Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA EPIC-16-90 - NC MACHINERY - WAREHOUSE
NC MACHINERY WAREHOUSE / FABRICATION / X900 Co VA/ EPIC -16 -90 DANFERD W. HENKE ATTORNEY AT LAW HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON (206) 292 -1144 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111 N C MACHINERY CO. Power Systems Dave Thomas Power Systems Manager 17900 W. Valley Hwy. (Tukwila) P.O. Box 88338 Seattle, WA 98138 Bus: (206) 251.5877 Res: (206) 255-8446 Fax: (206) 251 -6423 CAT • / -44 (1 C., 1_0 ' s4,t. I t)( • g V6) C'‘) ACTIVITY LOG • _140 4i1/4/44.-7 Z109/5 1,,4700 D TE COMMENTS Mftif a feth<gfi PiLval TPA U /■0„ //// 5#° // IP& ARIPAr/ r_11 AnP-1!1, . 41 it A V. IlL115111WYt4A/DIMINZISIILMM21Wi Affek-, g%/ /Mtn INIMWIMIF rfi / 411.4 - I /nue MC( f (*//P/9- fliTAXE:91)/S(1,/iSS a10)//d4 WMa' it r CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development FAX T FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 rirrAL TO: DATE: TITLE: FROM: COMPANY: ifiel..4 TITLE: , DEPA MENT: .. .,._, . DEPARTMENT: FAX NO. CALLED: 3 NUMBER OF PAGES SENT BY • 0 y o„2„ THIS CSOVEI • RED, INCL. (INITIALS): SUBJECT: u‘X,Ae\y 1/aL COMMENTS/MESSAGE: Afrn,CoPyul, /44a ijit/ /i/e- "r1 eg-Hil‘d /0Z IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: q--y/ --- 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431-3670 06/01/92 :1; EL. = EL. _ 1'7.70 CBs" 2 TYPE IZ +8" RIC', EL. = 23.60 IE OUT EL. _ /8.1 S J4 22 ZU 'x- 70 LF '13" x 27" ARCH P /P6 EDGE PVtIT. _____i _ 1 111 ..�.1►. -.i,� 1 1 NO LF /2' CMP c\ 8. =1.75 ,....:7; \ •fit._ • - 1 - -� .� • � . pAv1•� .G 2 ' 'o • 1 1/I EX /ST DE7TENT /ON /POND /r1 ;1 R //yi EL. _I 2s. t.1 OVERFJOW EL. 2 // I '1 NEW/ IE /N = 17 . 80 '1E IN (Pas) /: 1. 7.59 . 1� 5 9 EXIST. ,CC8"5 TYPE n iEDGE OF EXISTING DETENTION POND !_ 1'/ET AREA. 22 182 IVEW y 4A•1NG X'41 0 O `\ I \OUT. `• �� .. • `\ NSW Asp. CoNC . PiNvMENT ■ 2 i • 23 / 7."--79.', / / / / / 'PROPOSED% BUILDING ED OE / i P NMT. FF. = 25 DO GRU6N E D / 12ocic S i.,AN flScP�'1 Nc -- -- 22 H 22.1,I/Co 4 PROPOSED SHOP . WAREI 'ac o o SF. TYPE 111 -0 5�jZ 1�1 tZ L,Ei2E -4. ocCu PPN Cy / 22 J CITY Ur. PLANNIN( S. 180 Tf 1 60' c BE MAY or 5' 9 "'W REN SP a46-79 7907169001 3 nK I.N�M :..iw - 4 3 R IJ tee. F/ (f 1 .+1 „•a.I/ JII.aa..a J. OUNOASY • A�rII+I' i1..is O4= /10 04 • :1./7• £34677 _I� L -- -'-s'1. %1 6 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: /, / g / 9 / TUE WED THU FRI ,SiAT SUN TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference TIME: rM elephone — 0 Incomin Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you: Organization ffi , dept., bureau, t J1-h�y W Location of Visit/Confere ce: L .) SUBJECT: *1 /, icepolebt, DOyv say, - si 7�bh d 0 Outgoing f �� / Telepho?") Signature: xerd Title 414, Date: �� /� /Q� l PI\ RABEL PROPERTIES October 14, 1994 Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Rabel Properties / NC Machinery Site at 17900 West Valley Highway Dear Mr. Pace: This letter is in response to our phone conversation of Friday, October 14, concerning our desire to conduct maintenance on our storm water detention system on the subject site. The site is approximately seven acres of which the west five acres was developed in 1980. At that time the city (then Renton) required that we construct a storm water detention system which consisted of ditches leading to a dug pond on the undeveloped two acres. This pond was to drain at 18.3 feet to a ditch off -site with a bottom depth of 17 feet. This, in turn, was to drain to an area storm water system. The off -site ditch and drainage system were never developed and, as a result, water from off -site has backed up on our property. Over the years, this standing water created wetland conditions on a portion our undeveloped two acres. In 1989 we applied to Tukwila for permits to develop the two acres and were caught in the sensitive areas moratorium. When the SAO was passed we applied to modify our constructed wetland and then were told that the "wetlands" around the constructed detention system were not "intentionally" created. We then applied for the off -site mitigation program. Just as we were coming to an agreement with Tukwila, the Corps of Engineers ruled that the area was not an isolated wetland. Unless the corps changes its mind, we seem to have reached a dead end. This land was cleared farmland when we purchased it. Obviously our preferred option would be to reclaim this property from a wetland status which was intentionally created and not pre - existing. However, whatever the ultimate determination is, the detention system and related property are in serious need of maintenance. RECEIVED 130 Lakeside Avenue, #200 • Seattle, Washington 98122 OCT 191994 Phone (206) 328 -1600 • Fax (206) 328 -4036 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Mr. Jack Pace Senior Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Page 2 The primary problem is cottonwood trees which are growing in the detention pond and ditches. We wish to remove all the cottonwood trees and the roots that are in the detention pond and ditches. Our septic line runs under the detention pond, and we have already had an emergency repair because of root -cause line damage. Further, we wish to mechanically mow and maintain the upland areas on the two acre site. Where mechanical mowing is not permitted, we wish to consider hand mowing. Finally, we wish to modify our detention system to prevent off -site waters from backing up on our property. This would involve closing a gap in the berm on the east border of the site, blocking the current gravity -drain piping, and installing a new sump with an electric pump engineered to allow the detention pond to function according to its original design specifications. I am enclosing a copy of the site study conducted by David Evans and Associates. You may already have an additional copy in your files. I will return to town in early November and will call for an appointment. Thank you for your interest. Most sincerely, RABEL PROPERTIES a. -d--- John Rabel Managing Partner 130 Lakeside Avenue, #200 • Seattle, Washington 98122 Phone (206) 328 -1600 • Fax (206) 328 -4036 CITY ,F TUKWILA • Department of Community Development FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 A TO: r (3A,Q____ kiy\_, 2 DATE: lj Y Zy ! GZ TITLE: FROM: 60- i.lz. CO ANY: TITLE: / DEPARTMENT: J • DEPARTMENT: 19 FAX NO. CALLED. s3gio NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS) : SUBJECT: 61,acc„,- /c. COMMENTS /MESSAGE: ANI fls cp ins 1^� yok- 5.40 CY Cl �V'► J 1/YI �� Ol't�� Ok. ah . y4y �r y coffin �r *1-n ove-G- iA- /d51/ X /14 wale/ r 7414/1 fii^ root * - - � Pk- Cos F A 0/ /cent eiuin M as-, _c( 111 / )f� A IcW2_,i71 szci O lgf/S/ 9OVotkte_ t.)