 243 -7850 - • Relationship of applicant to property: (X) owner (X) contractor ( ) lessee ( ) other F-200 • rev. 4/87 ••• • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • ••• • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • • • l A4 eOP .Y • OF PERMIT, CONDIT ION S•411Np SE '• OF•; •, • • ••• • • TIDE 'APPROVED PLANS MUST BE Oft' Tf1E SITE' • • • • • • • AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. •• • • ••• : • ol No. Epic File No. — S Fee $100.00 Receipt No. //, Z3, 6''b ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. br- ling County Executive Tim Hill ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: - This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agen- cies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best de- scription you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write 'do not know' or 'does not ap- ply'. Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning. shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. • The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal. even if you plan w do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional in- formation reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use'of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered 'does not apply.' IN AD- DITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words 'project,' 'applicant.' and 'property or site' should be read as 'proposal,' 'proposer,' and 'affected geographic area,' respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Grading of Lot 2 of King County Short Plat #179080 as recorded under Kiwi County recording #7908010940. 2. Name of applicant: Floyd R. Hunt Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 18122 40th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98108 - 243 -7850 (Floyd Hunt) 4. Date checklist prepared: November 15, 1988 5. Agency requesting checklist: King County. Building and Land Development Division. 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing. if applicable): Filling operations are to begin early 1939 and are anticipated in continuing until 1995. ••• • ••• • • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • 7. D4 yob Gave anj4.plaof, fbi' 'Ode additions. expansion, or further activity 'elated to or hnetted r'ith jhis proposal? If yet, eIpl'ain. ..1 '.' ..• '.' '.. ..:..: No. O ▪ OOOO .. • • .. • • • • • • b • • • • • • •• • • •• 1 •• • • •.. •• ..... .. .. •• • • • • r ..... .. •• • • •• (1983 La.$) SEPA Rules ' 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. No environmental information to my knowledge has been prepared or will be prepared directly relating to this proposal. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? if yes, explain. To our knowledge no applications are pending. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. King County Grading Permit. I F 11.4Give brief. complete description of your proposal. including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. 1ere 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 form to include additional specific infor- mation on project description.) The grading project involves a wooded 1.67 acre site containing a large depression. The depression will be used as a fill site for materials taken from trenching work . for utility companies. Fill materials will be added on a job by job basis throughout the life expectancy of the site until the entire depression has been filled. ofev-f".4 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your pro- posed 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 submittcd with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., on Lot 2 of King County Short Plat #179080 as recorded under Recording #7908010940. 'It is located at approximately 200' N.H. of South 138th Street and Macadam Road intersection on the east side of the roadway. