Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-16-89 - BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS - WHITCO PROPERTYWHITCO SHORT PLAT S. 115T" ST. & EAST MARGINAL WAY EPIC -16 -89 BUSH, ROE& HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206/323-4144 Fax 206/323-7135 June 5, 1990 Darrin Wilson -- Associate Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Re: Elmer White Property Permit No. EPIC -16 -89 BRH# 89005 Dear Mr. Wilson: This is to notify the City of Tukwila that Mr. White does wish to continue the processing of his grade and fill permit under the above number. He has recently contacted the Ferris Company of Bellevue to be the lead for the Environmental Impact Statement requested by the City. A brief summary of the scope of the EIS has been discussed with Ferris Company Staff. It is our understanding that the Ferris Company staff will contact the City to verify scope requirements and initiate documents to establish the EIS contract. We look forward to working with the City of Tukwila on this document. Should you have any questions or require further information please call. Sincerely, 1 Robert W. O'Connell Jr,, PE cc. Elmer White, Allentown Associates Milt. Smith, Carney, Stephenson, Hadley, Smith, and Spellman Leslie Lloyd, The Ferris Company CIVIL ENGINEERS / LAND SURVEYORS February 13, 1990 Whitco Properties EPIC- 16 -89 Mitigation Determination of Significance SEPA Conditions: 1. Based upon the applicant's Environmental Checklist and Soils report, dated May 24, 1989, prepared by Bush, Roed & Hitching, Inc., Our office issued a determination of significance dated August 28, 1989. The applicant has requested an appeal to the discussion. The City Council conducted a public hearing on January 5, 1990 because the subject property is effected by the recent moratorium. The City Council justifiably raised the following SEPA concerns: A. The handling of future scuffing of the rock. B. Noise from specific alternatives of rock removal. C. Archeological study- fossils are present. letki it- 2. On January 22, 1990, the City Council approved the moratorium waiv' er f r o SEPA onlT —IIT ject to: A. The signing agreement prepared by the City Attorney. B. The installation of a temporary security fence. • Traff. issues :1J�'� A. Provide proof of access for eas nt ingress /egress from East Marginal Way. B . Prov±de—aFternattve access"tf ea'semen't—is- not— ganted-. -..or Page Two Whitco Properties .-C- the -pr maryaccess �is- from South-115th/`East Marginal Way a- traffic will be required: = D . _ Provide =tr-af fc impact=s�-fo-r-= either access. 4. Methods to stabilize the rock: A. Explain the type of tactics that will be applied and their short and long term effects. 5. Department of Ecology concerns based on the Shannon & Wilson soils report dated, May 4, 1989,and Dames & Moore review dated, November 14, 1989 are as follows: A. Identify the location of the petroleum contaminated soils. B. Verify the levels of contamination with test methods acceptable to Ecology. The TLC method is accepted by Ecology only as a screening method for petroleum contamination of soils. Methods acceptable for determining levels include Method 418.3 for heavier oils and method 8015, modified, for gasolines and lighter fuels. C. Determine whether the site has contaminated waters of the state should there appear to be significant levels of contamination at the site in close proximity to groundwater. RCW 90.48.020 defines underground waters as water of the state. D. The placement of fill over the contamination is not an "approved method of containment." In some cases, Ecology has allowed soils contaminated with petroleum above current cleanup guidelines if the contaminant is shown to be immobile and the area is covered by asphalt, concrete or other . relatively impervious material. Decisions for leaving contaminants on site made on a case -by -case basis and only when the full nature and extent of the contamination has been determined. E. If there will be any washing or cushing of rock on site, the facility will need some means of preventing rock dust from entering creeks and catch basins. If this is done through installation of a lagoon or wash pits, the facility will need a State Waste Discharge permit issued by Ecology under Chapter 173 -216 WAC. Page Three Whitco Properties F. If the site will be discharging any waste water to any storm drain or surface water, they will need a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Chapter 173 -220 Wac. G. If such a permit will be needed, the proponent must submit a permit application no less than 180 days prior to the start of operations. WAC 173 -220 prohibits any discharge to surface waters unless a permit has been issued. All of the above comments are based on the City of Tukwila DCD, the Department of Ecology, Dames & Moore and all materials submitted by the applicant. Unless all of the above concerns can be clearly demonstrated and meets the satisfaction of departments, the SEPA determination on August 28, 1989 will remain the same. CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Director STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350 -150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052 -5301 • (206) 867 -700 0 FEB B 1 21390 i. February 9, 1990 I h Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: WHITCO Properties Dear Mr. Beeler: This is in response to Darren Wilson's letter of January 31, 1990 regarding the additional information submitted by Mr. O'Connell on the subject property. Ecology concurs with the recommendations of Dames & Moore regarding the contamination on site. We believe that the applicant should: a. Identify the location of the petroleum contaminated soils. The additional material I received did not contain a site plan showing the location of the borings. b. Verify the levels of contamination with test methods acceptable to Ecology. The TLC method is accepted by Ecology only as a screening method for petroleum contamination of soils. Methods acceptable for determining levels include Method 418.3 for heavier oils and method 8015, modified, for gasolines and lighter fuels. c. determine whether the site has contaminated waters of the state should there appear to be significant levels of contamination at the site in close proximity to groundwater. RCW 90.48.020 defines underground waters as waters of the state. The placement of fill over the contamination is not an "approved method of containment." In some cases, Ecology has allowed soils contaminated with petroleum above current cleanup guidelines if the contaminant is shown to be immobile and the area is covered by asphalt, concrete or other relatively impervious material. Decisions for leaving contaminants on site made on a case -by -case basis and only when the full nature and extent of the contamination has been determined. Mr. Rick Beeler RE: WHITCO Properties February 9, 1990 page 2 During the first review, we did not understand the extent of the rock mining operation proposed. If this facility will be doing any washing or crushing on site, the facility will need some means of preventing rock dust from entering creeks and catch basins. If this is done through installation of a lagoon or wash pits, the facility will need a State Waste Discharge permit issued by Ecology under Chapter 173 -216 WAC. If the site will be discharging any waste waters to any storm drain or surface water, they will need a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Chapter 173 -220 WAC. If such a permit will be needed, the proponent must submit a permit application no less than 180 days prior to the start of operations. WAC 173 -220 prohibits any discharge to surface waters unless a permit has been issued. If you have any questions, please contact me at 867 -7023. Sincerely, Dan Cargill Unit Leader, Urban Bay Action Teams Department of Ecology, NWRO DRC/dc cc: Darren Wilson Barbara Ritchie, Olympia CITY OF T UKWILA 62nd SOUTHC ENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA. WASHLVGTON 98188 January 31, 1990 Dan Cargill Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section 4350 150th Avenue N.E. Redmond, Wa. 98052 PHONE #12061,133-1800 Gary L. VanDusrn. Mayor RE: WHITCO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT S. 115TH STREET & EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH Dear Mr. Cargill:. We would appreciate it if you would review some additional information submitted by Robert O'Connell Jr. /Whitco Properties (EPIC- 16 -89). On November 6, 1989, I forwarded this same information to Barbara Ritchie, in the Olympia office. She indicated that all information was given to your office. Please submit your comments in writing by February 9, 1990. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 433 -1845. Thank You Darren `Wilson Assistant Planner cc: R. Beeler, DCD Director J. Colgrove, City Attorney Attachments: * Shannon & Wilson, Inc. report w /map page * Dames & Moore report * Department of Ecology written response dated 9 -13 -89 • • Subject .41. Alta c z3 From Speed Message Date Jepk\ z, loscoc4--rekAeon e ria\sa- , •+. Wilson Jones GRAVURE FORM 44-900 2-PART c.1993 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. Signed 483 9 4 0//9/f?, 7406,-/-Ape 7 Adiet) 6. //5 57 Q &FFk� ,ev,a).7q C ,eiFFu ors eiw Too 94,.s,Un pk, a Arm . tie C� DAB -, sy , 7), Adv .4:,/i, 1 _ R4,r o ,mod e,:e›,..... .,e...)44.w.,-, Lcmclu5 /r/» o Na') 4 ss o. 5, /45--61',5./ 6/ Ge ,39/c Z "S.4I> „ ° >97We av �J.41,/dam .0e--.Tied Z } ' // ' A!/e Zlu& /9lex177e ,Ci ,fit/ e js ♦ Q' 94 Pie g1Z-547a� 5 O 3474,b10‘15 oc o Roc, k.. 14) 4Cce$S O.c; S. / /S" -56 CD CO /foe ,k J/4V - �/So J I S/ m /ezi L774y, C 5. //.6-'1-6,5-1, f T /io �� 2 4%G 0 uNk,aa 04e2 L Q e, 5 P - -- -- 1 To i AAtvr0 • • Subject Speed Message From �. \ 1NA SC (4)0 1 R WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART c1983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. 483 WALLACE ENTERPRISES aka WHITCO P. 0. Box 3767 Seattle, Washington 98124 January 5, 1990 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Whitco Property Moratorium Waiver Petition Dear Ms. Anderson: We have reviewed the provisions and conditions of City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1550 and based on the intent of this ordinance Mr. Elmer J. White, Sr. of Wallace Enter- prises, owner of that property, commonly known as the Whitco property, subject of Grading Permit Application EPIC- 16 -89, petitions the City Council of Tukwila to grant a waiver and exception to the development moratorium established by City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1544. This exception and waiver is requested under Ordinance No. 1550, Section 3, adding a new subparagraph E to Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1544. The subject property is a 10.3 +/- acre parcel of land lying between South 112th and 115th Street right -of- ways, west of C.D. Hillman's Meadow Gardens Addition and east of the ,Seattle City Light Right -of -Way (formerly the Seattle- Tacoma Interurban Right -of -Way). This parcel is zoned MH. A grading permit for this parcel was applied for through King County on May 12, 1988. King County processed and reviewed the permit and had determined in February of 1989 that subject to final review, approval of the permit to grade and fill this site could be granted. It was at this time that jurisdiction of the permit passed from King County to the City of Tukwila (official transfer date March 31, 1989). Per instruction and with help from both city and county officials, the grading permit file and application was formally given to the City of Tukwila for processing on April 26, 1989. The permit application was processed and reviewed by City staff and was within two weeks of com- pletion when the City took the moratorium action of Ordinance No. 1544. It should be noted that extensive efforts had been made to mitigate City of Tukwila SEPA and Environmental • Ms. Maxine Anderson City of Tukwila January 5, 1990 Page two Concerns during the permit process. We understood these mitigations were leading to a recommendation of approval at the time of the moratorium. This petition is requested for the following reasons: 1 While Mr. White's property does have topographic features that may come within the definition of Paragraph C of City Ordinance No. 1544 for slopes steeper than 15%, these slopes are rock faces. It had been the intent to grade these slopes to remove hazardous and loose frac- tured rocks to stabilize slopes-in conjunction with both owner and City soils consultant findings. The grading was meant to provide a safe and level area below the slopes on which to develop an office and warehouse site in accordance with current zoning. There has been no application made to the City or County to develop on or above the existing or stabilized slope areas. It is our belief that this slope stabilization is consistent with Paragraph G of City Ordinance No. 1550 and in the best interest of the citizens of Tukwila. Excavation will be conducted in accordance with the excavation plan drawings submitted. Excavation will occur entirely on the Whitco property and will not affect neighboring prop- erties. 2. This grading and any subsequent development proposals have met and will comply with all SEPA and ordinance conditions of the City of Tukwila and therefore not im- pair environmental quality. 3. That as noted in the brief recap of events above, we have suffered significant hardship and delay to obtain this permit. The delay has been due to conditions total- ly beyond our control and has caused many thousands of dollars of additional expense to get as close to permit approval as we were prior to the moratorium. If this waiver is not granted, we will be subject to considerably more financial hardship from increasing development costs, lost revenues, and potential liability by those trespassers who regularly vandalize this property with motorized vehicles. 4. That by allowing this development to proceed, the City of Tukwila will benefit by the following measures: A Ms. Maxine Anderson City of Tukwila January 5, 1990 Page three a. dedication of river bank area to the City for river bank stabilization and recreation, b. improvements to utilize in the area, and c. an increased tax base. Based on all the above, we feel that in the best in- terest of the City and citizens of Tukwila an exception and waiver to City of Tukwila Ordinance No. 1544 should be grant- ed. We seek the earliest hearing and consideration of this petition. Please advise us if we will be scheduled on the agenda for the City Council meeting on Monday, January 8, or some other date. Sincerely, • Elmer J. White, Sr. for Wallace Enterprises aka Whitco 1001 TO: FROM: DATE: a DAMES Si. MOORE PP.Orh:- 4:0ti.ai _ 50 M.AP,b;ET PLACE TOWER. 2025 Fift ..'r A:'FNt /11, SEA.1f[ ,}o.-i10$t it t.) 17,11+x? (2O') 7726-0744 arrfM NOV 141989 DIY C- Unt.,`u n1...= PLANNING ;E==T. FAX #: 43-Thi NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING COVER SHEET): CHARGE INFORMATION: P 4- 06 S3 3 037- /6.&Y TELECOPIER NUMBER: "(206) 448 -7994 PHONE NUMBER: (206) 728 -0744 PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THE TELECOPY IF UNSATISFACTORY. THANK YOU!!! / VR. aiOOW /S?WYU 1766L 914 90Z .V. 1417:ZT �����►�!: • .4-#A DAMES & MOORE ;.1,i'P,RTN1'RNIIIr' 500 MARKET 1'LA .L I UW F.K., LiiLti i tR :-T .' V)-j:11F, SEAT1 LE, ' 'n111NiiTON 9,3111 11(8) 7.8.0744 November 14, 1989 City of Tukwila 6200 Sautheentei Daulevaid Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Beeler Report Addendum Geotechnical and Environmental Consultation Proposed Mobile Crane Storage Facility Whitco Properties aNkwila inshin ttort Dear Mr. Beeler: This report is an addendum to our original October 19, 1989 report regarding the Mobile Crane Storage Facility proposed by Whitco Properties, to be located In tl t vicinity of south 115th Street and East Marginal Way. This addendum, requested by the City of Tukwila, supplements and modifies our original report based on additional information provided by the applicant. On November 3, 1989, W. Martin McCabe and Ken Fellows of Dames & Moore met with City of Tukwila personnel and the applicant, along with the applicant's consultants and counsel. At this meeting, a report by Shannon & Wilson Inc. entitled "Environmental Audit - Site at South 115th Street near 38th Avenue South (Extended)" dated May 4, 1988 wits presented by the applicant. The report had not previously been available to Dames & Moore. Based upon discussions at the November 3, 1989 meeting and on our review of the Shannon & Wilson environmental audit, we present the following revised conclusions and recommendations. GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS During the November 3, 1989 meeting, the applicant stated that the rock slopes created during site development activities would be no steeper than that recommended by DA R ES & MOORE A I'ii ;SIl7Vn!_ LIMITED l'Atl'l NI:I2511I1' City of Tukwila November 14, 1989 Page 2 Shannon & Wilson (i.e. 0.3 horizontal to 1 vertical), and that future versions of the grading plan would reflect this intent. With this assurance and the soils information presented in the environmental audit, our previous concerns are considered to be adequately addressed by the applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Dames & Moore previously expressed concerns about the unidentified locations of the borings and the lack of chemical analyses of soil samples from the borings for total petroleum hydrocarbons. These are addressed by the May 4, 1988 report, However, we agree with Shannon & Wilson's conclusion that the audit "does not warrant that no hazardous or solid waste is present at the site." Dames & Moore stands by its original assessment that ground water could migrate relatively rapidly in the geologic materials present at the site. The ground -water flow is probably not uniform spatially, 1) The audit showed levels of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) of up to 250 ppm (boring B -4). This exceeds the recommended cleanup level of 200 ppm established by the Washington Department of Ecology as a guideline. 2) Soil with 50 ppm total petroleum hydrocarbons was observed in boring B -6 at a depth of 7.5 ft. The reported depth w ground water was 5.0 ft. While the soil TPH concentration is below the 200 ppm cleanup level established by WDOE, the identification of this Concentration of hydrocarbons below the observed static ground- water level raises some questions which should be addressed by the applicant, These questions are: a) What is the source of this contamination? Given a probable ground -water flow direction from north to south, boring B -6 is up- gradient from the only source of contamination so far identified (boring B -4), b) Are there one or more additional sources of petroleum hydrocarbons on the property? No surface contamination was identified at boring B -6, indicating possible contaminant migration from one or more additional source areas. c) How did hydrocarbon contamination reach this subsurface location? Migration of contaminated ground water is a potential mechanism, The cleanup Ievel established by Ecology for total petroleum hydrocarbons in ground water is 15 ppm. • City of Tukwila November 14, 1989 Page 3 DA ES & MOORE • A I'll:. ?h't5 'I ?NAI. LIMITEI? I'AR 1'NL-'I M K' 3) The Shannon & Wilson report does not describe the procedures used by field and analytical personnel for taking samples nor for analysis of TPH. Improper sampling and analytical procedures could result in the loss of volatile compounds from the samples, thus indicating lower TPH concentrations than are actually present in soils at the property. Dames & Moore concurs with the November 3 agreement to forward the results of the audit to the Department of Ecology for a decision regarding the necessity and scope of remedial action at the site. Dames & Moore further recommends that the City request the applicant address the questions identified in Item 2, sample ground water in the area of boring B-6 and analyze for TPH, and provide information regarding sample handing and analytical procedures. We thank you for the opportunity to be'of continued assistance on this project. Please contact us if questions should arise regarding the contents of tnas report. 003( - )005 \tuckadd Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE Ilarlians L. Chabra, P.E. Associate /Principal Engineer &kik D.