/: / caGr, f ci4Ael ci s yot. ,r-=e IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: :017i 54 CO2_ DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Tukwila WA 98188 O Office: (206) 431 -3670 06/01/92 US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District Regulatory Branch Post Office Box C -3755 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2255 Telephone (206) 764 -3495 '- February 11, 1992 SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE NATIONWIDE PERMITS — REGIONAL CONDITIONS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) published its final rule for the Nationwide Permit (NWP) Program in the Federal Register Friday November 22, 1991 at Part III, 33 CFR Part 330. The Nationwide Permits ( NWP's) became effective January 21, 1992. This special public notice announces the regional conditions and explains how this program will operate within the State of Washington. Regional conditions limit the use of a nationwide permit. These regional conditions are effective as of the date of this notice and will continue in effect until January 21, 1997, unless modified. A separate Special Public Notice describes the regional conditions and water quality certifications for tribal and exclusive jurisdiction Federal lands in the state of Washington. BACKGROUND On a national level the Corps proposed to amend its NWP program regulations and to issue, reissue, and modify nationwide permits in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register April 10, 1991. A public hearing was held in Washington, DC and a 60 -day comment period was provided during which over 700 comments were received. The Seattle District, in a May 10, 1991, Special Public Notice, announced the proposed regional conditions for Washington State for the amended. NWP Program. Water Quality Certifications are required for Section 404 NWP's and Coastal Zone Management (CZM) consistencies for all NWP's within CZM counties. These proposed regional conditions reflected the proposed water quality certifications and CZM consistencies of the State of Washington (State, Ecology) and the water quality certifications of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and proposed regional conditions of the Seattle District. A public hearing was held on June 4, 1991, and comments were received on the proposed regional conditions. All comments were analyzed and further coordination continued with the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) and EPA. The North Pacific Division Engineer, who commands several districts, has the authority to modify NWP's by adding regional conditions. The Seattle 1 C. NATIONWIDE PERMIT CONDITIONS In addition to the regional conditions above, the ,'General and Section 404 Only Conditions must be followed. GENERAL CONDITIONS: In addition to the regional conditions notedzabova, the following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a nationwide permit to be valid: } 1. NAVIGATION. No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation. 2. PROPER MAINTENANCE. Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety. 3. EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROLS. Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must ,be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date. 4. AOUATIC LIFE MOVEMENTS. No activity may substantially-disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water. 5. EQUIPMENT. Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance. 6. REGIONAL AND CASE -BY -CASE CONDITIONS. The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by the division engineer (see 33 CFR 330.4(e)) and any case specific conditions added by the Corps. 7. WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. 8. TRIBAL RIGHTS. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights. 9. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION. In certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CFR 330.4(c)). 10. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived. (see 33 CFR 330.4(d)). 11. ENDANGERED SPECIES. No activity is authorized under any NWP which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non - federal permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat can be obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. (see 33 CFR 330.4(f)) 12. HISTORIC PROPERTIES. No activity which may affect Historic properties listed, or eligible for listing,'' in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized, until the DE has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR 325, . Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Information on the location and existence of historic resources can be obtained from the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Register of Historic aces see 33 CFR 330.4(g)). . • a.vt lr 11 H'r1UN. prospec ive p (a) Where required by the ,terms of the NWP, the rm1 a must notify the District Engineer as early as possible and shall not begin the activity: (1) Until notified by the District Engineer that the activity may proceed under the NWP with any special conditions imposed by the district or division engineer; or (2) If notified by the District or Division engineer that an individual permit is required; or (3) Unless 30 days have passed from the District Engineer's receipt of the notification and the prospective permittee has not received notice from the District or Division Engineer. Subsequently, the permittee's right to proceed under the NWP may be modified, suspended, or revoked only in accordance with the procedure set forth in 33 CFR 330.5(d)(2). (b) The notification must be in writing and include the following information and any required fees: (1) Name, address and telephone number of the prospective permittee; (2) Location of the proposed project; (3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose; direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity; (4) Where required by the terms of the NWP, a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and (5) A statement that the prospective permittee has contacted: (i) The USFWS /NMFS regarding the presence of any Federally listed (or proposed for listing) endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and any available information provided by those agencies. (The prospective permittee may agency contact Corps critical habitat.) Offices for USFWS /NMFS a 9 Y contacts and lists of critical (ii) The SHPO regarding the presence of any historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and the available information, if any, provided by that agency. TRANSMI AL RECEIVED JUL 1 51992 Date TvLX 13� l992_ CV OPNig DPPx x242. • To •GAry 5 -ff'l/L Project M G, fri t /i171/.0 ' URBAN JEN RoNn NT4LT-5r- CI / OF 7-01/4-14=^ 6200 £ N7 ET 2 avp TvK ' WA 75/88 Subject �F& 517 /z1rzaA%?=/J/ Item Copies Date Description 5r E-37/Ala-- FOR off - 5 - /4 v cA1 ''Arzzw ac20-4 Remarks ❑ As you requested ❑ For your information ❑ For your approval ❑ Return requested ❑ For your review ❑ From DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS OFFICES IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA 415 118TH AVENUE, S.