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIR• O ••!MENL ELEMENTS ... TA• • . • • • ••• • Ea• • • • • • 8 • • • • I rth • • • •• • • • • • • • • • a. General descripiiatref the sine (circle one): Flat, rolling. hill y. steep slope.6)19 iuntainous, • • • ••• other • • • • • • • • • • . • • b. What i$ he tee(fest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? ApproX mattly 505'• 2 11913 Laird • • • • • • • • • .• *•• .• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • ••••• •• •• • • .. SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel. peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The existing soils on the site are a gravelly sandy loam containing small amounts of clay material. The site has not been used for agricultural purposes. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None to our knowledge. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading pro- posed. Indicate source of fill. Source of fill will be trench excavation from utility trench on other sites. The purpose of the filling is to level the depression and make the site usable. Approximately 27100 c.y. of material will be placed ultimately. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No significant erosion. The actual fill area is to be cleared leaving a natural puffer area at borders. Silt fence and other erosion control techniques will be used to control site erosion. The site is to be rehabilitated as filling progresses. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None predicted at this time. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan will be in place during entire operation. The plan will use silt fences in conjuction with the natural vegetation filters of the site, 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. Some dust during the summer may occur and smoke from construction equipment working as the fill is place will be present; however the amounts will be insignificant. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. ... • •e. . . . . . • • ... • • • c. Proposed • measures to r educe or•eontrol emissions or other impacts to air, if,alty; . • • . .. .. .. ..... ••• • • •• • • • None.. • • ... ... .. • ...... • • • • *SO • • • • • • • • • • • ..• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •• 3 • V • • 000 • • • • • • • • • • • 000 • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (1983 taws) SEPA Rules TO,BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is 'there any surface water budy 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. None to our knowledge or according to the available maps /sensitive area folios reviewed. EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. In- dicate the source of fill material. N /A. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general de- scription, 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. No. 2) Describe waste material that will bc discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containin¢ the following 'Clteroicals , :'.`. agrricufluraf;•ctc.). Describe thc general size of the systern, she nuunbcf: f •.: • •• . . . . . . . . . . • • s�uchsystcros,lhc aumbcr of houses to bc served (if applicable). or thc number of artimalss•or • • humans the systetr*(s) are expected to serve. ... ..• • • VIA', • ... •• • • ••• • .. •• .. • • • .. .••.• • •• •• • • • •• (1963 Laws) 4 •• • • •... • • •. .• •• • • • • • • • • • .. .•• • • • • •. SEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. Runoff will be from the actual fill site. Runoff will be filtered through the silt fence and pass through silt fence and a natural filter prior to leaving the site. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: No measures proposed at this time. 4. Plants a. Check or circle deciduous tree: evergreen tree: shrubs grass _ pasture _ crop or grain ••••• wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Those trees, shrubs and grasses within the fill area will be removed. Approximately 0.6 acres will be cleared.now and 1.34 acres during the projects life time. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. tation fou aspen, pine, other d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None proposed; however slopes will be hydroseeded and /or straw mulched for erosion control. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known tp•bq op or n ar tbe 4sitp • 4141. ; ; • bjrds: , hsrgrt, eaoglf, • on : birds other: • *mamma : dter, bear, elk. beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. b. Lisai y 'or endangered species known to be on or near the site. • • • •$• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • 4141 • • • 4141. . -4141 • 41410 4100 • •• .. • • • • • Ngae.... . 4141 5 .. • • 00* ••••• • • 4100 • 041 • • • •..•• 00 • • • .• • .' • (1983 Laws) 4IPSEPA Rules TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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, manu- facturing, etc. None. 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: None. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk• of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? ••. •None • ... . . . . ... . . • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • •.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • . .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 2) What types and•leveh of noise would be created by or associate with the project en a • • short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indi- cate.what hours poise would come from the site. • • • • •.. •• • • ..... •• $bg�d•CoOstrlt�tion noise associated with the site gradtjrg tgiI1: be :present during • .•• EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY bb era'tians;"however it will not be significa,Ctt. •• •. • •• (1983 Laws) nE COMPLETED BY APPUCANT • SEPA Rules 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Control of working hours during the day. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 1. Roadway and residences to west. 2. Fill site to north. 3. Single residence'to south and east. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? if so, describe. Not to our knowledge. 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? Suburban Residential (SR). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Highline Comunity Plan. 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. No to our knowledge. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? None. 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. rroposed measurei•to•eastee•the proposal is compatible with existing At nhectedaand•i• uses d� lans it an • • • ..al'.P a y' •• • • N /A. • ••• • ••• • •• • • ••••••• •••• •• ••••• • •• • • •.• • • • • • • • • • 7 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY • • • • • • • • • • • ••• ••• •• • • ••• •• ••••• •• •••••• • •• •• • • • •• • • • • • •• •• • • •• (1983 Laws) • SEPA Rules TO,lE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? indicate whether high, mid- dle, 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: N /A. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? N /A. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The present depression will become a graded site with pasture grasses instead of trees and shrubs. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Seed area during and after completion of operations. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? . c. What existing off —site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and 'glare impacts, if any: N /A. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N /A. • • ... • • • • . • • • . ••. • •. • .. . ... • .. • • • • .. . . . . .. • • • • • • . .41 • • • • • .. • • • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • .. • • • b. Would tie p'rb!osid prbjcct displace any existing recreational user lf s8, describe. • "' "' No. OOOOO .. ...... .. •• ... • .. ..... • .. •• • • •• (1 983 Laws) 8 • • • •.. •• .... .. ..... • • • ... • • .... .. • • • •• • SEPA Rules TO 8E- COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: N /A. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Not to our knowledge. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N /A. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N /A. 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 only roadway serving the site is Macadam Road. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? N /A. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e.: WjH the prpiect•ep ie; oFel}r in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail,.bt; air' iranspotta -' ;• tipn ?;If;so, generally describe� • . • . ' .. •• .. • .. ..... ... • .. • • • No. • .. f. How •nlard.yebicul3r ;trips per day would be generated by the completed firdjekt: W • known, 1ddic td v�jhen pegk volumes would occur. . • . . . . • • •• • • •• •• • • •• None. 9 (1983 Laws) ..arED BY APPLICANT g. ,Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacu, if any N /A. 1 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fir: pro- tection. police protection. health care. schools. other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services. if any. N /A. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities is eiephone. available at the site: electricity natural gas. ®6:fuse serv- 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. None. C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying nth ton make its decision. Signature: V`�'�`^ ". Date Submitted: (1.1.2?. 8 b ... • • • • • • • • • .. • • . EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE WILY . ., ... • • • • • • ••• • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ... • • ... • .. • ...... .. • .• ... .. 1•I•• • • ...... .. .. ... • .. ..... • .. .. • • .. .. .. .. .. .. .. • • SEPA TRANSMITTAL LIST FOR NOTICE TO AGENCIES AND CITIZIZEN GROUPS OF THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS AND DEIS AVAILABILITY - STANDARD LIST FOR SEPA SENT TO: 04 23 CG 15, NEWS 15, PLD 25 FILE #: 3061 -33 Hunt Grading AGENCIES FEDERAL: FE REGIONAL: RE Metro 04 Pgt Snd Air Plt Cntrl 03 X SUM THRESH CHECK SHEET DET LIST PLANS AGENCIES SHEET DET LIST PLANS SUM THRESH CHECK X X X STATE ST Transportn 01 X Ecology 02 X Fisheries 03 X Wildlife 04 X Natural Resources 05 X Arch & Historical Preservtn 08 X Parks and Recreatn 09 X KING CO: KC Parks Planning & Plan.& Comm. Develpt 05 Nat. Resouces & Parks 13 Housing & Econ. Develop. 15 Cultural ft Resources 16 Public Works Roads 12 SWM 06 Environmental Health 07 Public Safety Prcnt# 10 Resources X X X X X X X X KING CO: KC (cont.) NEIGHBORING PLANNING DEPTS: PLD 02;03;05;13;14;15;18;28;29 30;31;33;35;36 X 25 LIBRARY: LIB 40 X COMMUNITY GROUPS & AFFECTED TRIBES: CG CAL01,04,05,06 X CAL07,08,09,10 X i-5 MEDIA: NEWS NAL01,02,03,04 X & NAL05 UTILITIES & SERVICES Schools SCH Power Utility UT Water Sewer Fire UT WD SP FD SE Yy SECT /ON IS, if TOWNSHIP 23 M. BENCH MARK' TOP OF SANITARY SEWER MN .4T • /A/TERSECT /O1N OF S /38IN sr. s MACADAM 1 ROAD EL. /20.53; y�... , � :R'- �/ / / /-� / /'/ ///^^^CONTOUR LINES PROM • , � /�26'Z / j ....-1 / _ i /�AER /AL TOPOGRAPHY /TYP ICAL/ %i / / / i ./ i /// 1, /�6. • / /NS7gL 2 ROWS OF\. FILTER FABRIC-SILT FENCE AT TOP OF FILE l3YP /CALI• . CLEARING L /M /TS (TYPJ 2 ROWS OF Sit 7 FENCE THIS AREA CONSTRUCTION PAD WIDTHS 20: L Ma = SO' MIN SLIPPAGE WITH 12- MIN DEPTH _ •\ QUARRY ROCK. 2,4- MIN SIZE _ PAD TO MAINTAIN DLAP/NG ENT /RE GRADING OPERATION OPERA T /ON _ EX /ST/ NA TURA( • CE7A7 /= REMAIN. CT AS NATT IC TER ER.\ SECT /ON 'F -B" VICINITY MAP A-T.S:; - LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORT /ON OF THE N.E. % OF S.E. -. OF SECT /ON /5, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. MORE PART /CUL ARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS-. LOT 2 OF KING: COUNTY SHORT PLAT ' NO /79080. AS RECORDED UNDER - KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 79080/0940 NOTE. POST -TRUCKS'� \." • TURNING- SIGNS W AT LOCATIONS • SPECIFIED BY KING. COUNTY TRAFFIC.. . ENGINEER BOTH. . .. SIDES OF. HAUL ROAR 411,. kerb mates • 2'br a le G inn, Feria - ss . eeh. ,. . b Cs. tr. mem PLAN .. /'. 