`9�l,ulll,cia Senior Environmental Engineer W. Martin McCabe Project Engineer CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 6, 1989 Barbara J. Ritchie Department of Ecology Environment Review Section Central Operations Program Campus Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, Wa. 98504 -8711 PHONE #12061 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor RE: WHITCO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT S. 115TH STREET & EAST MARGINAL WAY Dear Ms. Ritchie: We would appreciate it if you would review some additional information submitted by Robert O'Connell Jr. /Whitco Properties (EPIC- 16 -89). Please submit your comments in writing by November 28, 1989. Should you have any questions, please contact Darren Wilson at 433 -1845. Thank You Rick Beeler. DCD Director Attachment : * Shannon & Wilson, Inc. report w /map page * Dames & Moore report * Department of Ecology written response dated 9 -13 -89 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Cou FROM: Rick Beeler, DCD) DATE: November 6, 1989 SUBJECT: Whitco Development on S. 115th St near East Marginal Way. Last Monday night citizens from the Allentown area complained about this proposed development. You may recall that concern was expressed about truck traffic being banned on S. 115th St. and possible truck traffic from the proposal using that street. Concern was also expressed about blasting of the existing hillside in order to excavate for the proposal. Whitco wants to excavate the northwest portion of "Proverty Hill" which is now undeveloped but was once used as a gravel pit. Whitco wants to eventually develop the M -2 zoned property into a business park, preparation for which is the site grading. King County did not complete processing of the permit for this development prior to annexation. After we received the grading permit application we required an environmental impact statement (EIS), principally because of traffic and blasting impacts. Whitco appealed our decision. The hearing on the appeal is pending analysis of additional soils information. Blasting will not occur on the property, according to Whitco. Soils information is being evaluated by our own independent geotechnical consultant. Traffic to and from the property is to be from the northwest at East Marginal Way over a Seattle Water Department easement. Equipment now on the property is only for cleaning up the accumulated debris, garbage, tires, etc. Fencing of the property is occurring to secure the property from anymore garbage being deposited on the site and to prevent 4 -wheel drive vehicles from continuing to deteriorate the exposed slopes. This fence requires no permit. Future permits are Board of Architecture Review and building permits. • 1 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanOusen, Mayor TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM T lla, Wi , 9 /b8 M a.L/ih 70 t Pivte at, 10 41 /40 9 On 5- .9 . • (10 /T2.MEMO) REJEST FOR ACTION 8 • Engineering PUBLIC WORKS • Utilities yC DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PARKS /RECREATION FIRE POLICE OTHER: REQUEST w� � i< RDATE EPORTED: /G /-fi06-61 VISITOR CITY EMPLOYEE REPORTING PERSON ) i f C\ / OT SUGGESTION/HAZARD: C_/ 7t - /a J J % RESIDENT KWI A ADDRESS: � J,j f� L 'w U /V -- 7 �NUMBER:�C0 �c R / T CONTACT' ' YES ON AC PUBLIC EMPLOYEE n NATURE OF REPORT: SAFETY NUISANCE SAFETY �C� OTHER: �W l 1 �C? j/ DESCRIBE }. �v J I/ ',1, `L LOCATION: COtL Ga_. /i1- Gt.' 17..1 d vl r / / / / .� t- ;ji e (pc( fn'( aS 6 - DESCRIBE HAZARD/ PROBLEM IN DETAIL: 4 ) ,,,{'F,n'( -•e c ' r 11 ( ( «•'.-+tJ . , 1 f 2 & - (7' -'! [: 0C• C7442" C (` /jr(/ �"/� d j 5 /•cF,�,{ D.dt —III c Ai o r/ 0 d <lJ — (c it P r n ,6'� d 6dcLt let e4. -7 PA -- -7a . A- LSO .^Jo- 1(Fr -/ //I'7 f'/?. /opt) k f1`n e'c., 4-((.)4 S, /(-i: h.` 762 2? 4-7 REQUEST FOR ACTION.-- ?,, TAKEN BY: VOA -/1/4A/ r • f L• % I c.•6,4 -j DEPARTMENT: 1._. .. .. .. ACTION (to be completed by responding City department) DATE RECEIVED: (0 WHAT CORRECTIVE MEASURES WERE TAKEN OR ASSISTANCE GIVEN? (IF NONE, EXPLAIN.) 1.11 E,iD 4/40layii az -t'u't-co - .e COMMENTS: FQ ., vilizz[.J I iota, 1 d LAd cti..0 a./ i ,s—.t 4 V- _ ,c) .id L 1.f . J ....1.-.0.1 .. _ . -1411../ ari A / i.4 r.AI L ..e , L1 i ,iLc, &c, A9c.c,6 0;1, r//)1 Ad )1 � : 9. BY: aCiiLtlraa DATE: phi) 87 'J. MAYOR'S OFFICE I DATE [RECEIVED: COMMENTS: BY: %' to 118 Otte ti � • 11 lQ p I! • �%r .: ��• $ • •r 'i%w i . +• .aw.:. . +� November 1, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa 98188 RE: City Council Meeting of October 23, 1989 Property on S. 115th Street near East marginal Way Dear Mr. Beeler: • ;! i � 1\ \' 1P \tiOVG 1989 • I have recently reviewed the official minutes of the above noted Committee of the Whole. While reading the comments of City residents concerning potential development of our property, I noticed that the most consistent comment was about the potential of increased truck traffic in the neighborhood. There was also concern by one of the neighbors about blasting. We appreciate these comments but feel they could have been better addressed in your response to the Council because: 1. We have not presented plans nor do we intend to route truck traffic east or south of our property through the Allentown neighborhoods. There is currently in place a moratorium prohibiting truck traffic from using South 115th Street and 42nd Avenue South as a route of connection from South 122nd Street to East Marginal Way. According to Ron Cameron of the City of Tukwila, truck traffic is allowed east and west along South 115th Street for access to and exiting from the industrial zoned property on the north side of South 115th Street. 2. In conjuction with City comments and concerns, we are willing to discuss dedication of our land on the south side of South 115th Street abutting the Duwamish in order to assure river bank stabilization in exchange for an easement on a small part of the dedicated property. 3. Blasting is not proposed as a method of site grading. 4. The security fence was exempted from Shoreline Permit requirements when the extent of fencing was reduced to lower the cost to a point that did not necessitate a permit but would still protect the property from motorized vandals and illegal garbage dumping. We have attempted, since completing preparation for the fence, to clean the site and are not preforming any grading for development. Page 1 of 2 Mr. Rick Beeler November 1, 1989 Page 2 of 2 I would also like to note that, prior to the change of jurisdiction from County to City, we had addressed the County's concerns regarding blasting and site access which was leading to a final review of our Grading Permit application with a recommendation to approve. Since transfer of the application to Tukwila, we have proposed even greater mitigation measures to assure a development that compliments the neighborhood and City of Tukwila. Based upon the foregoing, we see no need for the City of Tukwila to require an Environmental Impact Statement regarding our use of our property. We hope this information assists you in formulating your response to the Council. Sincerely, ahwv Elmer J. White CITY' TCTKWILA • FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: :\h rJ TITLE: COMPANY: DEPARTMENT: DATE: (0/0-.S(R FROM: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: �G D (AD I Z,s a, 21 FAX NO. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, 393 jam- INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SUBJECT: ( i -k COMMENTS /MESSAGE: IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 RE: TELEPHONE MEMO PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: INFORMATION ITEMS: 77/v6- 601,, M CITYiF TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: k0 Z - DATE: I0120 %r 1 TITLE: OM: WiLseD COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: cD''.- Z, , FAX NO. 3A3-- /35- TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS) : IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL. TTJKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 • DAMES& MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 500 MARKET PLACE TOWER, 2025 FIRST AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 728 -0744 October 19, 1989 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Rick Beeler PrE(!''I ��i18 !j�l OCT 201989 Report Geotechnical and Environmental Consultation Proposed Mobile Crane Storage Facility Whitco Properties Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Beeler, We are presenting herein the report of our geotechnical and environmental consultation regarding the above referenced project located in the vicinity of south 115th Street and East Marginal Way. Work on this project was authorized by your Purchase Order No. 24076 dated October 11, 1989, and performed in accordance with our October 17, 1989 proposal. SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our consultation was to evaluate the geotechnical and environmental acceptability of the grading permit submitted by Whitco Properties to the City of Tukwila associated with development of the proposed Mobile Crane Storage Facility. Specific items of work were as follows: 1. Review and evaluate information provided to us regarding possible soil and ground -water contamination at the site. 2. Review and evaluate information provided to us regarding geotechnical considerations including rock excavation and rock slopes at the site. 3. Prepare a report summarizing the results of our review, identifying the geotechnical and environmental issues that have not been adequately addressed by. Whitco Properties in their application for a grading permit, and providing recommendations on how those issues may be resolved. OFFICES WORLDWIDE DAMES& MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP City of Tukwila October 19, 1989 Page 2 DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATION Our investigation for this project included a review of the following documents: Letter from R. W. O'Connell Jr., Bush, Roed, & Hitchings to Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila, dated Oct 4, 1989. • Letter from Barbara Ritchie, WA DOE, to Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila, dated Sept 13, 1989. o Determination of Significance report, dated Aug 25, 1989. o Memo to Plan Reviewers from Moira Carr Bradshaw, dated July 24, 1989. • Shannon & Wilson report, dated July 14, 1989. o Shannon & Wilson report, date April 15, 1988. o Shannon & Wilson report, dated February 25, 1988. o Environmental Checklist for Whitco Short Plat, dated June 9, 1989. o Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Job No. 89005.00, Bush, Roed & Hitchings, dated 1989. In addition, Martin McCabe of our office visited the site on Oct 16, 1989 to examine surface conditions. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GEOTECHNICAL CONCERNS We are unable to assess the geotechnical aspects of fill placement and building construction at the site because no boring logs or boring location plan has been provided by the applicant. i VIM • DAMES&. MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP City of Tukwila October 19, 1989 Page 3 We recommend that the applicant be required to submit boring logs and a boring location plan in order that we may confirm the adequacy of the surcharging and settlement monitoring approach in light of site - specific information. Furthermore, it is our opinion that concerns related to the stability of the proposed rock slope and the method of rock excavation have not been adequately addressed by the applicant. The proposed rock slope, as represented in the Grading and Erosion Plan by Bush, Roed & Hitchings, is as much as 70 feet high in areas having a slope of 1 vertical to 0.3 horizontal. This is steeper than the 1 vertical to 0.5 horizontal slope that Shannon & Wilson found acceptable in their July 14, 1989 report. In view of the apparently variable nature of the rock at the site, we recommend that geotechnical consultants for the project re- evaluate the current plans with respect to the potential for slope instability. We do note that any failure of the rock slope would likely be confined to the site, and would be of most concern to the smaller of the two buildings proposed for the site. The applicant has expressed the intent to excavate the rock by methods other than blasting. We note that in their February 25, 1988 report, Shannon & Wilson advised that mechanical ripping of some portions of weathered rock would be possible, but that generally "excavation could only be performed by blasting ". We acknowledge that other methods of excavating massive and fractured hard rock are available. However, these methods tend to be very time consuming and un- economical. We suggest that the applicant be asked to clarify the planned excavation methods. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Based on the very limited information contained in the above noted documents and obtained from our site visit, no firm conclusion can be drawn regarding the environmental conditions of the site. However, the weight of evidence suggests that it is reasonable to require the applicant to provide additional information about the possible presence of petroleum products. This conclusion is based on the following: 1. The Shannon & Wilson report dated February 25, 1989 indicates the presence of a "petroleum odor" at multiple depths in one of six borings made at the site. Shannon & Wilson recommended the chemical analysis of suspect soil for hydrocarbons. To our knowledge, this was never done. • • DAMES&. MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP City of Tukwila October 19, 1989 Page 4 The locations and descriptions of the borings are not available. It is therefore very difficult to assess the significance of this information, other than as an indication of the probable presence of petroleum hydrocarbons somewhere on the site. 2. Significant quantities of trash and debris are currently present at the site, apparently through unauthorized dumping. Site access has previously been uncontrolled. The illegal dumping or disposal of petroleum products or debris containing petroleum products is possible. It is essential in establishing probable cause for contamination to link the presence of contamination with a contaminant source and a migration route between the two locations. Since the locations of the borings are not known, the specific soil conditions at each boring are not available and no definite contaminant sources have been established, this cannot be done. The following migration routes are plausible at the site: 1. Geologic materials present at the site (fractured & weathered rock, fines sands, silts, clay and peat) indicate that contaminants released at the ground surface could migrate relatively rapidly. 2. Site topography would indicate a ground -water flow direction towards the Duwamish River. If petroleum products from the site are entering the groundwater, it is possible that the site is contributing contaminants to "waters of the state ", which is a violation of state regulations (RCW 90.48). A shallow depth to groundwater is likely given the relatively small difference in elevation (10 -15 ft) between the lower regions of the property and the river surface. Regarding the statement made by R. W. O'Connell Jr. in the October 4, 1989 letter to Rick Beeler that placing fill over the zone of possible contamination (if it can be located due to the lost boring locations) will have "affected an approved method of containment ", this is not correct. A covering layer of soil may not provide containment. It will neither prevent volatiles from escaping to the atmosphere nor prevent the migration of contaminants downward due to gravity flow or in association with infiltrating surface water or precipitation. In addition, this covering operation would not, in our opinion, be approved by any governing regulatory agency due to the unknown concentrations and extent of possible contamination at the site. 4-* DAMES &. MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP City of Tukwila October 19, 1989 Page 5 We recommend that the applicant be required to take soil samples at depths from 0 to 10 ft at the location of boring B -4, if its location can be determined, as described in the report by Shannon & Wilson dated April 15, 1988. Soil samples should also be collected from suspected sources of petroleum hydrocarbons or from any visibly contaminated areas. These samples should be submitted for chemical analysis for total petroleum hydrocarbons. The analytical results should then be reviewed to see if any further sampling or remedial action is required. If these steps have already been taken, we should be permitted to review the results as well as the logs of borings that have been drilled. The State of Washington has established an informal cleanup standard of 200 ppm for soils containing petroleum products. If the analytical results show concentrations greater than 200 ppm, the applicant may be required to excavate the contaminated soil and dispose of it in a landfill such as Cedar Hills Landfill. Cedar Hill Landfill can accept soils with petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations of up to 30,000 ppm. We thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if questions should arise regarding the contents of this report, or if additional assistance is required. 001 -06833-016 \tukwila.rpt Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE Harb'ans L. Chabra, P.E. Associate /Principal Engineer Wz. s Jw94.z, Mark D. Schultheis Senior Environmental Engineer Lb . \i\r\ C Cax-CL-e— W. Martin McCabe Project Engineer • 4-* DAMES &. MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 500 MARKET PLACE TOWER, 2025 FIRST AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 728 -0744 October 17, 1989 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Rick Beeler Proposal Geotechnical and Environmental Consultation Proposed Mobile Crane Storage Facility Whitco Properties Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Beeler, We are submitting herein a proposal confirming our verbal discussions regarding the above referenced project, which is located in the vicinity of South 115th Street and East Marginal Way. Based upon your verbal authorization and your Purchase Order No. 24076 dated October 11, 1989, we are proceeding with work on this project. The scope of services for the project includes the following tasks: 1. Review and evaluate information provided to us regarding possible soil and ground water contamination at the site. 2. Review and evaluate information provided to us regarding geotechnical considerations including rock excavation and rock slopes at the site. 3. Prepare a report summarizing the results of our review, identifying the geotechnical and environmental issues that have not been adequately addressed by Whitco Properties in their application for a grading permit, and providing recommendations on how those issues may be resolved. We propose to perform the above services on a time and materials basis in accordance with our standard Schedule of Charges and General Conditions, which are provided in and form part of this confirming proposal. We estimate that the fee for the services will be on the order of $ 1500. We will not exceed that amount without written authorization from the City of Tukwila. OFFICES WORLDWIDE • InDAMES. & MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP City of Tukwila October 17, 1989 Page 2 We thank you for the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if questions should arise. Very truly yours, Harbjans L. Chabra, P.E. Principal Engineer /Associate HLC:jmc Attachments: Schedule of Charges and Appendix General Conditions - Form B • • DAMES & MOORE A PROFESSIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SCHEDULE OF CHARGES UNITED STATES The compensation to Dames & Moore for our professional services is based upon and measured by the following elements, which are computed as set forth below. 1.0 PERSONNEL CHARGES 1.1 Charges for employees are computed by multiplying the total direct salary cost of our personnel (expressed as an hourly rate) by a factor of 2.5. The total direct salary cost shall be a sum equal to the direct payroll cost (computed by dividing the annual payroll cost by 1,940 hours) plus 40 percent of same to cover payroll taxes, insurance incident to employment, sick leave and other employee benefits. The time of a partner or retained consultant devoted to the project is charged at an assigned billing rate. 1.2 The 40 percent employee benefit factor is used for work performed by personnel assigned to offices in the United States. For work performed by personnel in our offices in other countries, it will vary depending on the employee benefits paid in the particular location. 1.3 When outside the United States, employees' and partners' total direct salary cost will be increased by the premium customarily paid by other organizations for work at that location. 1.4 Time spent in either local or inter -city travel, when travel is in the interest of the work, will be charged for in accordance with the foregoing schedule; when traveling by public carrier, a maximum charge of eight hours per day will be made. 2.0 EQUIPMENT CHARGES 2.1 Computer control of project costs will be billed at a rate of $1.25 per each $50 of job charges or fraction thereof. 2.2 Other Dames & Moore equipment, if used, will be billed at the rates noted in the Appendix. 3.0 OTHER SERVICES AND SUPPLIES 3.1 Charges for services, equipment and facilities not furnished directly by Dames & Moore, and any unusual items of expense not customarily incurred in our normal operations, are computed as follows: 3.1.1 Cost plus 10 percent includes shipping charges, subsistence, transportation, printing and reproduction, long distance communication, miscellaneous supplies and rentals. 3.1.2 Cost plus 15 percent includes surveying services, land drilling equipment, construction equipment, testing laboratories, contract labor. 3.1.3 Cost plus 25 percent includes aircraft, watercraft, helicopter and marine drilling equipment and operation. 115.5 (7 -88) • • SCHEDULE OF CHARGES — APPENDIX Dames & Moore EQUIPMENT AUTOMOTIVE Vehicle, per hour (maximum of 8 hours per day) $ 4.00 Mileage, per mile $ .25 SOIL Soil sampling and compaction control equipment, per shift hour $ 5.00 Soil sample rings and containers, per sample $ 5.00 LABORATORY Soil, water and biologic testing equipment — per employee, per hour $ 10.00 Dynamic Testing Equipment will be quoted as required DIVING SCUBA diving, per diver, per day $100.00 REPORT PREPARATION Word Processing Equipment, per hour $ 10.00 In -House Reproduction, per sheet $ .10 ENGINEERING COMPUTER SERVICES The use of Dames & Moore's in -house computer facilities will be charged in accordance with the "Engineering Computer Applications Billing Schedule" (attached). Computer time and other services provided by outside vendors will be charged at cost plus 15 %. Terminals, plotters, forms, and computer supplies will be charged at cost plus 15 %. FIELD Because of the varied nature of equipment, location and use, these rates will be quoted as required. 