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005.3553 (206) 455.3571 FAX (206) 455 -3061 o • June 15, 1992 ODDX0242 Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Re: Off -Site Mitigation for N.C. Machinery Property Dear Mr. Schulz: David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) delineated a 31,363- square -foot wetland on the N.C. Machinery Site in Tukwila, Washington in 1990. The City of Tukwila has determined that this wetland includes both a "constructed wetland" area and a regulated wetland area. The "constructed wetland" area is an approximately 8,456- square -foot stormwater detention pond that was excavated in 1978. Under Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance ( #1599), this area is defined as a "constructed wetland," and is not regulated as wetland. The 22,907- square -foot remainder of the on -site wetland appears to have developed from detention pond overflows. The City of Tukwila claims jurisdiction over this part of the wetland under the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. A delineation and description of these wetlands was presented in a May 23, 1990 DEA report. Rabel Properties has proposed filling the wetland and detention pond for industrial development. The City of Tukwila has proposed that this wetland fill be mitigated off -site by creation of wetlands totalling 1.5 times the area of the regulated wetland for a total of 34,360 square feet. Tukwila is to construct this mitigation using a mitigation fee paid by Rabel Properties. Because environmental conditions of the actual mitigation site have not been studied, an effective way of arriving at a mitigation fee amount is to estimate the cost to mitigate on -site. Because of the degraded, monotypic nature of the existing wetland, creation of a similar wetland is not practicable. Therefore, the estimate presented below reflects creation and enhancement of moderate to high value emergent marsh using native plant species. The total cost for mitigation is estimated at $28,536 as explained below. Planting Costs Based on past experience with diverse wetland mitigation sites, DEA estimates that emergent marsh wetland mitigation vegetation plantings presently cost approximately $20,000 per acre ($0.46 per square foot) including plant materials and installation costs. Applying this cost to the 34,360 square -foot mitigation area of the on -site wetland mitigation area yields a cost of $15,806. This figure is to cover full planting of the entire area with native hydrophytic species, because the existing monotypic reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) vegetation is not highly effective as biological habitat and is too invasive to maintain in limited areas. DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS OFFICES IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA 415 118TH AVENUE, S.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005-3553 (206) 455-3571 FAX (206) 455-3061 • Mr. Gary Schulz June 15, 1992 Page 2 Excavation Costs For relatively small sites such as this one, contractors typically charge approximately $10 per yard for excavation and hauling of material to be removed from the site. Because of the small size of the site, any excavated material would need to be removed. Because the site already supports wetland vegetation with surface hydrology flowing seasonally from off -site, little excavation would be needed for wetland enhancement or creation. On -site topography and drainage patterns indicate that excavation averaging one foot deep would be adequate to extend wetland hydrology into the upland portion of the site. In order to create-the required -mitigation -on -a- similar site, the eritire 34;360 square-foot-mitigation area would need be excavated to this depth. The volume of this excavation would total 1,273 cubic yards of material. Applying the $10 per cubic yard excavation and hauling cost yields a total cost of $12,730. The total cost to create 34,360 square feet of emergent marsh wetlands on a site similar to the N.C. Machinery site would total $28,536, including $15,806 for vegetation planting and $12,730 for excavation and hauling of surface soil. The costs estimated here will allow Tukwila to enhance and /or create wetlands of higher functional value than the degraded wetland which exists on the N.C. Machinery site. Please call me or Ron Kranz should you have any further questions. Sincerely, EVANS i • SSOCIATES, INC. John D. Macklin Ecologist JDM:ja DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS • City of Tukwila Office of the City Attorney July 9, 1992 Danferd W. 'Henke Helsell, Fetterman, Martin,. Todd & Hokanson 1500 Puget Sound Plaza 1325 Fourth Avenue Seattle, WA 98111 • John W. Rants, Mayor Michael R Kenyon, City Attorney Re: N.C. Machinery Mitigation and Drainage Agreement Dear Dan: RECEIVED JUL 1 01992 DT I have reviewed the draft Mitigation and Drainage Agreement dated June 19, 1992. Although I reserve the right to make additional changes in the future, my comments with respect to this draft are limited to the following: 1. Paragraph 4 should be amended to read, "... as necessary or desirable to complete the project; provided that any such development shall be undertaken in accordande with all other applicable laws and regulations." 2. Paragraph 8(d) should be amended to read as follows, "... or similar proceeding to enforce this specific Agreement after its execution, the prevailing party...." With respect to the attorneys' fees provision of Paragraph 8(d), my concern is that it be limited to any legitimate dispute arising out of the specific terms of this Agreement. I want to avoid a situation where this attorneys' fee provision could be bootstrapped to allow you to make a claim for all your litigation costs and fees in the event that this whole project comes undone and you file an inverse condemnation and substantive due process lawsuit. Perhaps I am being overly cautious here, but I want to ensure that my concerns in this regard are clearly reflected in the final agreement. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -1867 • Fax (206) 433 -1833 Danferd W. Henke Page 2 July 9, 1992 Please let me know if you have any questions. In the meantime, we will await the final report from David Evans and Associates. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Michael R. g yon City Attorne MRK /cc cc: Gary Schultz NCMACH.002 RICHARD S. WHITE GARY F. LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F JURCA LISH WHITSON RALPH J. BRINDLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH JERRY E. THONN ROBERT N. GELLATLY ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR RETIRED PAUL FETTERMAN THOMAS TODD LAW OFFICES OF HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111 12061 292-1144 FAX (206) 340 -0902 BELLEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYLINE TOWER 10900 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 292 -1144 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE Mr. Michael Kenyon City Attorney City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mike: June 19, 1992 PATRICIA E. ANDERSON DIRK A. BARTRAM POLLY K. BECKER SUSAN P BONNER SCOTT W. CAMPBELL B. JEFFREY CARL DAVID T. CLUXTON LAWRENCE R. COCK SCOTT E. COLLINS JACKI L. KIRKLIN LANCE A. LOPES DEBORAH L. MARTIN JOAN L. ROTH MCCABE JONATHAN P. MEIER PAUL E. MURRAY LAURA E PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON FELICIA G. PORTER STEVEN J. SAMARIO LINDA D. WALTON OF COUNSEL WATSON B. BLAIR LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL WILLIAM A. HELSELL MARK T. HIGGINS RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER GEORGE A. NICOUD III HAROLD R. ROOKS LYNN B. SOUIRES Enclosed please find a revised version of the Mitigation and Drainage Agreement incorporating the changes you requested. Please let me know if the text is now satisfactory. Gary Schultz and David Evans & Associates have been working on the numbers, but the "report" is not yet complete. For now, let me know if the text works and the numbers should follow shortly. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Danferd W. Henke `lot DWH:opt enclosue cc: • Gary Schultz GINN 0 JUN 2 2 1992 _ -- CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • 6/19/92 MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the SAO. 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. 4. The City has agreed that the Owner will have met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City - owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. • • (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be in the amount of '1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in-that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. Fqr the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $. per square foot, the cost of excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, all as set out in the.report of David Evans and Associates, dated , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City. on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final permit for the development of the Wetland. 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of other wetland or wetland buffer areas within the same watershed as the Property on City -owned or managed property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to V'0 /oh - e Wetl as nec ss�ry-or= des -ra comp_lete�, ,th,e, /ate i Agree ment shall . not be develop t �ct, . proval of Agreement. binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding ' � .s mar. pr zpeed ng Agreement tafter itts execzuti,�on,, ,_ :thfe pre9vaiilyilmg party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. CITY OF TUKWILA By Its- [OWNER] By Its c: \opt \dwh \rabel \mdagmt3 1 • BLACRLINE VERSION - 6/19/92 4/20/92 <6/19/92> MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the SAO. 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. is to be economically feaoiblc. 4. The City and thc Owner both wi3h to further thc goals of easible use eo the Property. Thcy have <has> agreed that the Owner will have met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development • or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $ 05 <$. > per square foot, the cost of excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final permit for the development of the Wetland. 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of other wetland or wetland buffer areas within the same narrow to wctland watershed as the Property on City -owned or managed property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to develop the Wetland as necessary or desirable to complete the Project. 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. • (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding under this Agreement <after its execution >, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. CITY OF TUKWILA By Its [OWNER] By Its 0:\opt\dwh\rabel\mdagmt2 «iei geiC3? 4/20/92 MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the SAO. 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. The Owner requires the use of all of the Property if development is to be economically feasible. 4. The City and the Owner both wish to further the goals of the SAO and allow the economically feasible use of the Property. They have agreed that the Owner will have met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, sit forth in the SAO or in any .P other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $.05 per square foot, the cost of excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final permit for the development of the Wetland. 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of other wetland or wetland buffer areas within the same narrow to wetland watershed as the Property on City -owned or managed ,property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to develop the Wetland as necessary or desirable to complete the Project: 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. y 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. (b)• Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. CITY OF TUKWILA By Its [OWNER] By Its' 'rc: \opt \dwh \rebel \mdagmt2 . 111 City of Tukwila Office of the City Attorney May 28, 1992 Danferd W. Henke Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson 1500 Puget Sound Plaza 1325 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111 • Joan W. Rants, Mayor �n Michael R. Kenyon, City Attorney Re: N.C. Machinery Mitigation Agreement NEW S JUN 09 1992 CITY ur TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT. Dear Dan: Gary Schulz and I have had a chance to review the draft Mitigation and Drainage Agreement dated April 20, 1992. For obvious reasons, we will require that the last sentence of Recital paragraph no. 3 and the first sentence of Recital paragraph no. 4 be deleted. With respect to the Agreement section itself, we offer the following: 1. In paragraph 2(a), the payment as calculated equals approximately $2,900. Under the formula used by David Evans, this type of mitigation usually costs approximately $20,000 per acre, or about $10,000 for the half acre at issue here. Gary Schulz will discuss this with David Evans. '2. The text of paragraph 3 should read, "The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, 'enhancement, or restoration of other wetland and wetland buffer areas within the same water shed as the Property on City -owned or managed property." 3. The text of paragraph 8(d) should read, "In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding to enforce this Agreement after its execution, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal." Finally, as you probably know, the Corps of Engineers must be notified prior to the City permitting any fill. David Evans can certainly undertake this notification. Since this proposed fill is less than one acre in size, it will likely be subject to 6200 South ^enter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -1867 • Far (.?ON 433 -1833 Danferd W. Henke Page 2 May 28, 1992 blanket approval. There is a possibility, however, that an adjacency issue will arise due to the proximity of Springbrook Creek. We will need approval from the Corps prior to allowing' the fill. Please contact Gary Schulz or me if you have any questions. Otherwise, we will obtain the Mayor's approval and schedule this agreement in front of the appropriate committee of the City Council. Very truly yours, OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY // Michael R. K= on City Attorn MRK /cc NCMAC H . 