40' .SECTION EROSION /SEDIMENTATI ON' CONTROL NOTES • '.. ` ' (0, : Appmvaf d t is erodaV ^ teed (ESC) OdSdos not abnrtDie an appto4d psnmlra rind at dramas design (ap sti end location d made. Ome, nialric184A clmmaI;• - • tmfaraloe erJtlee. Wtes. ate). • .. • ;. • The trapammnadon ce theta ESC item and to oormwaloa nmYteirnoa. hnpfsesnrt.ma, and - - aktortI g d thee ESC hd2b'b to mp4U Tlb at We: a0d / unto d'camtmabn bappmored,. 4. .. .. no disturbance batubance beyond IM flagged dcearirg lines dma • p) • •Mbasdedes d the clearing Oman 1 EL 82 /i - be destruction.. t s& The ee a dal lararahed• 71r rya bs lama armedak for the drafts of • eamlentedlan .. EXISTING GROUND LINE . . SILT FENCE • (TYPICAL/ NOTE: .PROPERTY DIMENSIONS AND EX /STING CLWTOW INFORMATION FURN/SNED BY DRYCO COMPANY ' .. APRIL /988 AND CITY OF AXW /LA AERIAL. TOPOGRAPHY MAP PREPARED BY WALKER a , 'ASSOCIATES /NG 'CONSTRUCT /ON SCHEDULE SECT /ON 'A =A ' : SCALE- HOR /Z 1- • 20: •ESEEDING EROS/ON CONTROL "II REOWER ET r • • • FAST f T L E 4 / APPROPRIATE • RATE %%ERE STRAW ML 0-1 FOR TEMPORARY Lew. ion/ CO.NIROL /S REEOU/RtD, IT SHALL BE-APPLIED AT A MM/MOON THICKNESS OF TWO /AG/ 4 -. L FLAG AREA FOR CLEARING 2. CLEAR AREA FOR FILL AMP INSTALL ALL SILT FENCES AT PER /AFTER .. 3. INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCT /ON PAD 4. POST ALL SIGNS .1 PLACE FILL - (r) The ESC Mmes shown an 4161 plan mast be.eonhWed en coriu :don we, d ceding and •• griang acavtles. taxi dmampe 4' 14a ea app natter ( 991 T: 00 .� to insure ihat.aarlanixtladan war does nal enter (Si • • The ESC mean an live pen are theidenlimm requee • eras to smite emd de sedition • • During t e mmmnedlon period. these ESC fears shoe be upgraded (a4- Malone' stamps • ,. Momten al decks and e0 farces es4 asneedd for ui spaded Sono events ((CC 9.OL090. m . . - W The ESC ladles SWIM budeded MAY by 81•4880,2"11- 1•48p0aara /cofactor and nmaadW 12 'mess". - to rare then continued functioning O(CC 904.090 82).. - .. • . V) My area stewed d veostsaoa bdtd ng roadway wnhrdenrs.' wham no hraer work Is endepdmd far a prod of IS days. dab be Immediately stabled eddy approved-ESC methods . • .(e.g. seeding. 'teddy. noting, emend blankets. Se) 5=31.090). • . . (13■• Any mss needing ESC nears. met 6144828 emendate attantler2. eel be adarssnl wWn Steen - - (t2) claw. . - . • . p).. tie ESC bade col Yeahn ales shat be In ei4ed ed nm2aabed a minimum d ones • malt or . •.wtlin to 48 BOUMelleibq a ram OWL- .. , '(10) gsp�sd oammtaen reeds and wash pads dell h. bmdad'at tie beginning d ooea+alan and md+eled fat the duaten d to mom Ad08brd measure may be reseed toles,. the d paved areas are lase den lam the Medan d the laciest (RCN 4851.665). - 1 . . ..0 25 - .. 50 . - - 100 TOTAL SITE AREA: `.%67 ACRES AREA . OPENED :. 24 .7 0 0 s . f. 10.57 AREA-REHABILITATED.' 0.57 Ac. QUANTIT /ES: - E M B A N K M E N T • 5/00 c.y. 8 ED OR FILLING STRAW CH AL EXPOSED FILL SLOPES. IMMEDIATELY Crewing Ng Date. Revision App'd .By Designed By Noriz: ;'AS SHOWN:..: •SC.te. John .Re= .Newell' Inc. P.S. 231 •WIlllems• Avenue. South; Renton ;, Washington - 98055 • -Phone.. 255- 2190, OWNER"-. FL O YD R. HUNT, /NC. /8/22 40TH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA. 98/08 .. ... / 806 / 543 -7850 . 8807/5 95 . - Ez 7070.3' BENCHMARK. TOP OF SAN /TARP SEWER Mfr 4T /NTERSECT /ON OF S. /38TN ST. '6 MACADAM • ROAD EL. /20.53 - i � j / // ........2. / iit. 1�� i- � .j • /. 1777 1 ////F ,$ � / is .. / / .. CLQ4RNG L I lN TS 60 .. / _ / / . j� AB / / J // • / / ITYP 1 /CAL/ \' j / � SILT FENCE. \' � _ A N138.27'57"W: j. \ .