115.4 (REV. 2.82) Dames & Moore GENERAL CONDITIONS —FORM B 1.0 BILLING 1.1 Invoices will be issued every four weeks, payable upon receipt, unless otherwise agreed. 1.2 Interest of 11/2% per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days, payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid amount. Any attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the Client. 1.3 In the event that the Client requests termination of the work prior to completion of a report, Dames & Moore reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as are necessary to place its files in order and, where considered by it necessary to protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on the work performed to date. A termination charge to cover the cost thereof in an amount not to exceed 30% of all charges incurred up to the date of the stoppage of the work may, at the discretion of Dames & Moore, be made. 2.0 WARRANTY AND LIABILITY 2.1 Dames & Moore warrants that its services are performed, within the limits prescribed by its Clients, with the usual thoroughness and competence of the consulting profession, in accordance with the standard for professional services at the time those services are rendered. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in its proposals, contracts, or reports. 2.2 Dames & Moore's liability shall be limited to injury or loss caused by the negligence of Dames & Moore, its subcontractors, and /or agents hereunder. Dames & Moore has neither created nor contributed to the creation or existence of any hazardous, radioactive, toxic, irritant, pollutant, or otherwise dangerous substance or condition at the site, and its compensation hereunder is in no way commensurate with the potential risk of injury or loss that may be caused by exposures to such substances or conditions. 2.3 Dames & Moore's liability for injury or loss arising from (1) professional errors or omissions and /or (2) radiation, nuclear reaction, or radioactive substances or conditions; and /or (3) any other toxic, irritant, pollutant, or waste gases, liquids, or solid materials shall not exceed $100,000. 2.4 Dames & Moore's comprehensive general and automobile liability shall not exceed $500,000. 2.5 Increased liability limits may be negotiated upon client's written request, prior to commencement of services, and agreement to pay an additional fee. 2.6 The Client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold Dames & Moore harmless from any claim, liability, or defense cost in excess of the limits determined above for injury or loss sustained by any party from exposures allegedly caused by Dames & Moore's performance of services hereunder. 2.7 In the event the Client makes a claim against Dames & Moore, at law or otherwise, for any alleged error, omission or other act arising out of the performance of its professional services, and to the extent the Client fails to prove such claim, then the Client shall pay all costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by Dames & Moore in defending itself against the claim. 115.6(5 -88/B) TELEPHONE MEMO RE: / »/,17 a0 PERSON CONTACTED: /0(-, PERSON CALLING: } �1:/ J i/ /� �l 3 /7 /ca'r DATE: / 0 / / 4 v .? 1 7 6 1 //,. , 0 , INFORMATION ITEMS: • eew,t(4,t.& a6.61S- TO BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, 1 Civil Engineers /Land Surveyo 2009 Minor Avenue East SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102 (206) 323 -4144 L245.n Sow gll✓cj 773 LE Lon a* OF UQQkrZnon a, DATE V� eg NO. JOB Nq� 7_`5^. 0 2 8 l/Y,IJI ✓ ATT NTION � L. , I� ii c, (C.. 6:7 -47W. is .1 S RE: 1 / l (.73 /� CS / ///4 . / 3 OCT'-51989 2 <Ic .v s i oA) C..P ix.e, / WE ARE SENDING YOU (9(Attached ❑ Under separate cover via HC3SSO r,; he following Items: ❑ Shop drawings EJ^Prints ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION / 3 2 <Ic .v s i oA) C..P ix.e, / 1c/ 4 a-pas;c3") cs)4 L, 1°4.1 , THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: CI-For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: OJ PRODUCT 240.3 fAr -a0Jlam, Gmmn, wa 01411. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. BUSH, ROED•& HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206/323-4144 Fax 206 /323-7135 October 4, 1989 • L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Whitco Grading Permit EPIC -16 -89 BRH Job No. 89005 Dear Mr. Beeler: Mil i r I� (OCT - 51989 Mr. White, the owner, and our firm have reviewed recent City of Tukwila comments concerning the environmental impacts of grading the above noted project. As stated in other recent correspondence we would prefer to work with City staff to resolve the problems associated with Mr. White's plan to grade and develop the Whitco property. In order to facilitate this working relationship we have recently requested an indefinite postponement of the scheduled hearing before the City Council to appeal the Determination of Significance made against the grading permit application. Per City comments and suggestions we have reviewed the plans, EIS checklist and other submittal documents. We would like to revise previously submitted information in the following areas: EIS Checklist Background 11. Add - The lower 5.3 acres to be filled does not include any areas within 200 foot shorelines setback. Environmental Elements Earth 1 -C. Add - and fractured basaltic rock. Air 2 -C. Delete - N/A Add - Dust control using water trucks and sprays as weather requires to keep visual particulates to a minimum. Water 3 -a -2 Delete - Previous statement Add - No. All grading for this proposal shall be outside of the shorelines area. Mr. Beeler October 4, 1989 Page 2 BUSSROED & HITCHINGS, INc. 3 -c -1 Delete - Previous statement Add - Storm water will be collected in erosion control ponds for detention and release to the storm system in South 115th Street, for disposition in the Duwamish River. 3 -c -2 Delete — Previous statement Add - Petrochemical spills or leaks could occur during construction, contaminating surface soils. 3 -c -3 Delete - Retention Add — Detention Recreation 12 -b . Delete - Previous statement Add - No, as current use of site is by trespassers who vandalize the property with all- terrain type vehicles. Transportation 14 -a Delete - Period after "street" Add - and East Marginal Way through Seattle City Light and Water Department rights -of -way. 14 -d Delete - Previous Statement Add - A gravel roadway from the site to East Marginal Way over City Light and Water Department rights -of -way will be constructed. Soils Reports Blasting - The report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., No. W- 4914 -01, dated February -25, 1989, did note in the continued paragraph at the top of page 2 that blasting would be required to excavate the rock. Since that time the owner . has investigated other methods . of rock excavation and found that by using specialized equipment, blasting would not be required. While this specialized equipment will increase both the total cost and length of time to excavate on p, I this site, the owner is confident that the overall impact of the operation will not cause environmental concerns by the neighbors or the City. will soils'l - The report by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., No. W- 4914 -02, \r. date April 15, 1988, does state in paragraph 2 on page 1 that hydrocarbon odors had been detected in one boring. The source is localized to this boring in a strata of soil, deep enough, 2.5 feet dow as to not be disturbed by the clearing of topsoil and vegetation requir r the grading operation. By leaving the possible contaminant undisturb nd by increasing the depth of overburden with the planned grading, we wi have affected an approved method of containment. Mr. Beeler October 4, 1989 Page 3 Plans ti BUS11ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. t6n�1K \•+)„�I We have revised our grading plans to more effectively collect and treat storm r l water during and at completion of the grading operation. The primary addition t o the plans is a ten foot wide bench at the base of the steep rock face to collect drainage and cs ro rock fa11s7 Nat sum f /Fetes" & / / /I44 Sr -y"Sr17N Lo44t w► oir iks /u� 011/GQQ ∎41- I,^ It is our intent to use the entry into t e north side of the site across Seattle City Light and Water rights -of -way This access will be a 16 foot wide gravel driveway from the site to East Marginal Way at South 112th Street. �V this access will be temporary by agreement with the City of Seattle agencies V 7 $ to last for a period of approximately four months. Traffic across the P '' J. temporary driveway will be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5p.57 ahould '�� "� traffic volumes become great enough to cause stacking on the driveway or. 4 congestion at the entry onto East Marginal Way, the owner shall take measures h.�` after consultation with City of Tukwila traffic officials to relieve the 1.i(S congestio3 The above completes our analysis and review of the environmental items \� requiring mitigation by the City. We feel we have addressed these items as �J` practically and completely as possible to relieve the significant impacts the City had determined to be associated with the development of this site. We request the soonest review of the revisions noted above. Should the City require further information or explanation concerning the above mitigations, please call. It is our hope that the City will agree with us that there are no significant impacts associated with this grading operation. Sinc ely, Robert W. O'Connell Jr., PE RWO /cd cc: Elmer White, Mobile Crane BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INc. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206/323-4144 Fax 206 /323-7135 September 29, 1989 Ms. Maxine Anderson City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila; WA 98188 Re: Whitco Grade Permit EPIC -16 -89 BRH Job No. 98005.02 Dear Ms. Anderson: This letter is to confirm our verbal request of September 27, 1989, for an indefinite postponement of the City Council Hearing scheduled for October 9, 1989, to appeal the Determination of Significance given the above project. It is the intent of the owner and our office to work with the City SEPA officials to make revisions as necessary to our submittal to reduce site impacts. We wish to thank you for your help and consideration in this matter. Should you have any questions or require further information please call. Sincerely, W Robert W. O'Connell Jr., PE RWO /cd cc: Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila CAS COUNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS CAS NO. AGENDA ITEM TITLE WHITCD PROPERTIES APPEAL Original Agenda Date September 25, 1989 Original Sponsor: Council /Admin. X Apprvd. Timeline Purpose of Item and Objective of Sponsor: Set a Public Hearing for October 9, 1989 to hear the appeal of the SEPA responsible official to require an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed grading and excavation. The property is located generally at the northeast corner of East Marginal Way and South 115th Street Sponsor's Recommended Action: Set the Appeal Hearing date for October 9, 1989. Alternative Action: (1) Set another Hearing date (2) Committee Recommendations: Administration Recommendations: RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION Date Action 9/25/89 COST IMPACT (if known) FUND SOURCE (if known) APPENDICES A. Memo of September 21, 1989 from Dept. of Comm. Development B. Letter of Appeal C. Vicinity Map D. Determination of Significance M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Rick Beeler, Director DC September 21, 1989 Whitco Properties Appeal - .EPIC- 16 -89. On August 25, 1989 the City issued a Determination of Significance for the Whitco Properties grading permit. This decision requires preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). An appeal of that decision was timely filed on September 12, 1989 and is attached. In the normal process of handling appeals the Council is now being asked to set a tentative public hearing date to hear the appeal. Staff met with the appellant on September 7, 1989 to discuss the environmental issues and possible mitigation measures to avoid having to do an EIS. That discussion continues and could produce information and /or revisions which will not require the EIS. If an EIS is not required the appeal will be withdrawn. To provide time for this discussion to continue and meet the appellant's schedule the October 9, 1989 regular Council meeting is being requested for the public hearing. APPENDIX A BUSH, FD & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206 /323 -4144 Fax 206/323-7135 September 11, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Whitco Properties Grade /Fill Permit No. EPIC -16 -89 BRH Job No. 89005.02 Dear Mr. Beeler: SEP 1 21989 Our client has reviewed the City of Tukwila Determination of Significance dated August 25, 1989, from your office for the above noted project. We and Mr. White were both surprised by the City's determination and feel that the requirement of a scoped EIS is unwarranted and unnecessary. As we noted during our meeting with you and other City staff on September 7, 1989, the issues raised by the City as being significant are able to mitigated through revision of the Grading Permit plan or when appropriate by submittal of formal site development plans for other permits. It is our opinion that the City has wrongly combined review of the proposed short plat for this property with the application for grading permit. The two applications are separate land use issues which should stand on their own individual merits. We feel that upon separation of the applications the City would find the issues involved with the proposed grading of the Whitco property would fall within the normal activities expected for developing a site with MH zoning. In accordance with the issues raised above, we make this application to appeal the Determination of Significance given the Whitco property Grading Permit by the City of Tukwila. In order to simplify analysis of the Grading Permit issue, we request the City return or void our application for a short plat on this property. We will also be submitting revised plans to show that specific issues concerning the Grading Permit plan raised during the meeting of September 7 can be mitigated. Is is our intent to show that the City should issue a Determination of Non - Significance with specific mitigation requirements for this project. Should you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, Robert W. O'Connell Jr., PE RWO /cd cc: Elmer White, Mobile Crane /Western Bridge APPENDIX B • LA 1 \J \ \ \ \ \ \ \%\ \7111N\N\ 111-21\k\,\ •\ \ \ = Mina MININI I OM MI =MI , ion Line li:111111111111i11111111. 1411,euk.d1111 piri3 FrAdim Imo clam! Ewa u+ 4 S lIZIb ST- / 1376,- 161111111111 1in ••••:INN tArill"°\ Ira 111;,.. • HIGH momMIPIINIA ,••••••• ■ 111111■1 ISOCCIU. al•IMINIMININ mom. • ramiwINSIr 1111•••••- 5111111MWINI • • "OM leldemblea smaraaM • / •=acmolO• arm al. 4ffir , KENNINEw ow. 4 • l's 4?7- • WAL 191- 11-V /U 4/0 �> ULIL}iMINATION OF SIGN.tiCANCe AND REQUEST FOR. COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS RECEU/ED AUG 29 15991` OEPAa1MMEMr of ECOLOGY Lv-i- r•vrwTA: °EY,EW Description of Proposal, GRADE AND FILL PERMIT APPLICATION TO LEVEL SATE AREA FOR WAREHOI:ISF RI1TI.QINGS. Proponent Location of Proposal, including street address, if any S. 115TH ST. & EAST MARGINAL WAY ROBERT W. O'CONNELL JELL WHITCO PROPERTIES Lend Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -16 -89 EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statemer (EIS) is required under RCW 43.Z1C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environments checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviews at our offices. - The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion•in the EIS: WAC 197 -11 -444: 1) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT; EARTH, AIR, WATER; 2) BUILT ENVIRONMENT; RUIJt, K1JR Ur cArLUJlUM, imeebrOerAilOr, AND FU8Ltc SERVterS /UTILITIES. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to commer on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, prc bable Significant .adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may h required. The method and deadline tor giving us your comments is;SEPTEMBER 14, 989 ALL COMMENTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN THE ABOVE DATE. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone Address 4200 SOuthconttr Boulevard 188 Date 4?,..L.Y417 Signature t You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcente Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by writte appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may b required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copses of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk an Planning Department. 433 -1845 (} ;trilark Date APPENDIX D O P� WALLACE ENTERPRISES CE September 20, 1989 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa 98188 RE: Wallace Property /Rockpile Shoreline Permit Dear Mr. Pace: Lr 11 \\11( I11) SEP221989` Li T PLANNiNG DEPT. We have reviewed our application for fence construction inside the shorelines setback area of our property north of South 115th St. in the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. We would like to amend our application to limit the fence construction to the east right -of -way along South 115th St. and the west boundary of our property common to the east line of the Seattle City Light right -of -way for 100 feet north of the South 115th St. right -of -way. We would also drop our request for a gravel access entry. It is our contention that by taking the above actions and using fence materials salvaged by our companies Mobile Crane Company and Western Bridge Contractors that we can reduce our cost for construction of the fence as revised above to less than $2,500. The impact of the changes would limit the fence length to about 750 1.f. which at a construction cost of $2.00 per foot, gives a total cost of $1500.00. This then would absolve us of the required Shorelines permit and associated Board of Architectural Review permit. While the materials to be used for the fence construction are salvaged they will be cleaned or painted as necessary to achieve a suitable frontage appearance. We request your earliest review and approval of this proposal so that we can construct the fence to protect our property and those of our neighbors from destruction by trespassers. Very truly yours, Wallace Enterprises Elmer White cc: Darran Wilson, City of Tukwila Bob O'Connell Jr., PE, BRH 5900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH, 98108 / P.O. BOX 3767, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 206 - 767 -4767 FAX 206 - 763 -9975 • • September 15, 1989 Mr. Robert W. O'Connell, Jr. Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 2009 Minor Avenue E. Seattle, WA 98102 RE: WHITCO PROPERTIES - EPIC -16 -89 Dear Mr. O'Connell: Your September 11, 1989 letter of appeal of my Determination of Significance (DS) was received on September 12,1989. Per normal procedures, I forwarded your appeal to the City Council. Their normal schedule is to meet on September 25, 1989 when normally is set a date to hold a public hearing on the appeal. At that time I will recap for them our meeting of September 7, 1989 and your continuing work toward a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS). At this time, I intend to ask for a hearing date of October 23, 1989 unless you feel you need more time to resolve the environmental issues. That date isn't firm but is a suggestion to satisfy the normal appeal procedure to early on set a hearing date. If you succeed in convincing me to withdraw the DS and issue a DNS, the appeal can be withdrawn and the hearing will not occur. Otherwise the hearing will occur as scheduled. Please call Darren Wilson at 433 -1845, by September 20, 1989 regarding the suggested hearing date unless he has already called you. I know this is brief notice. If you need more time, I can wait until September 25, 1989 to verbally give the Council your requested hearing date. Sincerely, L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Department STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -60100 September 13, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: L E 7,7) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping no- tice for the Mobile Crane Storage Facility proposed by Robert O'Connell Jr./ Whitco Properties (EPIC- 16 -89). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. 1. The draft environmental impact statement should discuss erosion control measures. This includes the establishment of sediment /detention ponds prior to clearing the site. These ponds should be maintained after completion to control/ mitigate the release of contaminants to surface waters. If the detention basin is retained after construction, the pond should be revegetated and maintained to enhance biological filtration. No discharge of pollutants to surface or ground waters will be allowed. 2. The release of oil to ground and soils on the site may cause the facility to become a hazardous substance site under I -97. Soils /gravel contaminated with oils should be exca- vated, properly disposed of in a lined landfill, and replaced with clean backfill. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Dan Cargill of the Northwest Regional Office at (206) 867 -7023. BJR: N 01 -iblt Sincerely, Barbara J:° Ritchie Environmental Review Section k(0 cc: Rachel Friedman - Thomas, NWRO Dan Cargill BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 Minor Avenatast Seattle, Washington 98102 Area 206 /323 -4144 Fax 206/323-7135 September 11, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Whitco Properties Grade /Fill Permit No. EPIC -16 -89 BRH Job No. 89005.02 Dear Mr. Beeler: Our client has reviewed the City of Tukwila Determination of Significance dated August 25, 1989, from your office for the above noted project. We and Mr. White were both surprised by the City's determination and feel that the requirement of a scoped EIS is unwarranted and unnecessary. As we noted during our meeting with you and other City staff on September 7, 1989, the issues raised by the City as being significant are able to mitigated through revision of the Grading Permit plan or when appropriate by submittal of formal site development plans for other permits. It is our opinion that the City has wrongly combined review of the proposed short plat for this property with the application for grading permit. The two applications are separate land use issues which should stand on their own individual merits. We feel that upon separation of the applications the City would find the issues involved with the proposed grading of the Whitco property would fall within the normal activities expected for developing a site with MH zoning. In accordance with the issues raised above, we make this application to appeal the Determination of Significance given the Whitco property Grading Permit by the City of Tukwila. In order to simplify analysis of the Grading Permit issue, we request the City return or void our application for a short plat on this property. We will also be submitting revised plans to show that specific issues concerning the Grading Permit plan raised during the meeting of September 7 can be mitigated. Is is our intent to show that the City should issue a Determination of Non - Significance with specific mitigation requirements for this project. Should you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, Robert W. O'Connell Jr., PE RWO /cd cc: Elmer White, Mobile Crane /Western Bridge • SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION Page 3 10. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WILL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF THIRTY -FIVE FEET ABOVE THE AVERAGE GRADE LEVEL, INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF AND NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS EXISTING AND POTENTIAL, THAT WILL HAVE AN OBSTRUCTED VIEW: (To be completed by local official) 11. IF THE APPLICATION INVOLVES A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE, SET FORTH IN FULL THAT PORTION OF THE MASTER PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE PROPOSED USE MAY BE A CONDITIONAL USE, OR, IN THE CASE OF A VARIANCE, FROM WHICH THE VARIANCE IS BEING SOUGHT: (To be completed by local official) 12. GIVE A BRIEF NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AND LAND USE WITHIN ONE THOUSAND (1,000) FEET IN ALL DIRECTIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SITE: Residential to the East Commercial to the West Water and Electrical Power Easement to the North along with Seattle Police Department shooting range. River and residential to the South I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the above - mentioned applicant for a permit to construct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that to the best of my knowledge the information submitted is true and correct. DATE: 7 SIGNATURE: (29 /SHOR.APP1,2) City of Tukwila 08/25/89 Rec #4051 S E P A R E V I E W ROUTER SENT TO: Linda Rankin, Shorelands FROM: Don Bales PV -11 DATE: 08/29/89 Environmental Review Section SUBJECT: SCOPING City of Tukwila Mobile Crane Storage Facility, fill and grade 5.3 acres of a 10.3 acre site and creater a crane storage yard, adjacent to the Duwamish River at S 115th St and East Marginal Way (Robert W O'Connell Jr /Whitco Properties) PLEASE REVIEW AND RETURN WITH YOUR COMMENTS BY: 09/13/89 COMMENTS: 0R/79, -8q • ECOLOGY TO: FROM: Remarks 16: 21 D. 0. E. BI:FAH HiLL Washington State DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY MAIL STOP PV-11, OLYMPIA,WA 98504-8711 Nanite: 1/ I Agency: Li 14 FAX0 Datd: ±-71 ) Nal*: Sectin: Shorelards Program ED Water. Resources Program - k it 1 \ -• FAX# _2Q0)438-7537 (SCAN prefix 585. Operiator # (2D6,).438-7536 or 438-7607 Nurrter of pages (including cover) WAC 197 -11 -970 .., RECEIVED DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AUG 29 1989 AND REQUEST FOR,COMMENTS ON,SCOPE OF EIS DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY ty”,",".kI WT .41 oEl' W Description of Proposal GRADE AND FILL PERMIT APPLICATION TO LEVEL SITE AREA FOR WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS. Proponent ROBERT W. O'CONNELL JR./ WHITCO PROPERTIES Location of Proposal, including street address, if any S. 115TH ST. & EAST MARGINAL WAY Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -16 -89 EIS Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion. in the EIS: WAC 197 -11 -444: 1) NATURAL ENVIRONMENT; EARTH, AIR, WATER; 2) BUILT ENVIRONMENT; NOISE, RISK OF EXPLOSION, TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC SERVICES /UTILITIES. Scoping. Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, pro- bable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. The method and deadline for giving us your comments is :SEPTEMBER 14, 1989. ALL COMMENTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN THE ABOVE DATE. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard T Date 25 /ro % Signature Phone 433 -1845 188 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no . later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. i Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. i',„ :;tmark Date 2 -z8 -89 ,piv CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 August 25, 1989 Don Bells Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section Central Operations Program Campus Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, Wa. 98504 -8711 PHONE t (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen. Mayor RE: DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE WHITCO PROPERTIES LOCATED AT S. 115th STREET & EAST MARGINAL WAY. Dear Mr. Bells: Attached is DS we issued fill permit application. Please submit your comments 1989 deadline. Rick Beeler Director, D.C.D. Attachments: *DS *CHECKLIST *PLANS a on August 25, 1989 for a grading and in writing before the September 14, A...V? .ne.k. t,�:•. - .� Development • Building ��/ynter boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 ,{ -43, �91uvu + ;k,.,,'di ice. . 1PLANTCHECK 4:NUMBER c?--//g AP e-marowT Plii Division THIS FORM IS TO BE USED IF GRADING/FILL IS NOT ALREADY INCLUDED AS PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT. FEES (for staff use only) pe,/ ,$d 25• AMOUNT RCPT ::DATE DESCRIPTION'` BASIC PERMIT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING SURCHARGE OTHER: TOTAL 973 SITE ADDRESS SUITE # S. 115th St. & East Marginal Way VALUE OF WORK - $ $818,000 PROJECT NAME/TENANT Whitco Properties ASSESSOR ACCOUNT # 1023049001 CUT (YARDS) 154,820 I FILL (YARDS) 8,800 1 DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF FILL/GRADING: To level site area for warehouse building. , CITY /Z fill e ?e573-3 PROPERTY OWNER Elmer White c/o Mobile Crane (PHONE 767 -4767 ADDRESS 5900 Second Avenue South, Seattle, WA ZIP 98103 CONTRACTOR [PHONE ADDRESS ZIP WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # EXP. DATE ARCHITECT- aN G i N PHONE ADDRESS IZIP 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT! HAVE READ AND. EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE I ••TRUE AND CORRECT, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS`PERMIT. i..: • ... BUILDING OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT IADDi SIGN �Il, 0)'D / DATE �: /`�' • ��' , PRIN�N iuf F-�� w _ c9 6uN i� �e � PHONE � 3z 3 -i' P g c/ /'1 i Nc Q. AJ� CITY /Z fill e ?e573-3 CONTACT PERSON �b fir.. w - 0 .GooN,z.r_ ri, PHONE 3 7-,i —4/451. APPLICATION SUBMITTAL In order to ensure that your application is accepted for plan review, please make sure to fill out the application completely and follow the plan submittal checklist on the reverse side of this form. Handouts are available at the Building counter which provide more detailed information on application and plan submittal requirements. Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION The valuation is for the work covered by this permit and must be filled in by the applicant. This figure is used for budget reporting purposes only and not to calculate your fees. BUILDING OWNER / AUTHORIZED AGENT If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architectengineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to submit this permit application and obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal. EXPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeciing 1815 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 304(c) of the uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be Lxtended more than once. If you have any questions about our process or plan submittal requirements, please contact the Department of Community Development at 433-1849. DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED DATE AP • LICATION EXPIRES To Darren Wilson From: Ron, Cameron d4"" Dagte: August 11, 1989 Subject: Whitco Shortplat 'i1G141989; The shortplat should not be approved wihout an access plan A. a Seattle Water Department letter authorizing permanent use of the Water Line right of way for access, what improvements they'll require and will allow, what maintenance will be required /allowed, and traffic control at the access entrance to E Marginal Way. (The north lot). B. access to S 115th St will required for the east lot, commercial access through the neighborhood on S 113th and back to S 115th is unacceptable - commercial access on substandard residential streets cannot be approved. C. The proposed fill for the south lot along the river will require a riverbank stability analysis by a soils engineer, Corps 404 permit, hydraulics permit, and it is doubtful if filling the river at this point can be approved. RE: Ala-60 /1 PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: 1 TELEPHONE MEMO g*g7 INFORMATION ITEMS: 17 RE: Ye PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING• DATE: r/ 020As� TELEPHONE MEMO INFORMATION ITEMS: Tri//ie-�a dze 14L.. /7160/.4 ztyy- 24, 17/4./iLTri2c,r) ,z6/77 RE: 0110 PERSON CONTACTED: ,077/ * PERSON CALLING: /AM DATE: 7A9c07 22LIONE MEMO INFORMATION ITEMS: 7),6 0,)on A,& "a/ TO: Plan Reviewers From: Moira Carr Bradshaw Subject: Whitco Property ( S. 115th Street) Date: 24 July 1989 On May 24 1989, a checklist was submitted for subject property to allow issuance of a fill and grade permit. (Applicant has spent a yearin the county permit processprior to pulling out and starting over here.) Applicant indicates that no specific plans are available but Fill /Grade permit describes the purpose of the fill to be a "leveling of the site for future warehouse building ". Applicant outlines two possible buildings on excavation plans. SEPA Checklist indicates no specific plans just future higher use intended. Conversation with BobO'Connell, applicant, reveals thatthe County would not let him fill and grade without an actual development proposal. Whereas here in the City we do not require any pending proposal prior to issuance of a filling or grading permit. Therefore actual intent of the owner,according to applicant is to remove rock for someauxiliary use elsewhere and somewhatlevel the site for a future industrial use. The shortplat has evolved separtely fromthe fill and grade permit and is being proposed to meet the wishes of the property owner. Environmental issues outstanding Noise: The applicant proposes to blast to remove rock from the site. The fire department has a permit that is required prior to issuance. The number of blasts, the effect on adjacent uses on hillside and valleybelow, and the type and directionof the flying debris from the blast is not known. The Fire Department's permit will regulate who is allowed to blast and when it can occur. The City's noise ordinance exempts construction noise during daytime hours of 7a.m. to 10 p.m. Will the Fire Department permit address the above outstanding questions? Soils : The geoengineer's report indicates the presence of petroleum products were noticeable on the site; no further investigation has been done. The applicant has been asked to provide closure on this issue. Attached are the three geoengineer's reports. Public Utilities:' Availablity of sewer and water to site is not certain. Public works is therefore concerned about giving false assurances to applicant about future potentialuse of site. These issues should be resolved prior to approval of plat. Platting issues: Lot 4 is not developable and should be donated to the City due to possible road and riverbank needs in the future. If the owner wishes to retain rights to access the shoreline for fishingor for a fishing shack, arrangements in the dedication language could be incorporated. Lot 2 has accessoff 113th Street, a substandardresidential right - of - way. Because of the light industrial zoning of the parcel, platting of Lot 2 should not be allowed, as the new parcel would then be restricted to access from the sub- standard street. Lot 1 is being accessed via a forty foot wide access easement to be acquired from City Light and City Water. Written verification is pending. Lot 3fronts on S. 115th Street, asixty foot right -of -way. Public Works has expressed concern that the riverbank may need stabilization and improvement causing a loss of right -of -way and potential inadequate access to lot 3 at time of development. My feeling at this point is that we do not have the authority to ask for bank stabilization information and /or improvments. Issue: The majority of the outstanding concerns relate to development of land prior to actual use of land. Public Works feels that allowance of grade and fill is not standard operating procedure for City. My experience has been that we have. Policiesof the City, vague as they maybe, and my opinion are that we should not allow filling of property,or surcharge unless SEPA review and preliminary plans ie. BAR review and approval, for actual use /development of property. If we wish to continue to allow fill /surcharge of property prior to any knowledge or SEPA review of an actual developement, what caveats and how much do we review at time of preliminary initial work. I suggest werequire: applicant's review andprovision of ability to serveproject with necessary utilities.ie.minimum right -of -way, availability of a utility provider and ability to extend minimum sized utility lines according to the zoning of the site. Determining a final floor elevation seems premature given the changing naturefli FEMA. • RE: TELEPHONE MEMO 01/7e0 67.g � PERSON CONTACTED: /eti.M DATE: /O %o 4'• PERSON CALLING: INFOR 'TION ITEMS: 5 -4741A4Ionl w /e., A13� 1 it/ ' gA o- 1 44� I L 5/ .7I P ,44 151-4a C1710 P67-)/ 2e9-7)/1)11, dtri) 040 9#r b Ali ,. � Mt/4h _.);GOOoki zood/ ii9ditiarikao gel/ aleei/t J-14 M/ )1-01idn h>1 lacith eke '09 er RE: i afiviv PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: DATE: TELEPHONE MEMO INFORMATION ITEMS: 6&//bLeiLt9A LT(g< w?e? fiek.Aebik-, - Jo/ 6/ tlee€5s — d / / / /i! , //. / ►_// _ / e/01-1/6, fitex_. ss , Wn is -. L S a o PE SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 • P.O. Box C-30313 • Seattle, WA 98103 • (206) 632.8020 • Cable: GEOSAW RECETVEO. CITY OF TUKWILq W- 4914 -03 July 14, 1989 Western Bridge Company 5900 Second Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 Attn: Mr. Elmer White BUILDING Die' SITE GRADING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH 115TH STREET AND EAST MARGINAL WAY, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON We understand you are planning to excavate the existing 'rockpile and use the excavated material as fill to raise and level the low portions of the site in preparation for future development. Our previous studies of the site indicate that the rock would be suitable for this purpose when crushed. Excavation slopes as steep as 1 vertical to 03 horizontal should be stable in the intact rock, although flatter slopes may be required in some areas. We recommend that rock slopes be evaluated during construction. Our previous explorations also indicated that portions of the site are underlain by relatively soft, compressible soils, predominantly silts and fine sands, but also including soft clay and peat. In order to prepare the site for the most economical future development, we recommend that all fill placed at the site be engineered fill, and that the site be preloaded with a surcharge to consolidate the compressible soils. Proper surcharging of the site could substantially reduce the need for pile support of future structures at the site. In order to minimize the cost of future development, we recommend that site grading include clearing surface organics from the site and placing and compacting the fill in controlled lifts. Each lift should be systematically compacted to at least 95 percent of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Prior to placing fill, settlement plates should be installed across the site on an approximate 100 Seattle • Everett • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louis Earl A. Sibley. P.E. Chairman of the Board President Raymond P. Miller, P.E. George Yamane, P.E. Sr. Vice President Sr. Vice President Herman H. (Tex) Druebert, P.E. Vice President Harvey W. Parker, P.E. Atef A. Azzam Sr. Vice President Sr. Vice President Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E. Gerry Millar, PG. Vice President Vice President July 14, 1989 Attn: Mr. Elmer Whi. Page 2 W- 4914 -03 foot grid. Each settlement plate should consist of a 2,x 2 -foot- square sheet with a 2- or 3 -inch diameter pipe fitting attached to the center of one side. The sheet should be placed flat on the ground surface prior to fill placement and a steel pipe riser should be attached to the pipe fitting. The initial elevation of the sheet should be determined by a level rod extended down through the pipe, and the fill should then be placed. The pipe should be extended as necessary so that the top of the pipe is accessible through the fill. The elevation of the sheet should be determined at regular intervals by survey measurement through the pipe. We will evaluate the data to determine the settlement characteristics, and determine when preloading is complete. In our opinion, stockpiled material can be used as surcharge fill, and can be moved about the site as consolidation is completed in a particular area. Careful measuremant of the position, distribution, height, and duration of loading of the surcharge fill, and timely and systematic measurement of the resulting settlements is necessary to document the preloading process. Without proper monitoring and documentation, much of the economic advantage in preloading the site would be lost, as predictions of the future behavior of the site under loads could not be accurately made. It is likely that pile support of even lightly loaded structures could not be avoided in areas underlain be compressible soils if preloading of the site is not properly documented. Depending on the nature of the structure, additional soil explorations will be required to provide information for the design of facilities at the site. Some of the soils at the site, including portions of the crushed rock, may contain sufficient quantities of silt and clay to produce a cohesive mixture when wet. Such soils may become muddy and difficult or impossible to place and compact if their moisture content significantly exceeds the optimum. The following recommendations are applicable if earthwork is to be accomplished in wet weather or in wet conditions: a. Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soil should be followed immediately by the placement and compaction of a suitable thickness (generally 8 inches or more) of clean granular fill. The size of construction equipment may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. In some instances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe, Gradall, or equivalent to SHANNON & WILSON INC July 14, 1989 • • Attn: Mr. Elmer White Page 3 minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic. W- 4914 -03 b. Fill material should consist of clean, granular soil, of which not more than 5 percent by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on wet sieving the fraction passing the 3/4- inch sieve. The fines should be non - plastic. c. The ground surface in the construction area should be sloped to promote the run -off of precipitation and to prevent ponding of water. d. No soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth -drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should be used to seal the ground surface. e. Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full -time basis by a Geotechnical engineer experienced in earthwork, to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with the project specifications. The above recommendations for wet weather earthwork should be incorporated into the contract specifications. We will be pleased to provide geotechnical monitoring of site excavation and the placement and compaction of fill materials. In our opinion, measurement of site grades and elevations of the settlement plates should be accomplished by a licensed surveyor. We will also evaluate the settlement data and provide analyses and recommendations for distribution and removal of the surcharge loads. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. alph ]1Y. Boirum, P. Associate cc: Bob O'Connel, Bush Roed & Hitchings, Inc. SHANNON & WILSON. INC 1909 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM 71d° c9W tir y 122.8a'1 19.49 7SC_ /;)51/ f9roviiteg 024/166?"--?) r /14/i2(-- (*) //ia°41.7?"--0.2-) Aim/ (Ajb,/4/7_ 4d,-(9)rie_c Control.. Epic File No. Fee 5100.00 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Whitco Short Plat 2. Name of applicant: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2009 Minor Avenue E, Seattle, WA 98102, Bob O'Connell Jr., PE • 4. Oate checklist prepared: 6 -9 -89 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 1. Grading, of Lot 1 to begin at issuance of City of Tukwila Grade Permit. No other building. planned at this time. 7. Oo you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain' Possible office - warehouse project on Lot 1 at a future date. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None 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. vpq, rra€1e Parmi tc for T,nrq 1 and 2 • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Shoreline Permit Short Plat Approval 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi. checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no-. need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized 'Here. This checklist is in support of a short plat application to subdivide a 15.6 Ac. parcel_Qf land for future demeInpment. 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 applica -_ tions related to this checklist. South 115th St. NW South 115th St. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No WOE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• • Evaluation for • Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, ("steep s ope mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 1:1 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.silty- sands and rock d.. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The rock is a fractured basalt._ e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. None for this prnpngjl. f.• Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, however no construction, grading or occupation g. planned with this proposal. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None under this proposal. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: None for this proposal. 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. None for this proposed short plat. . 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: Nnne_fnr thin proposal 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. Duwamish Riv-r lies adiacent to and south of_ the_s.i_te• • • 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 work is planned by this proposal though 3 of the 4 lots fall within shorelines area. 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 for this proposal. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. None 5) Ooes .. 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. NnnP • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, 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. Water will cont -.. j ue to flow from site per present conditions or per plans for grading of Lot 1. 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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: None 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x 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? None by this proposal. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: _Lamp far rhi a ,prnpnsal 5 Animals 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: seagulls, pigeons mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: rodents 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 s explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. None for this proposal. 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 for this proposal. 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. None for this proposal 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None for this proposal. • , Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic, aircraft 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: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. None for this proposal. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None for this proposal Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Vacant b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what ? None e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Mx f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Shorelines h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how- many people would reside or work in the completed project? None by this proposal j. Approximately how many people »would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None • 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing 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 eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 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? None ,proposed b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? Nonp c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None for this proposal 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: None 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fishing in Duwamish River b. Would the proposed project displace any existing. recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro - posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. Nn .b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Nnnp c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Nnnp 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. nirert access to S. 115th St for Lots 3 and 4_ nirprr access to S. 113th St. for T,nt- 2. Basement arrpsc to E. Marginal Way S. from Lot 1 b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Transit nn E. Marginal Way S 250' from site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Nnna fnr rhic pxDpasal Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. None for this proposal f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. None for this proposal. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: one 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. None for this proposal. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None • 40 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently availab at site: "1ectricit natural gas, ^t.j , use service ^h ^ ^p `sanitary sewef) sep is system, o her. 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 for this proposal. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best . of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. ,TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• O. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. iEvaluation for Agency Use Only When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? No it is a segregation of property only. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? No, it is a segregation of property only. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: None • i Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? No Proposed measures to .protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: None 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? No Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Future development may cause impacts, but none are planned as part of this segregation. •r Evaluation for Agency Use Only e 1 ', T Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: Nnna How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? Shorelines Permit application submitted. Proposal conforms. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? No impact, this is a segregation only. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. No conflicts. ,Y r • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Ooes the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None .7044E COMPLETED BY APPLICA • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To short plat a parcel of land along topographical and setback boundaries for potential development. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? See short plat. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action.: N/A • • .q Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None -23- j1/111 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 0 CN EPIC 16 -89 FILE TO: F-1 BLDG ID PLNG xx 1 P.W. cx FIRE ri POLICE (j P & R PROJECT Whitco LOCATION East Marginal / 40th Ave. S. - FILE NO. EPIC -16 -89 DATE TRANSMITTED 5 -31 -89 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 6 -7 -89 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM - COMMENT Please review and comment before the next DRC meeting. /) ! ter? L 1_t.� d/A.2 -x&kox, d.. 1e/ p (a / / DATE -3 -c'G/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ,ITY OF TUKWILA 4 PERMIT NUMBER 1111 CONTROL NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM TO: [] BLDG. [[ PLNG. Q P.W. [[ FIRE [[ POLICE D P. & R. PROJECT ADDRESS DATE TRANSMITTED C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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: D 0 0 0 0 W4 ' /97 //- 3O ') D D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[. PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [l PLAN APPROVED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 iTY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - SJTING FORM TO: 0 BLDG. PROJECT ADDRESS %3, ❑ PLNG. P.W. ❑ FIRE ❑ POLICE CONTROL NUMBER P. & R. DATE TRANSMITTED -6707 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR L4�;L, ) / -L.9M) RESPONSE RECEIVED -5- 09 9e0i 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: -RE Cii.41"" "Ts"Pb4Afo1 'ESZO Sib L 'o (Teti-ES 1)EsiLT4i10.) Puy° S [( MPri vSTl s c. U Us , s d 11-S c.-N) h-It E ST404 i ! T G ❑ # �`' � 1 O FV k i 0 Lf S S u 3 M (MIL. A S 'tLtzu 1 liar) [[ ut..10c:N. e1 ate. 1 o of T+- u c .t ATTYtuttO > . • 1z4..ci u S T 'Put-1\11.14.4(r Do r -D L. 11►.)t V t S tan. $ o-V I ❑ 1 MP -ACTS F i l_1_. . A L , P p P u (ANTI. t.1 L i s ❑ -Dr-) -s tom. '0 sThocylv,, 1:)kAlltptig 5`IS 1l_ �, sa ❑ CLty Q( t∎1 > V Att. �bT1�Tf r�l� IMO . • T \ }-`1Oty\tju CL CLj.GS c)- -0.3 C6WMQ6roz ❑ -1 o tztwAt_ urn nZa :wP1 FL-)w -- nl un..1.LATE OYINCfS ❑ --(7) -po w� siil� vV� ''JSUA1`ty 2� S•iSTe:Nn m ❑ V,t b ^NS .11L� qu i, to.) ( r e , Cy7V17 L %14 / V Kp:N { l of 3 1- r4 L! r'1 ) D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED J PLAN CHECK DATE „5/ 9/3q COMMENTS PREPARED BY(�� PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I PLAN APPROVED 0 w rt4-b�r FP► -sc wAl lv�Q-Ko�� LitINJ Op 2 Contrilipo. Epic FT re No. /lo -09' Fee 5100.00 Receipt No. 8793 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Whitco Property 2. Name of applicant: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 2009 Minor Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98102 (206) 323 -4144, Bob O'Connell Jr., PE 4. Date checklist prepared: 5 -24 -89 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grading/to be started July, 1989 with completion November, 1989. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. a Short Plat to segregate shorelines to a separate area, a building permit for warehouses in area covered by grading permit. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Previous EIS Checklist for submittal to King County. 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. No. King County Division of Roads and Engineering Department of Public Works 956 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206)90 296 -6590 June 3, 1988 i i r P 4: 12 TO: Randy Sandin, Supe-- visor Grading Section FM: Douglas W. Mattoon, aintenan e Engineer RE: Grading Permit No. 2998 -33 With regard to the attached permit application, Wendell Forgaard, Supervisor of Division 3, Maintenance Section, advises the following: // .' 1. Truck traffic is not allowed on South 115th Street. 2. Hauling operations should be restricted to off -peak hours due to congestion at East Marginal Way South and the South Boeing Access Road. 3 The existing sidewalk along South 115th Street at the site is in poor condition. Installation of combination curb and gutter and replacement of the sidewalk should be considered for part of this development. 4 Recommend a street sweeper be maintained on site during hauling operations. If a flush truck is used the affected catch basins will need to be cleaned out and cross culverts flushed clean upon completion of hauling operations and as necessary during the work. Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Wendell Forgaard or Jon Cassidy at 255 -2531. DWM:syl Attachment cc: Bryan anager, Building and Land Development Division Rober Gaunt, Maintenance Superintendent ATTN: Wendell Forgaard, Supervisor, Division 3 Swang Rims, Supervisor, Maintenance Engineering Group ATTN: Jon Cassidy, Underground Utility Engineer King County Building & Land Development Division Parks, Planning and Resources Department 3600. 136th Place Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006-1400 June 2, 1988 TO: Martha Burnham, Inspector Grading Section FM: Mark D. Mitchell, Shorelin inistrator Land Use Controls Section RE: Grading Permit 2998 -33, Duwamish Mobile Crane Storage We have reviewed grading permit application (2998 -33) and offer the following comments: 1) The shoreline designation is Urban on the - portion of the Duwamish River and the zoning is Heavy- Manufacturing (M -H). 2) Submittal of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit ap- plication is required for any non - exempt development (i.e. drainage facilities, road improvements, landfill, etc.) within 200 feet of the river's ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The proposed development has all of these elements and will require a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 3) Furthermore, KCC 25.16.190 states, in part, that filling may be permitted in the urban environment, only as part of an ap- proved overall development plan and not as an independent ac- tivity,. Therefore, we request you not approve the grading permit at this date. MDM:AMN:tss cc: Anna Marie Nelson, Planner I ESM, Inc. Whitco (Elmer White) Caste +° 1/0,.-64 ae . SC) ��-�- mpg 41- ¢ - ; ett s l�s KNVIRONMK TPAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Duwamish Site Mobile Crane Storage Facility King County, Washington ,±2 -G 2. Name of applicant: Whitco 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: CONTACT PERSON: Loran T. Petersen ESN, INC. 941 Powell Ave. SW, #100 Renton, WA 98055 228 -5628 4. Date checklist prepared: April 26, 1988 5. Agency requesting checklist: "T4k Gry of TNku)►1,# ?Denning tttOSI•" 5-Kin "" •oTnty Bu 16 ngmEgmLand Dev repment (Grading Section) OWNER: Elmer White, Sr. 5900 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98105 767W67. I u. E I BLDG. & " ; ^r [ iAY 11 L.;3 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Cl4f1 6c 114k0114 Pending review and approval of Kis-g County Build' ng„-' and Land Deve4yopment (Grading Section), site improvement work is scheduled to commence after issuance of permit. Completion will be within 90 days. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Specific plans are not available at this time; however, owner intends to develop the site in the future to a higher use. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None Known. 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. None Known. .. . ...... c: 4 ,...,;„ :::„.....„. f,.s- (_p a 8 • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. C I4 OF ?uKuh14 1,114,nrnn5 D aksl can Kin ..-County BuisltIngandmLand •RDevelopment. (Grading Section). 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 form to include additional specific information on project description.) The entire site is 10.3 acres. The owner wishes to fill re the lower 5.3 acres (to elevation 26.0 feet MSL) to provide gravelled surface for storage of mobile cranes. 2 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. A portion of the Northwest Quarter of Sessj03.10, Towns ,.,23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a:"4 General description of the site (circle one): flat. rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous. other. The lower 5.3 acres are flat. The remaining 5 acres are hilly with some steep slopes. b. "What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Greater than 100 %. 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? {,P1 „�_ Silty Gravel. FRAdWaa b%�S0:f{�c 4,"�'p�t��.'� d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the ' immediate vicinity? If so. describe. None Known. • • Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Anticipated grading and filling will be as required to provide structural fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing. construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g- Yes. Some erosion could occur (if due care is not exercised) during clearing and grading. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? None h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: All work will be conducted in compliance with the appropriate K=ingr "rig 714'4°4 County ordinances with regard to temporary erosion control and other Surface Water Management requirements. Sedimentation ponds are anticipated. 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 and equipment fumes during construction. Additional occasional emissions will occur when mobile equipment is moved to /or from site. b. Are there any off —site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to ,J�q air.' if any: (D) I L )US t coo-feel. BSc ny V14110140.. -1,u.cics, Arum SRAys l+.s t,J. R- Oo�r°I. N/A ?equflees TO Kccp visw4t p42+'e -L4 IA' -.s 400 A MtAt"Lkm. i(11/ 0 3. WATER a. Surface • • 4 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. The Duwamish River is immediately south of the site (across S. 115th Street). 2)/'" Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. See grading plan. 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. Nos 7V kJd455 k45ed on a o. e. 6arri40SS 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 9 Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. None Anticipated. 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 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. N/A c. S Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally Jdescribe. • • Water Runoff (including storm water): 5 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 percolate into pervious gravel surface, or into proposed sedimentation /retention pond. 4. a. Pollutants from parked cranes may fall on pervious surfaces. s' Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: c. Sedimentation /Retention ponds anticipated. PLANTS Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, or other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs X 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 (brush, berry briers) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Clearing of lower 5.3 acres will require removal of brush and some trees. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None Proposed. • • 5. ANIMALS a. Underline 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: rabbits, rodents fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A 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. No building or heating. Fuels would be used for vehicles, but not stored on -site. 6 b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What other 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: N/A 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. Yes. Those commonly associated with construction of a project of this type and the operation of construction equipment. • • Describe special emergency services that sight be required. None Anticipated. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 7 Traffic noises are anticipated to have minimal impact on the site. 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 cove from the site. Typical noise associated with construction during normal working hours. Occasional vehicular noises associated with moving equipment on or off site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. I/ What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site is vacant with surrounding uses being residential and industrial. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. None d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? oke in- a. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? "TIE ci4y of Tukwilq ,Rang =County Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Urban; the 8. current zoning is MK eatt+emCvommunittiiresimPj an• I-1 AT i s-tMAL ;' ;4 W i +l+ $ PCU AL 1 ►o f n►�jt aens, a�Rm 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 'environmentally sensitive' area. If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people mould reside or work in the completed project? None j. Approximately how any people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and project land uses and plans, if any: The proposed project is in conformance with the standards set forth by A Cl uOFTi4k Oath s. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how any units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, mould be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. None • • 10. AESTHETICS 9 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? None Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 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? 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: None 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Yes. The site is apparently used as a "motorcross" course. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project applicant, if any: None • • 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. b. c. 414014. UNtko o (#41;,' e. \ Adokl 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 Known. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None Known. 10 Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None Proposed. TRANSPORTATION Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Existing streets /highways serving the site consist of S. 115th Street. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? �,�� Q / ! /S /,►�/1�1�� N/A Get ,{�(�, '6111r/V11/ ` !• 1 41 14 cjis A IMF How many parking spaces would the completed project hav How many would the project eliminate ?,44c_ u GiL2ntid/L 54-se—d- u/ern e4apme..4' 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). CDriveway only. t Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Trips to and from site for storage of equipment will be very infrequent. and would not result in any significant impact on roads. • • 11 Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so. generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: N/A 16. UTILITIES a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas. water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sever, 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 on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted .J ' / /' BS DCE3 :SP :Whitco PPLICATION FOR GRADING PF�' � T-T DING & LAND DEVELOPMENT L -SION KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON this block for staff use only GRADING FILE NO. 7,94i7'----%__7,4?, ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: Sec., T., R.: 315 SIC) "r air\ 2111 Zoning: mk.; PROJECT NAME: DoLopcm) 1.'1 5,,zy( Sij{, PROJECT LOCATION: N if S 1 1 s sr- I b E2 d E P1 OPt 5. Received ' Date: • it �� Gr i 19?' • BONDS yes no amount Cash (Operating) ( ) ( ) $ Surety (Reclamation) ( ') ( )• $ Reclamation /State ( ) ( ) $ Insurance ( ) ( ) expires Plans Review S.W.M. SEPA Sens. Area Surcharge Acreage yardage Surcharge FEES yes no amount (`/) ( ) $ 4 1q11. q6 (• ) (V) $ (✓) ( ) $ ( ) ( ) $ $.5\\\ .yD SUB TOT,QL $ ( (J) $ u) ( ) $ 4l,`1,vb $ TOTAL $ 774c115,'11) THIS APPLICATION BECOMES THE PERMIT WHEN APPROVED, SIGNED AND STAMPED. APPROVED subject to conditions of approval attached hereto and supplemental sheet when necessary. BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION KING COUNTY, WA. Date: I certify that the information fur- nished for this permit is true and correct and I guarantee that applicable King County Ordinances and operating conditions will be my responsibility and violation thereof will be cause for code enforcement action, and I fully understand that no work can continue beyond the expiration of this permit without fi st securin• permit. APPLICANT: complete the following items only Total size in acres of site: 10.3 Total amount of material in cubic yards to be moved: 35,nnn Number of acres open and not rehabilitated during next 12 months: None Cubic yards to be filled or excavated during next 12 months: 35,00u Number of acres to be rehabilitated during next 12 months 5.3 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: ESM, INC. (agent) 941 Powell Ave. S., # Renton, WA. 98n55 (2n6) 22R -5628 Whitco (Elmer White) File # File # File # File # File # 5900 2nd Ave S Seattle, WA_ gR108 (206) 767 -4767 Relationship of applicant to property: ( ) owner ( ) contractor ( ) lessee (X) other (agent) o P-200 tad �..� a..� rev. 4/87 A COPY OF PERMIT, CONDITIONS AND A SET OF THE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3 671 8 8 CONSULTANT William L. Shannon, P.E. SHANNON & WILSON, INC._ Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences 1105 North 38th Street • P.O. Box C -30313 • Seattle, WA 98103-8067 • (206) 632 -8020 • Cable: GEOSAW W- 4914 -02 May 4, 1988 Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company 5900 Second Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98108 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT - SITE AT SOUTH 115TH STREET NEAR 38TH AVENUE SOUTH (EXTENDED) Dear Mr. White: An environmental audit was requested by Western Bridge Company for the above referenced parcel of land. Shannon & Wilson conducted the audit and our results are discussed within. Data Sources Evaluated The following sources were investigated in order to obtain information regarding land use history and to characterize the site: • Aerial photos: - 1961, Pacific Aerial Surveys, Inc. - 1965, Puget Sound Regional Transportation Study, H.G. Chickering, aerial photogrammetrist. - 1970, Washington Department of Natural Resources Seattle • Everett • Spokane • Portland • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louis Earl A. Sibley, P.E. Chairman of the Board President Raymond P. Miller, P.E. George Yamane, P.E. Senior Vice President Vice President Harvey W. Parker, P.E. Atef A. Azzam Vice President Vice President Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company May 4, 1988 Page 2 • • Topographic maps: - U.S. Geological Survey, Des Moines, Washington, 1949, 1:24,000 - U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle South, Washington, 1949, 1:24,000 W- 4914 -02 - Seattle Department of Engineering, Sect. 10, TWP 23N, 4E, W.M., Aerial Survey, 1956, 1:24,000 - U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington, Map I -354, 1962, 1:31,680 - U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle South, Washington, 1973, 1:24,000 • King County Administration Records: Assessor's Office King County Archives King County Zoning King County Code Enforcement • W4914 Shannon & Wilson letter • Shannon & Wilson records of nearby work • Personal Communication: - Joe Anderson, contractor with previous work experience on -site and local resident. Site History The site history is based on data obtained during this audit and listed above. The chronology is from the oldest to most recent data obtained. SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company May 4, 1988 Page 3 • 1951 - Owner is listed as G. Siccardi. W- 4914 -02 • 1969 - Zoning records show zoning as heavy manufacturing (same as present zoning). • 1974 - Property was sold as part of multi - parcel sale. Sales information has been destroyed. • 1986 - Property was sold to Johnette Sanderson by Albert Gaviglio. Survey was requested by Allentown Association. Additional Information: • No complaints in regard to hazardous materials have been filed with King County Code Enforcement. • All assessment records show site as vacant land. Site Description The property is located at South 115th Street near 38th Avenue South (Extended), King County, Washington, in an area described as West Duwamish on topographic maps. (Attachment A provides a complete legal description of the property.) The subject property lies within the floodplain of the Duwamish River. This property is known locally as the "Allentown Rock Pile" because of a hill of bedrock that occupies the central to eastern portion of the site. This hill rises abruptly about 100 feet above the surrounding ground. Otherwise, the topography of the site is relatively level with no obvious visible slope toward the river to the south. We understand that an attempt was made to quarry the rock, but that the rock was of poor quality and the quarry operation was abandoned. Aerial photographs indicate that the level portions of the property were cleared of SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company May 4, 1988 Page 4 • W- 4914 -02 vegetation in approximately 1960. Since that time, blackberry bushes and a few scattered trees have grown up around the hill to the south, west, and north. The property has also been used as an unregulated recreational area by local motorcyle operators. The motorcycles have left many trails around and up the sides of the hill. To the best of our knowledge, no buildings have been erected on the site. The site is, however, cluttered with trash, an estimate 100 to 200 old tires, several discarded mattresses, couches, burned -out cars, small piles of waste Asphalt- Cement paving materials, etc. During a brief site visit, we observed no evidence of distressed vegetation, discarded drums, or surface spills, etc., that would indicate that the property was used to dispose of hazardous materials other than asphalt. Land use surrounding the property is both residential and commercial. The site is bordered to the east by an older residential development in the vicinity of South 113th and South 114th Streets and 41st Avenue South. South 115th Street borders the south side of the site. The Duwamish River lies just to the south of 115th, flowing from east to west. West of the site, a fenced industrial yard is located that is currently being used (at least partially) to store miscellaneous equipment including air compressors, loaders, etc. This yard has evidently been developed since 1970 since it was not visible in the 1970 DNR aerial photographs. Lastly, north of the property lies a City of Seattle power transmission line right -of -way and the Cedar River water pipeline. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions have been explored with 6 borings drilled April 13, 1988 for the purpose of evaluating the potential contamination of the site. These borings were logged by a representative of Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and a letter submitted to Western Bridge Company on April 15, 1988. Documentation of this previous site work is referenced above. The following description of subsurface conditions is based on these site - specific explorations supplemented with subsurface information from nearby explorations performed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., and with a geologic map of Seattle and vicinity, Washington. SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company May 4, 1988 Page 5 • W- 4914 -02 The landforms of the site (i.e., hill and floodplain) were likely developed through a sequence of glacial advance, retreat, and lastly erosion and deposition. The glaciers probably scoured the site of soils, exposing the sedimentary bedrock of the "Allentown Rock Pile ". This pre - glacial rock formation is of middle Eocene age and consists of conglomerate, siltstone, and shale; partly of marine origin (explaining the occasional fossils found at the site). When the glaciers retreated, the valley was filled with alluvium consisting chiefly of sand and silt but including clay and peat. The alluvium was not overridden by the glacier and is therefore normally consolidated. The alluvium was incised by the Duwamish River which likely deposited some additional alluvium in its floodplain during periods of extreme high water. Likewise, the "Rock Pile" was probably eroded over time and the erosion products deposited in the surrounding plain. The depositional materials from the rock pile and the river should have consisted of fine to very fine sands, silts, and possibly some clays. This geological scenario is supported by subsurface information from the site and nearby. The on -site borings encountered sediments consisting of sand, silt, and clay and mixtures of the same. Explorations for the Associated Grocers, Inc., warehouse and additions to the north encountered similar sediments "believed to be deposits which have accumulated in various environments, such as backswamp areas, old channel scars, and other topographic lows." With the exception of Boring B -4, none of the holes drilled on the site encountered contaminants or other hazardous materials. Boring B -4 was located west of the rock pile, approximately halfway from the rock pile toward the fence separating the site from the industrial yard to the west. This boring encountered soils with an "oil odor ". Laboratory tests of soil samples from Boring B -4 (see Attachment B) measured total petroleum hydrocarbons ranging from 50 to 250 parts per million (ppm), with the contaminant level generally decreasing with depth. According to Joe Anderson (personal communication), bulldozing has been done at the site. This site work consisted primarily of grading or leveling the property with on -site soils. To his knowledge, no imported soil or hazardous materials were dumped and covered with on -site soil. The site history and aerial SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim White Western Bridge Company 0 May 4, 1988 Page 6 W- 4914 -02 photographs suggest that the site grading was accomplished in the early 1960's; before the industrial yard west of the site was developed. The petroleum product encountered in Boring B -4 should therefore be a local contaminant that was probably not spread about the site during previous site work. Groundwater was encountered in explorations at the site at depths of 5 to 18 feet below the ground surface of the site. Groundwater was shallowest in Boring B -6 on the north side of the property and deepest in Boring B -1 on the south side of property, thus suggesting a regional groundwater trend to the south toward the Duwamish River. Summary In our opinion, there does not seem to be an indication that hazardous wastes (with the exception of minor amounts of Asphalt- Cement paving rubble) have been disposed of on the tract in question. However, there are numerous areas where domestic trash has been deposited. The oil- stained soil found in one boring appears to be local in extent and from a surface source. These conclusions are based on the available data reviewed, discussions with knowledgeable persons, and a brief site inspection. The audit reflects our best level of effort given only three (3) days to perform. It provides the concerned parties with our judgment concerning the environmental character of the site and does not warrant that no hazardous or solid waste is present on the site. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. lliam S. Burges , Jr., P.E. Engineer Fr W. Pita, P.E., P.G. Associate FWP :WSB /lkd SHANNON & WILSON. INC.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORT /ON OF GOVERNMENT LOTS / AND 2 OF SECT /ON /0, TOWNSH /P 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W. M., /N KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON , LY /NG WEST OF C. D. HILL MANS MEADOW GARDENS ADDITION TO 77/E C /TY OF SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME /2 OF PLATS AT PAGE 86, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; AND LYING EAST OF THE C /TY OF SEATTLE C /TY LIGHT R /GNT-OF -WAY (FORMERLY SEATTLE- TACOMA /NTERURBAN RIGHT-OF-WAY) , THE CENTERLINE OF WH /CH /S DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A PO /NT ON THE RIGHT BANK OF THE DUWAMISH RIVER WHICH BEARS SOUTH 55'0530" EAST, /324 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECT /ON /0; THENCE NORTH 4"4/' WEST 274 FEET TO A PO /NT; 77/ENCE TO THE LEFT WITH A 2' CURVE THROUGH 9'38' OF CURVATURE 482 FEET TO AN INTER- SECT/ON WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SA/0 SECT /ON /0, 3A /D PO /NT BEING 964 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECT /ON /0, AND THE TERM /NUS OF SA /0 RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTERLINE; EXCEPT T1•/AT PORT /ON THEREOF CONDEMNED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE /N K /NG COUNTY SUPER /OR COURT CAUSE NO. 469557 APO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS BEGINNING AT THE P0 /NT OF /NTERSECT /ON OF THE NORTH L /NE OF SA /0 SECT /ON /0 W /TH THE EASTERLY MARC-IN OF THE C /TY OF SEATTLE C /Ty LIGHT RIGHT -OF - WAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SA /D NORTH LINE 802.75 FEET THENCE SOUTH a./O FEET; T7/ENCE WESTERLY ALONG A STRAIGHT L /NE 788. 34 FEET TO THE PO /NT OF /NTE RSECT /ON WITH THE EASTERLY AiARG /N OF 5A /0 C /TY OF SEATTLE C/TY L /GHT R /GHT -OF- WAY; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SA /D EASTERLY MARGIN, 78.08 FEET TO THE PO /NT Or BEG /NN /N6; EXCEPT THAT PORT /ON CF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT /, BLOCK 20, C.D HILLMANS MEADOW GARDENS ADDITION TO TNF C/TY OF SEATTLE, D /V /S /ON NO. 3 , ACCORD /NG TO THE PLAT RECORDED /N VOLUME /2 OF PLATS, PAGE 84, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON ; THENCE NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF 5A /D LOT / A DISTANCE OF /00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 86'/5' WEST A DISTANCE OF /LO FEET; THENCE SOUTH T3 THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE EAST TO A PO /NT SOUTH OF THE PO /NT OF BEG /NN /NG; THENCE NORTH TO THE PO /NT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE WEST 3 FEET THEREOF ABUTTING THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF C/TY OF SEATTLE CITY L /GHT RIGHT- OF -WAY; AND EXCEPT ANY PORT /ON THEREOF 1Y /TN /N THE RIGHT -OF -WAY FOR SOUTH /15'- STREET. SITUATE //V THE COONry OF K /NG , STATE OF WASHINGTON. 1 ANTI S(IRVFYnD'c r`COTICl/'A rr 941 POWELL AV CONSULTANT William L. Shannon, P.E. =I I I ete'O ,.c SHANNON &WILSON, INC. W-4914-02 Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences 1105 North 38th Street • P.O. Box C -30313 • Seattle, WA 98103 -8067 • (206) 632 -8020 • Cable: GEOSAW April 15, 1988- Western Bridge Company 5900 Second Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Attn: Mr. Elmer White EVALUATION OF SITE AT SOUTH 115TH STREET NEAR 38TH AVENUE SOUTH (EXTENDED) FOR THE PRESENCE OF CONTAMINATION. At your request, we observed the soil conditions encountered during drilling of six borings made at the above referenced site on April 13, 1988. The purpose of the borings was to evaluate whether or not contam- inated materials are present. The six borings, ranging in depth from 3 feet (rock was encountered) to 22.5 feet, were drilled at various locations at the site with a 12 -inch diameter auger furnished by you. Grab samples were taken at 2.5 -foot depth intervals, and the visual classification and odor of all samples were noted. Of the 30 samples taken, five had a noticeable odor. In one of the borings (B -4), the samples at a depth of 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 feet deep had a petroleum odor, with the odor becoming less strong with depth. In another boring (B -6) the sample taken at a depth of 7.5 feet had an organic odor, possibly indicating a previous tide -flat environment. It is apparent from the petroleum odor in the one boring that at least at that location, a hydrocarbon product is present in the soil. This product was apparently most concentrated near the soil surface, decreasing with depth. The lateral extent of this product is unknown. Testing of selected soil samples by a chemical laboratory is RECEIVED required to define the concentrations of hydrocarbons. We, therefore,, CITY CF TUMNVli 'recommend that this chemical testing and further evaluations be conducted. BUILDING ; Seattle • Everett • Spokane • Portland • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louts Earl A. Sibley. P.E. Chairman of the Board Raymond P. Miller, P.E. George Yamane, P.E. Senior Vice President Vice President Harvey W. Parker, P.E. Atef A. Azzam Vice President Vice President 'Western Bridge Companje Mr. Elmer White April 15, 1988 Page 2 W- 4912 -02 Please call should you have any questions or if we can be of further service. We appreciate the opportunity of serving you. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. c; L� k/16 Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E. Senior Associate TEK /lmb RECEIVED C1TY OF UKW1LA BUILDiNG DEPT; SHANNON & WILSON. INC. rAKx, 1-X1hU1VIAIN & tiKU YA, IN L. 1 NVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS Date of Report: April 14, 1988 Date Submitted: April 14, 1988 Project: W- 4914 -02 Sample # RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLES FOR TOTAL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS BY TLC Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (PPm) B -4 S -1 2.5' 250 B -4 S -2 5.0' 100 B -6 S -3 7.5' 50 Oualitv Assurance Method Blank B -4 S -2 5.0' (Duplicate) B -4 S -2 5.0' (Matrix Spike) Spiked @ 500 ppm Percent Recovery <50 250 120% SHANNON &SON SOIL MECHANICS & FO ION ENGRS SEATTLE - PORTLAND - BURLINGAME DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION FIELD REPRESENTATIVE / 'IED Afro-06-14 DRILL CONTRACTOR we5rpi N 15,1 ' P -t DRILLER TYPE DRILL SIZE & TYPE OF CASING DRILLING MUD JOB NO. � 49 I JOB kJ A5 Ttn B o l A 6-1e- BORING NO LOCATION & / CLI ELEVATION // ? DATE t[ /I7 SHIFT WEATHER SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA SAM PLE NO. TYPE OF SAMPLE DRILL ACTION DEPTH OF SAMPLE FROM TO DRIVING RESISTANCE BLOWS /6 IN. LENGTH OF SAMPLE NO. SAM- PLES SAVED FIELD CLASSIFICATION G rt mo Afflevelm 4 0 J i 13npwn/ S/4Np1( SILT; •5 ME G -nP(.4 C. p)a-m p AID °Poll 1 J now 0/ l3C.i4Glt ,4N,C TD M6D iu q/ -ND G !V o 000t? Qh- %h Y o' K 31Y wN r i �+ty Slvwpr 5 /Lr p /rip Nd AO )2 J /( a J 17 f J Brawn! 