0 01 • • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Kenyon, City Attorney FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD - Urban Environmentalist DATE: May 14, 1992 RE: Draft Mitigation and Drainage Agreement for NC Machinery Site - Rabel Property. Rick Beeler, Director I have reviewed and made comments on the attached draft agreement. Most of the highlighted areas are topics we discussed with Dan Henke at our last meeting. The most significant change that I feel needs to be made is the cost of mitigation and subsequent mitigation payment to the City. The total cost of mitigation could be around $10,000.00 (basic 0.5 acre cost) and payment to the City would then equal $15,000.00. Please take a look at this so we can get the process moving. I feel that Public Works should "take the lead on this drainage agreement. I can help them develop a conceptual plan to create functional wetland habitat for presentation purposes and future City projects. Thank you. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 LAW OFFICES OF • HELSELL, FETTERMAN. MARTIN. TODD & HOKANSO, 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111 12061 292-1144 FAX (206) 340-0902 RICHARD S. WHITE GARY F. LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURCA LISH WHITSON RALPH J. BRINDLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH JERRY E. THONN ROBERT N. GELLATLV ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR RETIRED PAUL FETTERMAN THOMAS TODD Mr. Gary Shulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Gary: BELLEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYLINE TOWER 10900 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 292.1144 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 20, 1992 Re: Rabel Property - Mitigation Agreement 111114 l UU�U APR 2 2 1992 611A LAN 1 A O f- IA G�):{':�tltii LA PIPA EaFal1 p RSON POLLY K. BECKER SUSAN P. BONNER, SCOTT W. CAMPBELL B. JEFFREY CARL DAVID T. CLUXTON LAWRENCE R. COCK SCOTT E. COLLINS JACKI L. KIRKLIN LANCE A. LOPES DEBORAH L. MARTIN JOAN L. ROTH McCABE JONATHAN P. MEIER PAUL E. MURRAY LAURA E. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON FELICIA G. PORTER LINDA M. ROUBIK STEVEN J. SAMARIO LINDA D. WALTON OF COUNSEL WATSON B. BLAIR LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL WILLIAM A. HELSELL MARK T. HIGGINS RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER HAROLD R. ROOKS LYNN B. SOUIRES Enclosed please find a revised version of the Mitigation and Drainage Agreement for the Rabel property in Tukwila. I believe I have incorporated the suggestions that you and Mike Kenyon made at our last meeting. I have confirmed that the wetland area of 22,907 square feet excludes the existing retention pond. I have also authorized John Macklin and Bart Treece and others working with them at.David Evans &' Associates to discuss the mitigation requirements with you at your convenience. You should feel free to contact them if they have not yet already contacted you. We remain anxious to move this along as quickly as possible. I look forward to your and Mr. Kenyon's comments at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, Danferd W. Henke DWH:opt enclosure cc: John Macklin John Rabel q.„„,3),, 4/20/92 MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the SAO. 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. The Owner requires the use of all of the Property if .development is to be economically feasible. 4. The City and t e-Ow en r both wishhtd further the goals of ' the SAO and allow the <` onomically feasible Use of the Property. They have agreed that the Owner will hav / met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by ay4nent o-f' the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. . Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Paym+nt shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 (95 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost � ' of replacement vegetation is $.05 per square foot, the cost of ri t)., \, s excavation is $_1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 ,,: cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, 71-- / all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated .. ; -\Q,�,;l ' , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on.or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final hermit for the development of the Wetland. c 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Pay ent ffoz the crept -n, enhancement, or restori“.' o ot e '-wetland r wetland buffer areas within the same a o watershed as- -the P' erty, on City -owned o aiag'd rop.er6y. . L ,SJ1/YL'2 4. Improvement Right. ' /Inhe liifn for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to develop the Wetland as necessary or desirable to complete the Project. 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. (b) Entire Agreement. This•Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and'on appeal. CITY OF TUKWILA' By Its [OWNER] By Its c: \opt \dwh \rabel \mdagmt2 fi*a /i•A(r4 / 4 g-ink RICHARD S. WHITE GARY E. LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURCA LISH WHITSON RALPH J. BRINDLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH JERRY E. THONN ROBERT N. GELLATLY ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR RETIRED PAUL FETTERMAN THOMAS TODD LAW OFFICES OF HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSO 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111 (2061 292 -1144 FAX (206) 340 -0902 Mr. Gary Shulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Gary: BELLEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYLINE TOWER 10900 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 292 -1144 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE April 20, 1992 Re: Rabel Property - Mitigation Agreement • r APR 221992 C1TYY^O1pp�FI((uic'tA1JJLA PLAl�71R%A'9RIC1A A?EPI RSON �1 ".. •- DiRK"'Yi:�RAR'T'filF95"� POLLY K. BECKER SUSAN P. BONNER SCOTT W. CAMPBELL B. JEFFREY CARL DAVID T. CLUXTON LAWRENCE R. COCK SCOTT E. COLLINS JACK! L. KIRKLIN LANCE A. LOPES DEBORAH L. MARTIN JOAN L. ROTH McCABE JONATHAN P. MEIER PAUL E: MURRAY LAURA F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON FELICIA G. PORTER LINDA M. ROUBIK STEVEN J. SAMARIO LINDA D. WALTON D OF COUNSEL WATSON B. BLAIR LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL WILLIAM A. HELSELL MARK T. HIGGINS RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER HAROLD R. ROOKS LYNN B. SQUIRES Enclosed please find a revised version of the Mitigation and Drainage Agreement for the Rabel property in Tukwila. I believe I have incorporated the suggestions that you and Mike Kenyon made at our last meeting. I have confirmed that the wetland area of 22,907 square feet excludes the existing retention pond. I have also authorized John Macklin and Bart Treece and others working with them at David Evans & Associates to discuss the mitigation requirements with you at your convenience. You should feel free to contact them if they have not yet already contacted you. We remain anxious to move this along as quickly as possible. I look forward to your and Mr. Kenyon's comments at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, ✓�J Danferd W. Henke DWH:opt enclosure cc: John Macklin John Rabel 4/20/92 MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of , 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the SAO. 