�. WI, NityawararannagiMit, Neitrammilminunfrwall bilit PROPOSED F/LL• e 'ICAO. r •7VkII, S/LTFFjv:�E/TYF/C:.L/ - V /C /N /TY . N.T.S. SECT /ON •'B =e" ..SCALE ' HOR /L I' = 20' 6 R.O.W. NOTE: - POST -TRUCKS TURNING' SIGNS A T LOCA T/OA6' SPECIFIED BY KING COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEER BOTH SIDES OF HAUL ROAD • Fine. Matt lal 76' elb.r.11.. ' Use staple or wire slap to ethos lawle le. else - TbyTtolAGa.WIn Fabric at ear.. 'Filter Feria material LEGAL :DESCRIPTION.: THAT- PORT /ON OF THE N..E 4- OF SE. 4 OF SECT /ON /5, TOWNSH /P 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WM. MORE PART /CUL_ ARYDESCR /BED AS FOLLOWS:'-: LOT 2 OF KING COUNTY SHORT.PLAT NO. /79080. AS RECORDED UNDER . • • k/,YC COUNTY RECORDING NO. 7908010940 EL. /00--? /' = 40 - maleeiet in T by IT boob 1 S. LF re by ' . tots. ert. re alternate Weal hesp pmts. .. Pnwl - lyy' -e. . wears gravel • bamllll -a Iwo . wine el filter, • Hap 8" PROPOSED F/' G SILT FENCE •DETAIL LE'X /STING GROUND SLOPE /T%P./. '- EROSIOWSEDIMENTAT ION CONTROL NOTES - . • • ' (Q', Appad ddb ...b./.887088' mod (ESC) del doss net mn8We iegpor d.. -. prllwt and r 0.1.9. deer (04 m 88 Imam d stns., dpe0. le btOcn, dr8MS. . 7010.0. Aedel00. ta00700. c4. r ' (.' - . PI . 18. 0dalllataamn d der ESC plow end Ted 0.7rn880.. Mal bsstoe wdia ken. std - Ipped70 d dose ESC betake a to rapoolttty d de apolud /mruetce 40 d =oleo: on - ,eeppord p. lie baeNanae d to davetg 8r0 sham. +p a on der plot W d to duty segued In the sob Oar b. • . parmNOn Dane to 8rmocdm penal. no dleuar88 beyond Me egged dewing Imes end • be p0770d -io amens shat be imitated by No eowerto t4 Noe *newt d ' • Ilk- me ESC 70818 Yowl en des den mwa be constructed In maiatmar W n r d88 rd yepp ad•Ales and In wee a meno as tot aunt MO raiment laden was dose std one the : eakrpa even a saes apdtade war detded0. • MC 9.04020 M KCBS 7.09 D} p 11.880 7081.. 8.771 m see p .t re ee .7+1778. 70417.7870 88 udddlso m 70740.ia Deetg In l ado. at prbd der ESC 8788 .ltd 88 weeded (0.g. 88148 eu.p0. .. lelor�m d dtrJr .d at 4wce0. eel as need 88 trammel .Irmo ew.et 5(880.0e.093. _ : 188 ESC 1(808 std bee 188 defy by lea 887781/mmbad4 ed ..880 td et 4cessry -. b errs. Net mtoer0 eetNa17p g7CC gDt0. Da.. ,_ 719. awe mkpad d vead4e Ilaoa7 N 14800.1 amb banbe. Mee ro WUr wart M . dp8814 0 period d IS 0050. env 1(a e.IrdYtdy letmd waI d..7y80 d ESC 0.87041 eeadkY 788* mato onsbn 88170.. .e) %CRS 7.0913. . 0.r neat ESC mrs.0. tot mane Inamdeie ream. end to addnesmd +nrim«n- : 8.517 ESC twat n m eudae stet aloe be expected and ne5147 0 a M177an d me 8 Moab 6 Ned ad tows toaa+n70 • 8870 w.0. ' t .td 8814adetde&memd o posted. armee may be b - ' paved ear we keel der be No casse7 d to p rayed. O W MA1.d0y.. . NOTE.: feoeferry D /NEwsioNs ANT Ex srinc ccwroce INFORMATION FTRN /SLED BY ORYCO COMPANY - APRIL /988 AND CITY OF TUKWILA AERIAL . TOPOGRAPHY MAP PREPARED BY WALKER A ASS9CIA TES /AC: wow SEEDING FOR TEMPORARY EROSION CQYTRGL /s 980(88E4 FAST GERNIArT!A0 GRASSES SHALL 8 APPLIED AT AN AFP8MR /ATE RATE . METE STRAW MULCH FOR TEMPORARY EROS /08 CONTROL /S REOD /REM /T WALL BE APPLIED AT A YEN /Aa1V - THICATESS OF TWO /ACHES SECT /ON. 'A -A" • ' CONSTRUCTION. SCHEDULE I. FLAG AREA FOR CLEARING 2. CLEAR AREA FOR F /LL AND INSTALL ALL SILT-FENCES AT PERNETER . . .1 INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCT /ON PAD 4. POST ALL SIGNS • 5 PLACE FILL • 6. HYDRO -SEED OR STRAW MULCH ALL EXPOSED F /LL SLOPES /AefED /ATELY AS FILLING PROGRESSES . 40' TOTAL SITE AREA: '/.67 Acres AREA OPENED.:. " " "' /.57 Acres AREA REHAB /L /TA TED: 1.57 Acres. • 27/00 c y. Date Revision app•d By Designed By. ✓.N Approved, By. Drawn By S.RN. Dete, Novi:. AS SHOWN Ci1e Vert. AS SHOWN • John R. Newell Inc: 231 Williams Aven• South. Renton -. Washington ' 98055 :FINAL GRAD /NG PLAN OWNER.' FL O YD R. HUNT /8/22 40TH AVENUE SEATTLE, WA:` 98/08. / 206 1243 -7850` - - Droving .712 88//23 SIN.{- _ � � OI � (.,•