5»0 Fn.) 0_ To Ate 5 P W v, ppm, , N D o as l Onown/ leas i CoLaniO poitnri , g Owd 51%-r DP N� L1Gdir fln DEPTH FROM TO FIELD LOG OF BORING REMARKS 514119CI S /A/CO. l,/ A Ctttwi Diet crib N TD ✓ Co Co Nr*fI ravel E'fc.. PROGRESS AT START OF SHIFT AT END OF SHIFT DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL $D DEPTH OF CASING DEPTH OF BORING FOOTAGE DRILLED THIS SHIFT ATTEMPTED NO. SAMPLES THIS SHIFT; RECOVERED TIME DISTRIBUTION THIS SHIFT DRILLING MOVING REPAIRING STAND BY BORING NO. _ SHEET OF SHEETS • SHANNON 'LSON SOIL MECHANICS & F ION ENGRS SEATTLE - PORTLAND - BURLINGAME DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION tO tYrctn/ FIELD REPRESENTATIVE DRILL CONTRACTOR DRILLER TYPE DRILL SIZE & TYPE OF CASING DRILLING MUD ',/ , (�C��// 1 JOB NO • I/`� 1 Y` _t9 JOB O ` �� BORING NO L./ / 4 LOCATION ELEVATION DATE yr/ 31 g8 SHIFT WEATHER SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA SAM• PLE NO. TYPE OF SAMPLE DRILL ACTION DEPTH OF SAMPLE FROM TO DRIVING RESISTANCE BLOWS /6 IN. LENGTH OF SAMPLE NO. SAM- PLES SAVED FIELD CLASSIFICATION \olel 644:0 C-na DE FROM PTH TO 1©• 0 B 151 -00 GRA y S tLTY c L y' /D 4) W Al x ial) R i DwN Lut S Aro. fTE P Y IL1' Cc. A7 —_ W o& rz S a ay. w y s (c rY S fr N n 6,- 0 AvGt. v r „,v S,y 0 1)0n S J no4AN G41 avd LLY Aft••• Si T DI? Y — /10 d oaf 0 J FIELD LOG OF BORING REMARKS V' Z —o N t -4qO Roam NJ Iwo n I n c A-1-- 3' 5 -3 PROGRESS AT START OF SHIFT AT END OF SHIFT DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DEPTH OF CASING DEPTH OF BORING FOOTAGE DRILLED THIS SHIFT ATTEMPTED NO. SAMPLES THIS SHIFT: RECOVERED TIME DISTRIBUTION THIS SHIFT DRILLING MOVING REPAIRING STAND BY BORING NO. _ SHEET OF SHEETS 74131 SHANNON SON SOIL MECHANICS & FO TION ENGRS SEATTLE - PORTLAND - BURLINGAME DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION FIELD REPRESENTATIVE Ceti) Nr4-n6i DRILL CONTRACTOR DRILLER TYPE DRILL SIZE & TYPE OF CASING DRILLING MUD JOB NO..) y> —v I JOB 166" BORING NO e'- J 4- ./ J LOCATION 111 ELEVATION y DATE / /13 /gg# SHIFT WEATHER SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA SAM PLE NO. TYPE OF SAMPLE DRILL ACTION DEPTH OF SAMPLE FROM DRIVING RESISTANCE TO BLOWS/6 IN. LENGTH OF SAMPLE NO. SAM. PLES SAVED FIELD CLASSIFICATION PrrO 1, 11 4 7 J J 80owN cr- nPtief- ( S11- "r 311-r; VRr Na CDOM 13?0 wNt (61 fc Tr 6- 0trvAn r A--ND p ;hP — OlL opoo!' S 1 v J 7 J 80/ew n/ r- I°SLAc , 5711.1/) SILT —Oeho ©!L, epee\ G.n 1' s,Lr v�fxs, S L I G/Pr o iL C'Pa (1 le 1 12- J -rfi -fsr , S , it — OAr!, p 7 (`'tar Stla -rr pet. 0O0fLL) CM( Sik-troY 514r 'VOr DE PT H FROM TO FIELD LOG OF BORING REMARKS 6 3 6 N R O (.K �7 ey1 (silosrdtit?� PROGRESS AT START OF SHIFT AT END OF SHIFT DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DEPTH OF CASING DEPTH OF BORING FOOTAGE DRILLED THIS SHIFT ATTEMPTED NO. SAMPLES THIS SHIFT: RECOVERED TIME DISTRIBUTION THIS SHIFT DRILLING REPAIRING MOVING STAND BY BORING NO. _ SHEET OF SHEETS SHANNON _SON SOIL MECHANICS & FO ION ENGRS SEATTLE - PORTLAND - BURLINGAME DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION 4e NycntVV FIELD REPRESENTATIVE DRILL CONTRACTOR DRILLER TYPE DRILL SIZE & TYPE OF CASING DRILLING MUD JOB NO. /�/ 9r _o JOB r CI PL• BORING NO. "✓ Li $ 5 LOCATION ELEVATION DATE % (� //, r SHIFT WEATHER SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA SAM. PLE NO. TYPE OF SAMPLE DRILL ACTION DEPTH OF SAMPLEIVING �J1j✓ /( ISTANCE FROM T B OWS /6IN. LENGTH OF SAMPLE NO. SAM- PLES SAVED n \t,1 G0) )* 11 II )1 DEPTH R M 1 TO .. fl J FIELD CLASSIFICATION 0-21.1-4'4 I3110,411\1- LJ �NL. 5 I oy ui JYD D 1 �7 J A-1141, (/h Covt x6. 6 -s J DAY Di "P /vo .0 go J !. G4flaY 5 kT wtr Nt Doa >� J i Gfla,,( 5'LTy T &Shy. oOO 0 J LOG OF B RI G REMARKS G -(1A -Y d 4h 5 et Pt PROGRESS AT START OF SHIFT I AT END OF.¢HIFT DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DEPTH OF CASING DEPTH OF BORING FOOTAGE DRILLED THIS SHIFT ATTEMPTED NO. SAMPLES THIS SHIFT: RECOVERED TIME DISTRIBUTION THIS SHIFT DRILLING MOVING REPAIRING STAND BY BORING NO. _ SHEET OF SHEETS 7413e SHANNON �LSON SOIL MECHANICS & F rION ENGRS SEATTLE - PORTLAND - BURLINGAME DAILY REPORT OF EXPLORATION FIELD REPRESENTATIVE DRILL CONTRACTOR DRILLER TYPE DRILL GV t5it l iv 5i /D(re_ SIZE & TYPE OF CASING DRILLING MUD JOB NO JOB I c OCI BORING NO 54. 991 -b LOCATION ELEVATION QQ DATE /13/ W SHIFT WEATHER SAMPLE ELEVATION DATA SAM.) PLE NO. TYPE OF SAMPLE DRILL ACTION DEPTH OF SAMPLE FROM TO DRIVING RESISTANCE BLOWS /6 IN. LENGTH OF SAMPLE NO. SAM- PLES SAVED G43 v v J FIELD CLASSIFICATION gawp/ C'6Y s/tr'r' SRlvp 1)R-hp Xa boort J J J ?t)OMJ Contrive 5l /-r 4-- 5 +N0 14/6- TO 00o nOWN UKr C‘ Pi - if S /L� 16gb,ec I,Utr- bp o R DEPTH FROM TO FIELD LOG OF BORING REMAFIKS dry yogic. a �.� — H- s S q PROGRESS AT START OF SHIFT AT END OF SHIFT DEPTH TO WATER LEVEL DEPTH OF CAGING DEPTH OF BORING FOOTAGE DRILLED THIS SHIFT ATTEMPTED NO. SAMPLES THIS SHIFT: RECOVERED TIME DISTRIBUTION THIS SHIFT DRILLING MOVING REPAIRING STAND BY BORING NO. SHEET 1 OF J SHEETS 7r13i ,CONSULTANT William L Shannon, P.E. 1105 North 38th Street • P.O. February 25, 1988 Western Bridge Co. 5900 2nd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98108 Attn: Mr. James White SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences Box C -30313 • Seattle, WA 98103 -8067 • (206) 632-8020 • Cable: GEOSAW W- 4914 -01 RECETVED CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING UEPT PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF ROCK OUTCROP, SOUTH 113TH STREET, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON This letter presents our observations and conclusions regarding the commercial use of the property bounded by So. 112th and So. 115th Streets on the north and south sides and the extensions of 35th and 38th Avenues So. on the west and east. The site is located in the Allentown district. We understand that you are considering regrading the site, which would require the excavation of a high hill and the filling of the lower elevations on the site. The hill is composed primarily of bedrock. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the suitability of the site for commercial development and the suitability of the rock for on -site fill and for commercial sale. The site is generally level around its north, south and west margins. Rising above this level of the Duwamish River valley (elevation 19 to 20 feet) is an outcrop of rock about 110 feet high. The summit is approximately elevation 130 feet. The rock outcrop has been used as a rock quarry in the past, as evidenced by the angular boulders around the margins of the hill and the drill holes in some of the rocks. The western half of the outcrop is at a lower elevation (approximately elevation 50 to 70). The rock outcrop is of volcanic origin, at least part of which was extruded into water during the Miocene epoch about 40 to 50 million years ago. As such, it is composed of pillows of andesite and basalt and other quite variable materials. The eastern portion of the hill is made of gray and purple -brown fine to coarse- grained feldspathic andesite. The pillow structures range from 1 -inch to several feet in diameter. The unconfined compressive strength of the rock is quite variable, ranging from moderately hard to very soft. The outcrops of rock are highly weathered to depths of at least of 6 to 12 inches at the top of the outcrop and 8 to 10 feet on the north and lower margins of the hill. In a saddle between the two nobs of the hill the rock is fairly massive and has a high compressive strength. At the highest elevations of the hill the rock is a moderately hard andesite with local areas of soft breccia ( angular and rounded pieces of harder rock in a softer matrix). On the north side of the hill the pillow structure is very pronounced and weathering is very deep, as discussed above. The western nob of the hill is quite variable; about half of the western exposure is moderately hard andesite and the other half is a very soft, highly to completely weathered andesitic breccia. The breccia contains small pods of harder rock. In our opinion, the hard, massive andesite would be suitable for crushed rock products, spalls and some selected rocks for riprap. The riprap would not be, plentiful, because even many of Seattle • Everett • Spokane • Portland • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louis Earl A. Sibley, P.E. Raymond P. Miller, P.E. Chairman of the Board Senior Vice President George Yamane, P.E. Vice President Harvey W. Parker, P.E. Vice President Atef A. Auam Vice President Western Bridge Co. Attn: Mr. James White February 25, 1988 Page 2 • W-4914-01 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DEM the larger blasted rocks are seamy and weathered along joints. Excavation could only be performed by blasting. Charge placement and powder factors would need to be changed frequently based on the resistance of the drill bit because the rock quality is likely to change suddenly. The pillowed andesite is weathered quite deeply where exposed . and tends to be weathered even deeper along the contacts between pillows. The quality of this rock would be highly variable. In the weathered rind this material would only be suitable for dry weather fill. As excavation extends deeper, crushed rock quality may be attainable, but spall and riprap quality is unlikely. This rock type can be dozed and ripped in the upper 5 to 10 feet, and perhaps deeper. Below that, blasting would be necessary. A hard core to some of the pillows was observed, so local resistance to breakage may be encountered. The andesitic breccia is essentially a soil, which contains a significant amount of fines. Although it contains gravel clasts, the matrix of sandy silt or silty sand would limit its use to dry weather fill. This material could be moved with a dozer blade or by ripping. Due to the nature of the deposition of these rocks the above described rock types are not neatly layered or areally arranged. Their location in the core of this hill is unpredictable. It appears that the present shape of the hill may reflect the frustration of the previous quarry operator, the poor quality rock is exposed because when the operators encountered it, they abandoned that area and move to rock of better quality. If it is desired to develop this former quarry site as a rock quarry, drilling should be performed and the rock core tested for abrasion and degradation resistance. Sufficient drilling should be accomplished to develop a high enough level of confidence to approximate the percentage of commercial rock. In general, exposed rock surfaces would provide good bearing for structure foundations. The highly weathered material in the joints and seams of the rock may be soft and compressible, and may need to be removed from footing locations. The valley sediments on the lower portion of the site would probably not provide suitable bearing for structures, and preloading and/or pile foundations may be required. Exploratory borings will be required to determine the thickness and engineering properties of the soils overlying bedrock at this site. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Gl/,� „ 7 William T. Laprade, C.E.G. Senior Principal Engineering Geologist ph ➢Q. Boirum, P.E. Associate SHANNON & WILSON. INC. QUeeS-41 0la cynks --770 K- : 'Rep. - r3 V '-:;44//on --0941k /5x '- 5,:eii;094 br ;).w.60,71 rfikA,46 rir" OBJECTIVE 1. • • `RECOGNIZE•THE AESTHETIC, ENVIRONMENTAL; AND USE BENEFITS;OF VEGE- TATION AND' PROMOTE ITS RETENTION AND 'INSTALLATION:`' ""` To the freeway motorist who only stays in Tukwila for the'few minutes it takes to traverse it, the forests which line the highway area welcome and mellowing embrace. To the Tukwila residents, the trees and shrubs aid privacy and foster a feeling of low- density living. Hence, despite the "urbanness" of Tukwila, the character or image of the city, is one of a unique blend of urban and rural values and amenities. While vegetation does indeed represent a natural amenity or aesthetic resource, it serves other purposes as well. For instance, vegetation reduces erosion and storm water runoff, produces oxygen, provides wildlife habitat,,helps to stabilize steep slopes, • provides food in the form of agricultural crops, and diminishes noise. Policy 1. Maintain the wooded character of the steep slopes and upland plateau, and encourage the use of vegetation in slope stabili- zation. Most of the major wooded areas in the Tukwila vicinity are located primarily on the steep slopes bordering the valley and partially in the upland plateau. As far as the steep slopes are concerned, vegetation here helps to curtail erosion and surface water runoff while generally aiding the stability of the slopes. Policy 2. Encourage the use of live vegetation in development landscape plans. While artificial landscaping requires littlemainte- nance and can be easily removed and "replanted ", natural or live landscaping produces oxygen, provides wildlife habitat, reduces runoff, and provides diversity by changing colors with the seasons. Policy 3. Discourage disturbance of vegetation when not in conjunction with the actual development of the property. In some cases, land is cleared of vegetation before a building permit or rezone has been issued on the assumption that the permit or rezone can be obtained merely by applying for it. However, if the request is denied upon application, the land then lies vacant in a denuded condition and its future potential as marketable property is often damaged. 24 • • Policy 1. Discourage development on slopes in excess of 20 percent. All other environmental factors aside, a flat piece of land will accommodate the widest range of land uses. As the slope of the land parcel increases, however, the range of suitable land uses diminishes to a point where finally the slope is so steep that it is not suitable for any use. Generally it is not desireable to develop slopes of greater than 20 per- cent and according to city ordinances roads can not be con- structed with gradients in excess of 15 percent. Policy 2. Preserve the views of hillside residents. The Tukwila Hill boasts tremendous views and panora- mas. To the north are the Seattle nightlights, to the west colorful sunsets over McMicken Heights, to the south Mt. Rainier looming over the Green River Valley, and to the east the rugged Cascade Mountains. These views are extraordinary amenities which can be promoted and enhanced through planning and fore- sight. Policy 3. Preserve and promote the quality of natural landform. This policy pertains primarily to cuts, fills, and excavations in the upland areas. In many cases, hillside areas are significantly excavated to accommodate new development. This policy encourages the use of the landform as it lies rather than altering the landform to conform to the desired use. In addition, this policy discourages the leveling of localized knolls to fill in low spots or the bringing in of fill to level the area between knolls. Policy 4. Discourage filling, grading, or excavations of land when not in conjunction with actual development of the land. In many cases land is modified prior to the issuance of building permits for the proposed development. Many times this modification is so severe that it "commits" the land to a certain development. In effect, then, through the issuance of a grading permit the City has condoned the development pro- posal de facto. (This policy is not intended to apply to sur- charge fills on commercially or industrially zoned land in the valley since this action is inextricably tied and a necessary commencement to the actual development of the property.) 26 • E eo��l o,J Co,.rrz oL. PoiJ O tzI 1.1 v (--c-vL AT ors G ALc L) t.-ATc 2.e rz p O ur.E : AREA 4 O L. TY P E AL 1STt� C, Gor•! DiTI o;3 PTZ>; -I % 1T4T1 tt JrJ oFF /�.12�: A. Iii r-r -)-h t ►.j + 12..CL..11JE VE2Z.i . EL.c.. D F FEte..Er.)C-i:. 14 [So I J AVE SLope 4 0 ScE SNT. 1 /4 R OFF Vot_.UMt C OrelOc., RAC'N 3/4 4.0 S+ /A 0.t3441 Ac. '1/5-1 b S`.D NT vot Qr- 'ci3 /A IYR (11or -4o6 w1 2 0 - T - 14(6.174Ad.YL-ect). Po'� Vo�.J 1 E iLEQ V I B ED T. 4, 4 4514 . 14 c' c L4�- �Vt,AI Po,•17 VoLJ1, -1C P2oJ/tr-,E7 2ETA,.1 GL.A2 SN,' PEED PON D cl = 4-1 DEEP (.', 1 st e 0Pe.S, Ai TOP 10, 371 411<1- Az, 0,0Trvr•1 5,37 5 t A2 AI AZ _ 15.75-o4- 4L'7 2 _ ISef7 c 1% • dlo 5 L c, 416 > 15 20 1 C.; bU 33 �30 25\ 45 \l8 S IS -50 45 40 -35 N 35 15 L 25 20 2 —YEAR — 24 —HR. PRECIPITATION PRECIPITATION IN TENTHS OF AN INCH ANNUAL j4`j' X50 (T30 3s� �o� X35 (i-\) 40f - ---_�� 20 �ao •`i•" \/ . • --�_. . (45 J.zc .� . fl • TEMPORARY SEDIMENT PONDS NOMOGRAPH 1 (RUNOFF VOLUME) TYPE 1A STORM AREA P? CT 95- 90- -90 85- w -85 80- ? -80 -75 -70 °!! 'I; 65— -65 60- -60 • HYDROLOGIC SOILS GROUP • )400. C'F3 141c›c . s u (c,' I Ac. ,s-7 to c- 45 * BASED UPON A TI!-ME OF CONCENTRATION OF .25 HR. A 55- • 0 4 M • w z H w 0 G, 0 w 0 0 ca H 43. 0. 500- /000- I- 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 RUNOFF — INCHES /500- 2c00- 1500- � 3000- •... 3500-1-* 4000- ...,. -- 5000- • • TEMPORARY SEDIMENT PONDS - NOMOGRAPH 2 (SEDIMENT VOLUME FOR DETENTION STORAGE) _ciao- ._�•I� � -�= `� -.%�� 131/�!!•;��:� r • • r!". 11: • /0.0. •ter sswi� �� . sssiws� of ®`f'�ss ide aai ® it i1°' 4 MUM I �. .:::.4. ....ero......:,-11 : . 1 : I n .. ,: ......•... .:44 :::...: ,..., --1' 1..1...i r• 1 --- • - • j- .......17.. • : :::..:±44.::::, :I.: s L 70 e t •uu .. we 7 .o..) s doo 7 fp 9$xo is: Slope Length in Fool 0 O E / 2 Ye. 4 Cl q ::s * BARE GROUND (C = 1.0, P = 1.2, & R = 10) 1/ 60 P.C.F. per Ft.3 6,0 4.0 2.0 1.0 . 0G .04 . 02 1-4I 0 M w 0 4i /00 . 200 tT fo a)300 Q ■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■\■■\■■\■■■■■■■■ ■II ■■ ■■■■■■■ /®■ ■/I ■■PT:M ■■1■■!i■■ ■s■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■� Pi■■■!/■■■■■■!:/■■ ■■ ■■■ ■0!A■■1P!■e■■■ Pm-M1115011 i■Rwm-s■ Pad■!■■ /1 ■■■■■ IMMAMIKNOMIPMWORSIOMMOMMOM ■■■► UIPM211,MMe■M.■■■■■■■■■■■■■E ■ ■//.■U■■I■KI/MI/i /■■ ••IOWN■ %■211:/1!M/■■■■`' ■ ■■■rm■►.v4P4■ce■■■■■■ �•RODl8/LITYe ■f1.IL1,■I.■ %I.• /'l■■■■I■■• ■ ■IIII'IISMWAU■■■■■■s■ mmm■m■■■■ ■ 11I.■► /tI %I.■■■ ■■■■s■ ■■■■s■■■■ ■■1■■■■ ■ 7J4YI4 'i ►I■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■t■■■ fir aum .reee■1leemae■e : unu s im melu■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■i I uMUM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1■■ rar ,aa■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■m■■■U■ UNON ulU ■■■■1■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1'.■I 1?i■■■■■■■I■1■ # ■■■1■■1■■■i■■ 1vgf I■■■ ■au■■■■■ 2 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IIN'J/Dm■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■s■ m!, Ira ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■a■ »' 9m ■■i ■■■■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■1■■■■■■ ■►iL■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■IIU >,u in ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■''MIIII■■■RIIII■i■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■: 1■ ■■■■■■■■■■■1■1i■■■ ■■■■1■ ■■■■I■I ■./■ ■■ ■I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■1 ■ N■ ■ ■1■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■1■■1■■■■■■■■® LI aft ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 1'■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ IJ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■1■■■I■■ ' I■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■a■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■af■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■.■■s■■ /0 20 30 EROSIO TONS PER ACRE (E = R SCP) 1 ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ ■l■■ ■1■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ Wa MM ■■■■1U■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■s■■■■■i■■■ ■■■■u■ ■ ■■■■ �1■■■■ ■1■■\■■■■■■■ ■ \\■■■■■■■ G ■■■■■■■■■■■U■s■ • ■\■■ ■■■■■■ ■■111 ■s■ ■■i..■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■I r,NU■■■U■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ \ iu■■■■■■i■■ ■1■s■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ MAIMR ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■s■■■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■■MAm ■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■■ ■■I■m■■ ■■■emu■.■ ■■■■ AWANOOI ■ ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■ ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■► 'AS\\U■■ ■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■\\'POO■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■I1iiM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■ . ■■..•EI1I II ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■1■■■ ■■I■Min0A \■ ■■I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■ &WASSIN ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■I ■ ■ ■1■■ ■■■■■ ■■ia►uuI\■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■IWRIBUI ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■M■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■.■.■.,..� 1.1.1..1........ ■.■■■ ■■■■uuu' ■'i o ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ►��A►�\ �y E■■■■ ■1■■■■ ■f■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■URS. C� ■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ ■U■■■ ■U■ ■►��U O ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ \ ■�� \. p 0 ■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■■■ iiiiiiii E ■ ■ ■ ■ I■ .■ ■ ■ ■ l■ a■i I■■ ■■■■■■II i U.IlI ■ ■■■■■ 1111:1::::::::::: ■mm����■�� ■�I � ■■■■■■■■ VI UI ■■■■■■■■ ■■f■■■■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ � Ii \I■■■■■ ■■■■■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■ • • I■1 ■■■■■ MVO I/►■ ■ ■■■■■ii DATE INIT. ACTIVITEILOG COMMENTS Ag--Ae,Armovfc 2,02/,a ceF'''_/ /,,eis Y d) /17,es -mss GUS r , -2 AO /9/// s4 !.l 5 FILE COPY .. 1 understand that Me Plan Check apprwali are • subject to errws3 G 17 0s:a-a -and approval of ri-t t`.+.Llaloticn cf any • T OI�: r.mr-, !Tcceict Of COIIfflc0Y5 Date.... • Permit Plo. ACC.esg Re AD To . tlTe or.1 6e-ern-Le WATERS. DEPT. 2.o•�w,/, T1 6A46H6w11- �4A.1Aa .1 Ar4NT'.' rr IE:AL. INSLTIRI0l . TAT TOMOS 0 COPLIDOZI 1013 1 A® 2' Of =TIM 10, TOMTIT 23 N09, RAM 4 3)117, 1.A., ID LIB[ 079101, " SIDEDL,'LTIDL MST 0 c.D..II1.1MOI'3 • 1610017 . 00L0•3 ADDITION TO T6 CITT 0'6AT0E, 019/1100 30. 3, IMMODISC TO TEE PLAT SECOIDS° 13 701.082 12 07-PLATS AT 1100 06, IS WIC 0001171, .ASSlitOli • • • AND LT1110' CAST 0? T6 01T 0 SEATTLE CIIT LICIT *COI -0P -UST (POINl3LT 'SASTIE- 711310 206061! •1011-0T-SAY); 110 CORp.IS6 OF 0810 IS 0[81060 AS TOSSERS: • • 3ILI000 AT • PILOT OS t13 0110 SAES 0.116 MOM= RIMS 10100 6•13 9001' 13'01'337 AST, 1320 TOT PURI 116 SORMAIST OOOO 0 SAID 601233 10. TEEM NORM 1.41' VEST 274 PLR TO • ro10; TIM TO T6 LET 010 A 7' 00M6 TEOCGH 9'111. 