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. The Owner requires the use of all of the Property if development is to be economically feasible. 4. The City and the Owner both wish to further the goals of the SAO and allow the economically feasible use of the Property. They have agreed that the Owner will have met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any • • other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $.05 per square foot, the cost of excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final permit for the development of the Wetland. 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of other wetland or wetland buffer areas within the same narrow to wetland watershed as the Property on City -owned or managed property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to develop the Wetland as necessary or desirable to complete the Project. 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. • • (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. CITY OF TUKWILA By Its [OWNER] By Its c: \opt \dwh \rabel \mdagmt2 MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this 4/20/92 day of 1992 by and between the 'City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetland property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area of 22,907 square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends is subject to the regulation of the,SAO . 3. The City has advised the Owner that he may not fill or otherwise disturb any' part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. The Owner requires the use of all of the Property if development is to be economically feasible. Q0I4'% 1 4. The City and the Owner both wish to further the goals of the SAO and allow the economically feasible use of the Property. They have agreed that the Owner will have' met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating, enhancing, or restoring wetlands and wetland buffer areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on -site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any •1 • • other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment— g_vta shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be developed with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $.05 per square foot, the cos excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of (1200 poir kov cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreemen , all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated c(� V'm ? , 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the �� Qfl7s �� "Mitigation Report "). i. Q X is = (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the �� . � 2 G, fin`fil permit for the development of the Wetland. . �Dr 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation Payment for the creation, enhancement, or restoration of other wetland or wetland buffer areas within the same narrow to wetland watershed as, the Property on City -owned or managed ,property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to develop the Wetland as necessary or desirable to complete the Project: 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $7,500.00 to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by, the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. �il f • (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. (d) Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation, administrative proceeding or similar proceeding user- this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. el-C14. / /j k JN-Cu f N c: \opt \dwh \rabel \mdagmt2 CITY OF TUKWILA By Its [OWNER] By Its • MITIGATION AND DRAINAGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered as of this day of 1992 by and between the City of Tukwila (the "City ") and (Collectively "Owner "). Recitals 1. Owner is the owner of the real property located at 17025 West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington and legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the "Property "). Owner desires to improve the Property with buildings, parking area, yard, and underground or other stormwater detention system, substantially in accord with a site plan, application and environmental checklist submitted , 1992 (the "Project "). 2. The City has adopted a Sensitive Area Ordinance, TMC 18.45, et. seq. (the "SAO "). The SAO regulates, among other things, the development and improvement of wetla d property. The Property contains a Type 3 wetland area o22,907)square feet (the "Wetland ") which the City contends%-is,subject to -'the regulation of the SAO. The Owner contends the We is a constructed wetland and otherwise has disputed the a plication rofn the SAO to the Property. 3. The City has contended the Owner may not fill or otherwise disturb any part of the Wetland without providing mitigation as required under the SAO. The Owner contends that on- site mitigation will render the Property economically unusable. 4. To resolve this dispute, the City and the Owner have agreed that the Owner will have met the mitigation requirements of the SAO by the payment of the cost of on -site mitigation at the Property to the City, for its use in creating or enhancing wetland, watercourse, or other sensitive areas and buffers on City -owned or managed property. The parties now wish to reduce their agreement to writing. Agreement 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated.by reference herein. 2. Mitigation Payment. Owner agrees to pay to the City a sum calculated as set forth herein (the "Mitigation Payment ") for the purpose of creating or enhancing sensitive areas away from the Property, in place of and in full satisfaction of all mitigation requirements, including without limitation any requirement of on- site mitigation and the development of a mitigation plan, set forth in the SAO or in any other statute, ordinance, or regulation concerning the fill, development or disturbance of wetland or other sensitive areas on the Property, including without limitation the • • Shoreline Management Act and the State Environmental Policy Act. (a) Calculation of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be in the amount of 1.5 times the cost of replacing the existing vegetation in that portion of the Wetland to be filled with substantially similar vegetation, plus the cost of excavation which would be required to create a replacement wetland in area 1.5 times the wetland area to be filled at the Property. For the purposes of this Agreement, the parties have agreed that the cost of replacement vegetation is $.05 per square foot, the cost of excavation is $1.50 per cubic yard, and the excavation of 1200 cubic yards would be required to meet the terms of this Agreement, all as set out in the report of David Evans and Associates, dated - 1992 and attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Mitigation Report "). (b) Time of Payment. The Mitigation Payment shall be due to the City on or before the date of issuance to Owner of the final permit for the filling of the Wetland. 3. Use of Mitigation Payment. The City agrees to use the Mitigation P yment for the creation or enhancement of other wetland, w er se, or other „sensitive areas within the same watershed as he Property on City-lred or managed property. 4. Improvement Right. In return for the - Mitigation Payment, the Owner, its successors, and assigns shall have the right to drn, dee, _u-1T, improKe, and develop the Wetland as necessary -6r desirable to complete the Project. 5. Approval of Agreement. This Agreement shall not be binding or effective until fully executed by the City and the Owner and approved by the Tukwila City Council. 6. Drainage Contribution. In addition to the Mitigation Payment, Owner shall contribute the sum of $ to the cost of the City's drainage study for the watershed in which the Property is located. This payment shall be due to the City on or before the issuance of the final building permit for the Project. 7. Voluntary Agreement. This Agreement is entered into voluntarily by the City and by Owner. 8. Miscellaneous. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Washington. (b) Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and cannot be changed or modified other than by a written agreement executed by both parties. (c) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed an original. • • (6) Attorneys, Fees. In the event of any litigation under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its attorneys fees and costs from the losing party, at trial and on appeal. c: \opt \dwh \rabel \mdagmt CITY OF TUKWILA By Its [OWNER] By Its yr • • LAW OFFICES OF HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON RICHARD S. WHITE WILLIAM A. HELSELL GARY F. LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURCA LISH W HITSON RALPH J. BRINDLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR Mr. Gary Schulz Urban Environmentalist City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZ 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE. • WASHINGTON 9 111 1206) 292-1144 FAX (206) 340 -0902 BELLEVUE OFFICE 2233 SKYLINE TOWER 10900 N.E. 4TH STREET BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 96004 (206) 292 -1144 FAX (206) 455-3713 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE January 8, 1992 NEAFNET JAN 0 9 1992 CITY OF I UKWILA - PLANNING DEPT. PAT ICIA E. ANDERSON DIR., A. BARTRAM PO Y K. BECKER SC . TT W. CAMPBELL 8. J. FFREY CARL LA ENCE R. COCK SC �, TT E. COLLINS AN G. COPLEY RO: ERT N. GELLATLY JA. I L. KIRKLIN DE TORAH L. MARTIN JO's L. ROTH McCABE PA E. MURRAY A '-A F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON FELICIA G. PORTER LINDA M. ROUBIK LINDA D. WALTON Re: Development of Rabel /NC Machinery Property Dear Mr. Schulz: OF COUNSEL WATSON B. BLAIR LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL . PAUL FETTERMAN MARK T. HIGGINS RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER HAROLD R. ROOKS LLOYD SHORETT LYNN B. SQUIRES JERRY E. THONN THOMAS TODD We are writing in response to your letter of November 21, 1991, concerning the potential development of the Rabel property located at the intersection of Andover Park E. and S. 180th Street. You asked for a response to your letter outlining the needs of the proposed project, including wetland regulation and mitigation. We will also take this opportunity to respond to the City's view of the regulation of this property. As you know from our meetings and correspondence and the site plan previously submitted, the property owners hope to develop the eastern portion of the site to accommodate the tenant, NC Machinery, at that location. NC Machinery presently occupies the previously developed building on the western part of the site. The owners hope to develop a building on the southern portion of the eastern part of the property and to fill the balance to provide a yard for the storage and display of NC Machinery's heavy equipment inventory. Under their plan, the owners would utilize the entire eastern site. The City of Tukwila has advised the Rabels that a portion of the property is a wetland subject to the regulation of the new Tukwila Sensitive Area Ordinance. The wetland consists of a detention pond and the land and structures generally lying around • Mr. Gary Schulz January 8, 1992 Page 2 the pond constructed as a condition of development in 1978. The City has advised that, in its view, the area of the pond is a constructed wetland, exempt from the regulation of the Sensitive Area Ordinance and available for development, assuming drainage and other requirements general to the area could be met. The City has taken the position, however, that the area around the pond was not created intentionally and, therefore, is subject to the ordinance. We understand the City bases its opinion on its belief that the area around the pond was pre- existing wetland not created as a result of the detention system or, if it was so created, was not created "intentionally." On behalf of the Rabels, we have advised you that the property at issue was not a wetland prior to its initial development in 1978 and that to the extent it presently constitutes a wetland, the wetland areas were intentionally created as a part of the drainage and detention system required by the permitting authority at the time of that development. As such we believe the property is not subject to Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance under the "constructed wetlands" exemption. We believe the City's attempt to regulate the property in this manner both is an unconstitutional taking of real property without compensation and has denied the Rabels due process of law. Even if Tukwila proved to be correct in its interpretation of the word "intentional," and if this matter were to be litigated, the evidence would show the area of the pond and surrounding wetlands has been expanded because of the rise in the level of the drainage ditch to the east of the property and to which the detention system of the Rabel's property drains. The drainage system was designed according to the requirements of the City of Renton, then the regulatory body, and drained to the ditch at its direction. It appears that the