0 00R0.706 412 TIT TO 13 0100 0118 T6 03112 LI6 0 AID SECTION 10, SAID POINT 6IRC 906.107 7301 T6 IOIT013T COM 07 AID '6E7200 10, A® T6 TLODM 0 AID 01 O'-0T-0AT 00000.16: • area, vac roam 7660 CEDffi1D R T6 111Tr 0 ¢*1111 Ty ®C' 000[? 93LQI34 MOM CAUSE S0. 469331 *6 08OI® 13 P01300; ' • 0021828[ AT T6 2003? OF ITO60105 OF 16 ® LI6 0 SAID 111.000 10 NITS 116 IA3TLIL2 W1GI1,0 716 CITY 0 SUMS CITT 11017 01007 -0P -13•7; ''T6= LAS7667 AIME SAID MSS 416.932.75' PUT; TWICE SOTTO .6.10 PUT; '1911¢ 6670R17 AI®C • STEIICR' Lf6 793.3E PST TO T6 AIR 0 IR036RI03 61TO T6 A41R3.T R*SC01 0 AID MIT 0 SA11I1 CITY LIME OCIf-0-0*T; 7602 0017611.7 ALONG SAID EASTERLY SA13,t73.03 MET 70 116 10101 OP WSW T3A1 1001234 0 IMO C09SCOODt?' LOT 2 0030.230 AS MUMS. . v AT T6 200110097 CO® 0 TOT 1, 01.01 2o,' C.D. •01IRN'I 0*2DT -. 401133r*0111101 TO TM 1071 07 SATTLE. DIRSI34 M. 3, ACOOIDITA TO T6 012 70(0000 ID 9o1Ea 12 07 PLAT, PAC S6, -711®11 DP mt COUNTY, DASSIOi ; T010 11065 ALOE 116 MST 736'0 SAID 10.1 • 0117110 OF 100 MT; 11001 20175 16.15. 0137 A DOTNER OF 100 PMT; 1100 SOOTS TO T6 SOTS LI6 OF OOML@6R 007 2; 71000 AST TO A. MIST- 5000 OF TM' POINT 07 SECI911IDC; • 7®10'mve A 116 20101 0 011010• .. • MOIST- 1M' REST 3 FEET 710!0 *SVTYIIG T6 TATTOOS A1C10 0 OTT 0 SEATTLE 021 LIM 111217-10-10T; • 10 cmT YT 10011011 702100 n7® 76'1110 -0.017 110 SOOTS 1137 372E7. • SITUATE IN S6. COUNTY OF TING. T*7S OF 062 ®a. 67 . g4cu077 .IW555 ''• tcc 9-az.90). -0ATEL COIS1EICT10N MIAMI MAINTMAse1 • Ter naval= SHALL 111: lanremaso 1 A CCiwITIONR3105 RILL. PRETEST TRACESNG OR PEON 0 T0I3 NAT REWIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING SITS 3 -1003 H70N1. AS - CONDITIONS DEMAND MID REPAIR AND /OR CLEA0OUT OF ANT STRUCTURES OSBD TO TRAP 0 *IMP17. ALL MATERIALS SPILLED.- DROPPED. SASSED OR TRACKED. FROM 7E33CLLS' 01170 RORDMAYS OR 0370, STORM DRAMS SST SE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. ti�3gD. o I -r 6. 1'1311 G LEAAJ oVr - E ».. • G12.4,55. L1AJ = ID4 =L• 16 SLOT owl kleItT14 G o6 F LyAL1� - M'A P.� PRikiED MAY 2s 1989 G 6:2 Iii: A 1.c- . . OR GALL %c- M GTee1 al._ . TO ., BE 1ZEMO./�= D . . SITE Rzio - 12, AA(. (.IN FEET 1 inch 00 ft. a L iW 401.1 IEMam. S ECM. ISMER EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOSES .l. -,ALL LIMITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF :VEGETATION PRESERVATION AS ::OCSCale= on THE PLAN SHALL BE EARLY FLAGGED ON THE TILED AND REE.N. .1\/ 1 �. oUrU .'115T4 STREET C O N S T R 5 V U C T C D ANDDIIN•OPERATIOOPROR TO LAND CLEARING MAEO /O CONSTRUCTION TO t ENT LADEN WATER • ESTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE YSTEM. ALL EROSION AMDSEDIpENT.,'- LITIEE SHALL S NTAINED IR A'SATISFACTORY CONDITION [ THAT CLEARING AND /OR CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED • EROSION x PASSED. ' IMPLEMENTATION.' MAIRTENANCE0 "REPLACCMENTA A ADDITIONS 'T EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL.SYSTERS'SHALLT SE THE '. RESPONSIBILITY Or. THE PER/TITTLE. A..' THE EROSION AND ATION'CONTROL' SYSTEMS DErIRED O T MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO • ARTICIUPATED.SITEE CONDITIONS. 'AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND EXPECTED OR SL CONDITIONS O PERMITTEE SHOULD ANTICIPATE 'THAT E EROSION .A D,COINCNTATION CONTROL- FACILITIES RILL•BE Y URE COMPLETE SILTATION PROPOSED .SITE. N THE COURSE CONSTRUCTION. ITESMALL B OBLIGATION .DURING AND RESPONSIBILITY Or " GITTEE TO ADORESS•ANY N DITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BYE HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL.FACILITIES'. OVER • ABOVE MINIMUM REOUIRCMENTS, AS MAY D TO • TECT - AOSACENT • MID D RATER DUALITY OFT RECEIVING DRAINAGE -. •PPRAPPROVAL Or THIS•PLAN.IS'FOR.EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY. I DOES-NOT CONSTITUTE A APPROVAL O STORM DRAINAGE • DESIGN.'GIEENORLOCATION OF PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS OR S I WHICH STRIPPED R NN FURTHER WORAIS ANTICIPATEDFOR APERIOD OP SO GAYS OR - MORE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH MULCHING, GRASS PLANTING OR OTHER APPROVED EROSION CONTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE' R PIN QUESTION. S SEEDING ALONE WILL SE N ABLE a ¢Y DURING EKE MONTHS OP APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER. INCLUSIVE' SEEDING MAY PROCEED OUTSIDE THE SPECIFIED TIME N 0 PERIOD WHENEVER IS IN THE INTEREST Or THE PERMITTEE, BUT BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING; MEETING, OR OTHER TREATMENT .- OVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. L r - CONTROL PONDS WITH A DEAD STORAGE ALL EROSION/SEDINENTATION [FLANM EXCE EDING l PENCE MINIMUM Fr { PRo PO560 20GKG • 6* o t4 X - CATE 4.11.81 r 6o•1`2TQUcTt tp EPJTRta AJAR= ('SEE - D6Tn.1c� 0101 0101 120 -LF 1244 Wu✓&R•T (Te-- AA?) . _ 1.3801 pC5nIrt107 SUS PORTION 09 201031!@7( LOTS 1 AND 2 OT' 517(103 10; TOTISMI? 23 501113, , RANGE 4 EAST, J.M., 10 KING COUNTY, WASHINGS.. LYING VEST 09'0.0. RSLU113'S O:ADd MRDENS ADDITION TO DIE CITY OP SUTTEE, 01015103 20. 3, ACCORDING TO -- THE PLAT' RECORDED I1 VOLUME 12 09 1LATS;AT PAGE - 86, IR RING 00011TT, 245EIRS00; - :13,....,.1.61-11G EAST -0P THE CITY OF SEATTLE CITT LIGHT RIC01-O? -VAT (I'ORMERLT 7. - 'ATTLE- 541014 INTEROR3A1 RIGHT -0P -JAY). TM EMMELINE OP WIO IN DP30IBEU ' - I/mo�. 0101 . 20103330 AT A. POIor 0 T0 'Ron SAVE OF 152 0VOIISH 02005 V8t0 SEARS NOSH VS 55'05'30 -LAST. 1324 FM 1101 TIM W312073T CORNER OF SAID SECTION 10, TH ®CE.' L , 205T.14.41' -0051 224 FEES TO A POINT ; TIERCE TO THE LEST WISH A 2' coon . TITOOCN 9'11' OP CE9.lAT0RE 482 FLTT TO 111 TIIIOISLRION WIT. TM NORTH lib OF SAID SECTION 10, SATO POI. BEING 936 FEET RCM T. 160968VPST ORNGR OF 5410 . :000010 10. ADD T130 TERMTI100 CP SAID .1Cor-03 -V4T 00015511.; �- 01.: .:.1 . :: . .. -Rom TUT' P0,10 MUM Cm-80 0 1T • THE CITT 07 SEATTLE • IN RING OOOIT. e.)':--;.-- SIFERIOI COUR CADS! NO. 469552. AHD DESCRIBED AG FOLLOWS - - • . 202158152 AT 00370187 OT INIUSLCTO OF TEE ROM LTAM OF SAID WITCO 10 . • • WIT. THE EASTERLY 882218 02700 CITY OF SEATTLE CITT LIGHT 51501- OF.0AY; - TIME[[ SASTEILT 41.00 SAID DL, UNE 802.75 TUT, THENCE NOSH 6.10 FEET. . . r, ,_' 01- TWICE WESTERLY' M U R IM ALONG A STICR LINE 281.36 PE TO T POI. OT IIT0RSUTIO - . WITH SHE SASTISLY UNGID OF SAID CITT CI SEATTLE GIST UO3 ROr- O-VAT. THERM 105T13RLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARCIA, 73 08 PER TO TIE POINT 0P _ ISOQT THAT PORTION OF SAID 07ECOQrt 101 1 00!0.1820 -AS 101.1005' ".; J -01 00101 ST TSC: SOOS0IPST CORN03 OP NAT T1, BLOCK z0. c D, HILUAH'S 82*03 - ,•1"'i•. • GALODS A®ITIO TO 702 7017 O SEATTLE, 1111108 HO. 3, ACCORDING TO TVE PLAT 1.1 ¢0020 10 7011081 12 OF TATS, PAGE 86, RECORDS OF RING EO11141T. ASRN000: LMACC PONTH 81022 SHE VEST LIVE 0 SAID EDT' 1 A DISTANCE Or 100 PET; THENCE - NOR8 26'15' VEST A 025TAIICE 01 10 FELT; TI3C SOUTH TO 800 =TV LIRE 01 WYRLTOT EAT 2; T16N16 UST TO 4 rotor SOUR OP TEE POINT OF RF.GIS8ING; 7032 NORTH 70170E POI. 0 8232 01111; . . • 1 • -riz - scan THE VEST 3 ICES 7x100!01 ASDrrtac Tae EASTELLT macro of 01331 or scams ,R CITY LION RIGHT-OF-WAT; �. �: ASO CLCER ANY PORN. TILTMOF'RTUS T. RIGHT FOR SO.H 1153. 37031, _ 01 01 STOAT! IN TINT 00NR•or Inc. •STATE CP WA5011GIVa _. - i ti'Ml GRAM. CONSTRUCTION. EXTRA MAINTENANCE N • TEE • ENTRANCE PREVENT TRACKINGN0R' PLOW 'OPEN DDONNT0 UCBOLNC ITION %PRICE WILL .. RIORTS OF -NAVY. • THIS MAY 1030000E . P132101311 TOP DRESSING MIT0 2 -INCE STONE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND /OR CLEANOUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USED TO .TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL MATERIALS SPILL®. 0207220, WASHED _ OR TRACED PROM VEBICLES.ONTO ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS UST EE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. , '6 2p'/EL 8121.1E 1.11.00 - 'F'11TtE. PA60:1C FE.ICE DETAIL- 520350002- Ea..ITa..J Se•C'.^bJT- 9.40 3 oc4t' SG et 1. �D4. DEPTH -2• PWS; 12: F 2E6IieYQO /BIb RoGK 10. 11.5 2 G LEA AJ - oL'T 0101 0101 Eu ceQC•S L, E SwALE. TEM• -�= 1643. 0.5 1.5 RTIi GDEpQ �oP�A.L./OL� 0101 50JTH 115 th•:S THE t • iJ J W A - M '. Jo1-e'. A l-1. Gaesa�` oQGA�11c. M 0-fEQI I� L . TO, C'�BE RerGaOn�L =fl i'ROT -4 SLTE. kio - a 0101.. ' s,- I_7 . .1>rti , 1' - .1 I1.1 EROSION /SEDIMRRAT10tl cooTRL NOT • ALL UNITS of CLEARING AND. AREAS 01 VEGETATION PAESEAVATION.AS. -DESCRIBED. ON CNL I LY .-IPLAGGED ON E ATE° DURING CONSTRUCTION. .f . - • E. ALL RLOUIRCD S 1T ON /EROSION "NNI'ROL FACILITIES MIST SC • CONSTRUCTED A OPERATION PAINT TO L CLEARING AND//OR" NTEA THE NATURAL AGE SYSTEN.. ALL EROSION AND p GENT. . OTHER FACILITIES SHALL uLBE MAINTAINED IN A ATISPACTOAY CONDITION UNTIL SUCH T THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSTRUCTION IS ODMPLETED • AND POTENTIAL FOR ONSET[ EXOSION 16AS PASSEO. IMPLEMENTATION. MAINTENANCE, R AC[MCNT AN ADDITIONS. TO EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL SZ.THE "Otll1SILtTY OI TX[ P[pM[Tt[[. ,'; 't -„ TIIE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS.DEPICTED ON THIS ARE INTENDED TO S RCOUIREMENTS.TO "MEET ANTICIPATED SITE C AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND :UNEXPECTED OR SZASOHAL ICWOiTIONS DICTATE. THE PCRMITKC SHOULD ANTICIPATE T AT OC EROSION O SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES ILL B NECESSARY T E COMPLETE SILTATION • NTROL " ON E THE PROPOSED-SITE. . OUAING TNC COURSE OP 'CVWSTRUCTION. ITSHALLSETAE OBLIGATION AND RCSPOtlSIBILITY OP' THE RMITTCC TO M CONDITIONS TEAT M SE CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES A TIDE•ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER MINIMUM REOVIRINTAIS. AS M KEENED TO DACCNP PROPCRTILS ANO WATER QUALITY. OPY TMC A[ V WAGE THIS P R EROSION / SEDIMENTATION- CONTROL :ONLY. NOT CONSTITUTE w APPROVAL' OF STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN. I BIEEEN R LOCATION Or PIPES. RESTRICTOAS. CHANNELS O • RETENTION FACILITIES. j . S. [ITURO[DAREA WHICH HAS SEEN EL P STRIPPED D OF VEGETATION ASO URTMLR MORE IS ANTICIPATED FOR APERIOG OF 00 DAYS OE WHERE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STABILISED WITH MULCHING. GRASS TO PLANTING OR OTHER YEAR APPROVED QUESSTION.. GRASS SEEDING ALONE WILL BE ACC AS LE ONLY GYBING THE'MONTMS APRIL THROUGH SEKEMBEE 'INCLUSIVE. SEEDING MAY:PROCEED OUTS/OE C THE SPECIFIED TIME • PERIOD WHENEVER IT IS IN-THE INTEREST OF THE PERMITTEE.'.BUT MUST BE AUGMENTED WITH MULCHING. MEETING. OR OTHER TREATMENT . AIPPOV[D'BY TN[ DCPARTX[NI'. _ ' EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PONDS ITH A STORAGE CH DEPTH' EXCEEDING 6 3 E [S MUST AFENCE -HITtl A MINIMUM MAMA, OF 0 FEET. . t 61 01�/E 0 I A/-t -211 O.J. L. 1.4 0 ol PROGo5E0 2ock,.ciJT 1 4 ..3 F ' • 4 W 3 : 4. I " =S' V. 4-IT 89 CO q o S. oo ®pa 00013° 54 paa(..- nal roa7101 0 070102? LOU 1 We 3 Or SUTTON 10, lanC1112 II NOM IAN1 4 [4i, S.N.. 01 01NC 001}1. 8140x00. LYI10 Ea 07 C.D. ar1I14'1 wow GIRDERS ADDITION 10 INC an O SUIT1l. D1RS10 NO. 1, 600SO1C To 701 7.42 ■CCORD10 IN TOLD.. 12 Or PLATS AT PACS 34, 2a 1102 2O0NTT. uAamNLTw: 115 1.1105 CAST Or Toe CM 07 SN1TID CITT 11C1T Il1Rbr -.AT (001Ia017 147211 -I•CRU 1371x13•1 u2avA470. Tar 121^1.1°' Or Sala 13 0.101113 a 00204: MINUS AT • 0020 0 Tar EMU INK O TR COUNIa 01113 aRa UM SOU71 15.05•30.' LAST, II34 ra? real TO =MTST ® CO SAID 021.210 10; =OMR 10171 A'NI' MIST 271 rt. TO • Rola; TEN. TO Tar LEFT YITB • T' atlt TBROWt 9'51' or CORA71a 413 WS i0 21 120/33070/0 PITT Tar won Liar O WD ACTIO 10. SAID ROAR 1005 ISA PMT MN Tar LOTTLO2BT coax. O MB STCTIO 41, A® L6 TTL001 or 1115 0101.0 -BAT 01171.110; =I0. T4T TOR10 ImIO ® ST 70 an O S4T111 11 ROIL COMM s0Ra1C1 COOK 1'154 C. 409351 as 060.1m 4 011.10x: =Nal= LT Tar TOl20 O IR101riT•0 O 712 DIEM LIE 0 SAID 177710 I0 7110 ix 1102.1.2 Nano Or Tar CITY OF NUT= CITT 11212 11452- 07 -DAT; MICR Lanai A1510 SAID 401 4106 50.70 OUT, Tmlt SO0n 6.10 FM, TM= RCR1LT ALO1 • 2041420 LINT 74.4 TM 71 Tar rOla O INTINSIR7a SITS Tar urn= IE21A or SAID CR7 O SUIT. 0117 Lica 13C20-or -SAY: mace saran, AID0 SAID TASTE./ NI1271, 70.0N RR TO Tar P01NT Or 0.01x02. 0 74T 0Q00 O SAID C0 =7 107 P =CUM 4 7001 3: 000021110 20 Tar S0TOKS7 OOm Of 10T I, BLOCK 30, c.o. 1132.10•11'I KAOO 04000 4101110 TO 7 0 CRT O STATT11, 811310 b. 1. •010002 TO Tar IYT 1LO1® 4 001ffi 12 O run, ara 4, arms= or lac sown. YA5811LT0: Ma Nan a= Tar 1020 LIx O SaID 60 1 • 01ST.. or tO arr. TB4a 00010 4'11' 1O1T • Daunt O 10 MT. MRCS [OT. 10 701 SOTTT an OF CORLMM= 120 2: TarNa UST TO • 001107 5071 Or 101 N015T 0 0.00070: TICK a20TN TO Tar 102E O N'LI®C: m Marl an P 0710. MRS. vttar. 1s I14ar -0~102 Tot 1001 1137110.202. SI742t 0 10 0027 O [0G. RA71 0 asaloc 0. TOE 00TRA0C11 SRALL Be MIITANLD 2/ A CONDITI05 001CS WILL PREVENT TRARII6 OR FLOW 0 MID 011O PUBLIC 0.20020- Or -MT. THIS MT RBOOIR2 PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITS 2 -I30B STOVE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND AND REPAIR AND /02 CLLTM00T Or ANT BTROCT0R21 0/18D 10500.[5 Mon 70 17.20 ALL ONTO R0ADWAT3 BORLL1N1R 110„ DRAINS ST BR Mar= I20114D1AT0.T. GLEAO oUT E w. 64pSS. LI..JH Swp 161STA L-L TCHP cow CMP .66,10 DAY, 1614T OJ 1.500.71.. GIC6 nF�LdLr_ ,•-.; y i. v < :} ` 4 S .r. 02.'7,,, 3�.°•Y'`y+ sn•9`_rf•..t e.AQ+°�ds;.°k7�� ci S:'�'wx'' 6d,r'"` Iii..\ t'T.cr. %z.5t�� 'y ti,•,-r•a `:0200 '4.4.G"w�N3da4yG.•'Id.' GLxSV:.c .:mY64'__- I.i.�.S^ :' 7 stai".2£'...i' trCi i ic.3,%L` `_3"s aSY%:!iiCfOY}Stinii:'•+$:«tst :'TRL"�an".?5! °.iS `,uaL3:�t1211 &' :.ss: xrc lt °- `- `..s- ,e`'"i61 n'{ :3?2 `'`":T l.[,: faa%i. �Y: ^.,:..a s ���•r <'•'cZ.'... Z+= ':iYT"'E.:•3.,.3i:F.+ aRx +'�.'•. ' Lt I <: (,.1q .Ac TOTAL PARCEL LEGAL ' 1ZGAL�L�YII08 - THAT PORTION OP GOVERMENT Urn 1 A® 2 OP SECTION 10. TOWNSHIP 23. 80619, - - 1AECY'4. 81ST. W.B.. I0 11011 CD0001. VA5ers1TWr LT78C west or C.D. ' =LIMAN'S . 471500 GARDENS ADDITION' TO 598:.CLTT of SEATTTZ. 01011100 80. 3,. ACCORDI#11 10 THE' PLAT RECORDED:I4' 9010NY I2 OF PLATS AT PACE• 86.. 18 118G'COOSTT.,' 00155181[00;; ". 24 - 550.LTIHG EAST OF THE CITY OP S0ATT1.8 CITY LIGHT BIGHT -OP -WAY (FORMERLY SYATPIZ- TACOMA - MUUMUU 01CHI-01- VAT). TRL CENTERLINE OP MICR- IS 0!SCRI8RD -AS FCLL0WS :' ... O .. 071199551. AT A PONT 08 THE RIGHT 0030 OF THE 50018658 51916 VHICI SEARE SOUTH 55x05'_30°: (AST.; 1324 PERT FRIX 7HE 00BI®785T CORNER OE :SAID 581[108 10; rims. 800TH 4'4(T.'MS2 274.' FEET TO_••POINV ;' IS6HCE, TO TH6 LEFT: RITE. A 2' CURVE •51110WH 9'38',;OP:C12VATUEE 482 FEET TO AN THTERS1CTI00. WITH THE HO1T8 '6180 07•• SAID 0010103110, SAID: Poor BRING 986 4115 FEQ1, THe 1100715EBT 000888.07' SAID 5615109 -10; AW SHB.001101 D5 -CP SAID BICS7-07 -WAY csars1I.100; 5IRPI .THAT PORTION neap? ST THE CITY OF :5080518 IB IIRG • coml. SOPR900 0081! CANS! 50.469551 AND- DE5CRIH10 AN FOLLOWS:' 1131809100 *0 111! 4010? OF INIOR08LTi® op 1911 111100 LI3 or •SAID 5016208 -10 .'AVIV( THE',EAST0ILT 86EC14,0P: ffi: CITY or SEATTLE CITY LIGHT 01HT -09- VAT ;'.• 'H' -- THENCE EARTHILY 8*1101:SAID' =au LIBH 802.75 MT; ••Tema 80009.6.10 ; ITEM 75PNC6 WESTERLY ALONG A:STRAIN LINE 788 ;30'FRIT TO-THE POINT. or IMPACTION WIN - 751: rt;m1113 8A88I6 OP' SAID 0177 58A1010 CITY .LIGHT • 51QT074L&YT` THENCE - NOBT1E0I.T ANA= SAID EASTERLY.' 811118.' 78.08'.11117' TO.TH1 r0IBT OF • . 512185181. SECENT.THAT 7087100 OY..sin) Coirsameir !CL'2 005001050 AS; POLL* ORD®CIM: 050 SOOIFI9001 000ffi 0 7 1 .0 0 . 1 . ',SLOCR 20, C.0. BII.t11Ae'S I1ADOV GLR0055 80017105 TO 18C'C100 0? 5080191, 0 13104 W: 3;',ACCORDIBC'YO t50! 11ZT 501075 ®.I8, 9011711.12 07; FLUB: PAGE 06 . wogs OP-• 81192 C0051T ": WAS!IHLT00; • ..19000. 087a.*1618C,111 WW11.1e$;07 }SAID• LOT. 1 %*.DISTANCE : at. 100:7902 :,- THEBCE 11467811867,15•: 4YOT.8 :DISSAOCS:T0. 100; PYffi ;';THE; SO0111 00 THE i50PID,:LI6.,OP.,- ... 0075119587...0., 2 ; }T'ENC2 YA0P•TO * 'FOIST - 1809758 W. 588'15187'00. :511188111 ;'', -- . - 7191110 HOa18 =YT0 7>S 90181 0T *SECIHHIHC - . A BKPT 738 WEST 3 POET: 1011117 8M111MC 2915 883218 OF 11TT' OP SP*2712 CI71 LICL4'•8IC8f -0- WAY:': .. ': < ADD' Eimer' 187. P0!104 *ERECT VIT518 yes .1ICHI-0!-VAT. 901 00778'1151! =MET.., 01.19879 I8 TEN court OF 1111. STATE' OP'8AS1I81103. 586'16' 19 6l' a3' a4' OZA V'I` CI N. 1 T Y �.. 41.4 + ' V =6.1 G o r 4. O. o8.gc- GRAPHIC SCALE 14,!. - A M: 7 : S - H 1; 89005.00 0 - 'ACCESS 00 AD. To SITE O.I 6E -12210 WATER DEPT.. • e.e.se.wfl.JT P Riot- - • gausT KSSS• • • SEC 9- a3.90) '.: • LEGAL DESCRIPTION TGAT PORTION Or COKSIM1NT IRIS A*2 x M !PRIM 10. 30210HIP C.D. 23 NOME, • RANGE ••6737. V. E0,.6 ZINC =um, 0ASOIPCf =, LYING NET Or C.D 815000.3 000 7 C7ROC33 ASSISI= TO r0 CITE OF SEAMS. DIVISION PO. 1, ACSS1002 TO • ' THE PL•T 8010/106/1 IN 0011111E 12 OF PLATS AT PACE 86, 16 1136 0002/7, • VAStlI3CT03. AND LT10G EAST Or THE CITY 01 SEATTLE CITY LIGHT tICET -07 -VAT (P088011LT - SBATTLE- rAOSLA 0000803303'1108 0-07 -04 7). )0 CENTER-6E M SHIM 13 1100610 23 221LOK• , BEGINNING AT A POINT 05 TILE RICH SANE 07 211 0010108 8200 0316 BEAD 3008 55.05'30• EAST, 1320 CELT 001 THE 3032330} CORM Or SAID 0211103 10; 70010 30000 1.11• VEST 210 FIST TO A 7010}; 'THENCE TO TD L07T 3113 A 2• C011E' 2023000 9.58. Or C00AT0RE 282 FEET TO AN 137ESNELT10 -VETO TM NORTH LING or SAID SECTION 10, SAID 10181 BEM 936 PEET RM THE 33328033} CODER M SAID . 0000[= 10, AND THE 000030 OF SAID 11.160 -07012 CS81L11I0: EBCd70 THAT ro3TI0 1I0000? C2N00613 BT THE CITY Or SEATTLE 6 600 0O073 001*00R COOT CAUSE NO 209537 ARC DESCRIBED AS 7011003, ' 070100000 AT THE 22INT 01 1NT68S1CTI2 Or 000 NORTH LINE M LID 3027003 10 • THE EASTEBLT. 013010 0r THE CITE' OF SEAM MIT LIGHT MEET-Or -VAT;, }0206 EA5r6317 ALONG SAID NO818, LINE 302.10 PEET; IMAM SOME 6.10 F02T: moat *7008011 ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE 10.36 702.20 TD FOIST M IIREIS00r100 • 0115 TO EASTERLY HARG1S. OF SAID CITE 07 90180 CITE LIGHT t16T -07 - *AT,' THENCE x0300312 ALONG SAID EASTERLY 'MAIMS,. 13.03 FED TO TO POINT Or • SEG1 150; - - • • 2210r THAT 2237103 Of SAID 0000NP3T SAT 2 060E160 AS FOLLOWS: CD003RSG AI T00'301T025T CO1NE8 07 LOT 1, BIL'6 20, C.0. SIL0105'3 ,61003 GARDENS ADDITION TO THE 2727 OP SEATTLE, 01R910.T 00. 1, AC=8DI0C TO THE FLAT 1 SEM1p0 6 001JD@ 12 07 PUSS, PAGE 86, 0063= OF KING C003TT, EASILLICTON: IMENCE 0066 ALD60 THE VEST LID 07 SAID SDI 1 A 015}66 OF 100 70T; T0513 8011E 36•10• VEST A DISTANCE M 100 MT; TH7A6 SOME TO THE 50070 LINE Or • 00003226 LOT I: 700X6. EAST PO A POINT 500TH OF THE TOUR Or 7117111711. . THENCE N=1H TO 206 POINT O7 B7*6N1Rt: • - man TEE 3031 1 7021 COME *BMOC T8* LSSTE0LT NARG6.07 CITE O SEATTLE MIT LIGHT 00102 -0F -VAT: 010 MEET ANT 2200I03 2020007 31618 THE 00001 -07 -10,3 FOR 00018 11070 STREET. . SITUATE IN THE COUNTS 07 SING, STATE OF 01581310=. _:. co MAINTENANCE . TILE' ENTRANCE BE P0.60830 . RACKINGOORLFLOM OF I WO 00NT0. PUBLICITRIGHTS- OF - -NAYL T0I5 NAT REQUIRE - PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITS 2 -INCH STONE, AS CONDITIONS. 0000100 AND REPAIR AND /OR CLEANOUT OF NT STRUCTURES USPD. "TO . TRAP' SEDIMENT. "ALL MATERIALS SPILLED. DROPPED, .102.9120 OR TRACKED FROM VEHICLES 'ONTO ROADWAYS OR INTO BY003, DRAINS ST 86 REMOVED 1E1 . FILTER a/2621c FECIGE DETAIL • . 03.2. 2° .0e 61�D4 DOPTN 2 • . P1WJS ' ";12 "FREE 6oD.3 -G I'1STA 7'7.•0 p. x.• te2Ays t l.JE - *JO 0fL164 pwl N RM1L `o& wALA`.E 1_- C 1 i I I 'T -( Ts/ O'1-' c Al E •E, O2GA13lc- f ot-'1 Vre Rz. I oR- -17=, Ge-b")1"16' . i:\ k k. GIiAFFH:C SCALE: PG' R■*: 1 inch SO fl; V. \/ E F2, ,.I 751_3-T1.3 I1ST° STET .EROSION /SED1MWIhT10N CON I▪ ROL NOTCE. OP CLEAR/NO AN AREAS OP V- ION.e ION AS DESC0.i BEOSON T PLAN S - GGED ow TH new uro -' 1. ALL • ] ALI. DESERVED REUUIREGI SIOIHONTAT ON /CIOSION.CONEROL P ST •6 ON PRIOR TO LAND w CLE o M5ND/N00 .. OTacR • RCONSTRUCTION za TO OPERATION T INPNT.I.MD3 MATER DOES ENTER THE NATURAL AGE SYSTEM. EROSION AND S£DIDENT _ ILITIEE SHALL BE DRAINAGE IN A.SATISPACTO 15 CONDITION writ. SUCH T CLEARING AND /05 cosstaURIOW 15 COMPLETED NH[LTM OLEMENTATION. MAAINTENANCT06.REPLAOBMEICC M D DGCP IONSTT EROSION /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL.SYSTEMSY SxA LL Be THE ReSeosa IBILITT O RHITYEe. . 3. M6 EROSION AN xe P COM'eOL33 SYSTEMSROEPIC 0TO THIS • DRAWING ARE INTENDED TO fOR IN - R SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED TICIP E OR 5 OSI ON AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL THAT MORE FACILITIES Wt“. se NASA INSURE COMVL6Ce 9 CONTROL ON THE C ORS PROPOSED RS Te. DURING T N RSZ Or CONSTRUCTION. [ SHALL BE OBLIWTION.PSO PESPONSIBLLC'ITY O • THE I'R[E TO ADDRESS AAT'EW CONDITIONS TED BY XIS ACTIVITIES w O TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL' PACILITIES..00VER AND ABOVE MINNIUM REOUIRCMENTS. AS MAY BC NEEDED TO PROTECT. • CENT PaOP•R'PIes Aso WATER ORAL TT OP T. RECEIVING OMI••• EV6TEM: .. ♦ APPPROVAL Or DOES HOT S PLAN IS P ION/SEDIMENTATION 'CONTROL. DESIGN.' aIEE N ION or CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF Fes. AESTRIC[ORS STORM CHANNELS OR • RETENTION FACILITIES. NY S.. A D STURBEDLAREA WHICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED or VEGETATION AND MERE so FURTHER WORK IS er Icle. STABILISED 0. ` , PERIOD or ]O DAYS ON - • nu. IMMEDIATELY ROVED ERGSION•CONTSOL T ATXENT AP PLt CABK PLANTING =sea APP OR TO Tr. or YEAR.11MD OUICESTION.. GRASS S EDINOu LONE wtLL BE" SEPTEMBER PROCEEDS OUTSIDE THE 0.5PECIPI ED TIME . MAY INCLUSIVE. OVER IT S IN THE INTEREST OP E PERMITTER. MUST • OB•WA AUGMENTED WITH MULCMING:.NE6TING. ON tR TREATMENTS • Approve., ay THE o PAWIWENT. E. L EROSION/SEDIMENTATION rosTao3. Tomos W H 0E AD D M TOG5 • DEPTH GELDING B INCHES M PENCE WITHA MINIMUM' HEIGHT OP l P O IJeas o. l GITL1 -1 PRoPO�EO eo[.r :551 FEB 23-1990 PL/.l tl! GG'T. SEGT10 tJ ..X X 1,� s' v. 1'ZAJ.O I ..4 N. 1•Ps' v. 4-17- 81 'b q o o'S. o0