level of water in the ditch now frequently exceeds the level in the detention pond, effectively causing flooding of the Rabel property. The City of Tukwila is responsible for the maintenance of that drainage ditch both as the successor to the City of Renton and in its own right. The impact of the Sensitive. Area Ordinance on the Rabels property is especially onerous. If applied to this property, the ordinance will protect a Type 3 wetland at the expense of denying the Rabels any reasonable use of the property. The configuration of the wetland area on the property is such that the Rabels could make no reasonable of the property, once the area of the wetland and required buffers are taken into account. The property would be undevelopable. Even in the absence of the Rabels substantial legal claims, their property would certainly be one which would qualify for a reasonable use exception under section 18.45.115 C of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Mr. Gary Schulz January 8, 1992 Page 3 Despite the substantial claim the Rabels may have and in order to resolve this dispute without litigation in the shortest possible time, they are interested in discussing the resolution of this matter through a developer's agreement. The agreement would provide for the development of the site as planned in return for the owners' payment of a compensatory mitigation fee to the City of Tukwila. Tukwila could then use the funds provided to create or enhance wetlands off -site. Provided we can agree on an appropriate formula to determine the cost of mitigation, we propose to base the fee on the cost of mitigation which would be incurred for on -site mitigation in kind at the rate of 1.5 - 1.0, as set out in TMC Section 18.45 .080 C.2.b. The Rabels are interested in moving this process along as fast as possible, provided we can reach agreement on the terms of the developer's agreement. They have already experienced, the long delay caused by the moratorium on development while the sensitive area ordinance was under study. Accordingly, we would appreciate it greatly if we could begin the process of drafting a proposed developer's agreement as soon as possible. We will be contacting your city attorney to discuss the other issues which should be included in the agreement. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN TODD & HOKANSON By Danferd W. Henke DWH:opt c: \opt \dwh \rebel \schu1205.1t2 1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 21, 1991 PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Mr. John Rabel c/o Mr. Danford Henke Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, Todd & Hokanson 1500 Puget Sound. Plaza 1325 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Re: NC Machinery meeting that occurred on November 12, 1991. Attendance: Dan Henke Bart Treece John Macklin Gary Schulz Ron Cameron Ross Heller John Pierog Helsell, Fetterman, David Evans & Assoc., Inc City of Tukwila As a brief summary of our meeting, the NC Machinery project is a proposal to fully develop a reserved portion (1.67 acres) of the existing Star Industries' site located at the intersection of Andover Park E. and S. 180th Street. This portion of the site has a "constructed wetland" (detention pond) and an adjacent, non - constructed wetland area. A new building, parking lot, and underground detention system are proposed for the additional development. The following points were discussed. 1) The existing detention pond is defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) as a constructed, and therefore, non - regulated wetland. The delineated wetland, situated outside of the pond, would likely be treated as regulated wetland because it was not "intentionally created" for a drainage or detention function. Per the SAO, the final determination on regulated wetland will come from the Director of Community Development. 2) Assuming there is a regulated wetland area that would be filled for development, a 1.5 to 1.0 mitigation ratio may be performed on an off -site location. A developer's agreement was proposed as a mitigation alternative but would require review and approval by the City Council. This agreement would include a mitigation fee, paid to the City, to construct Mr. John Rabel November 21, 1991 Page 2 (create) wetland area on City owned or managed property. It was also noted that a new ordinance may be needed to allow wetland mitigation fees for the City's use on drainage related projects. Developing a specific ordinance or amendment would likely require more time to complete than organizing a developer's agreement. 3) The City will conduct a drainage basin study for this area but the analysis has not been initiated. A recently developed property, located a short distance to the north, was reviewed by the City including drainage requirements. The drainage requirements followed the King County 1990 Surface Water Design Manual (10 & 25 yr. /24 hr. detention with biofiltration) and included a $7,500 contribution to the planned basin study for the area. Public Works anticipates the drainage requirements would be similar for NC Machinery. 4) A revised SEPA checklist with the current $225 review fee will also be required as part of the building permit process. Per our phone conversation yesterday, proposed mitigation costs for the wetland area outside of the detention pond need to be calculated at an area replacement ratio of 1.5:1.0. Wetland plantings used to determine related costs should represent increased species and habitat diversity. Excavation costs should consider the potential for off -site disposal. Please provide the City with a letter regarding proposed project needs including wetland regulation and mitigation. If you have additional questions regarding the site or this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, C. Gary Urban E ironmen list cc: Bart Treece, Ron Cameron, John Pierog, Rick Beeler, David Evans & Assoc. Inc. - Project Engineer Tukwila - City Engineer Tukwila - Associate Engineer Tukwila - DCD Director MEETING NOTES: 11/12/91 Present: Bart Treece John D. Macklin Dan Henke Gary Shultz Ron Cameron Ross Heller John Pierog Bart gave a summary of project. DEA DEA Helsell, Feterman, etc. City of Tukwila City of Tukwila City of Tukwila City of Tukwila Gary noted that the detention pond can be considered constructed wetland, but the remaining area can not. He stated final determination will be up to the Director of Community Development. Ron & Gary suggested the possibility of mitigation by off -site enhancement of another wetland. This was proposed as an alternative that would have to be accepted by council. The mitigation would be done at a 1.5 off -site to 1 on -site ratio of area, and the acceptance through council MAY by done using a developer's agreement. It was also noted that an ordinance could be required to allow off -site mitigation for wetlands - which would require more time. Ross noted that the property to the north developed recently, was required to follow the King County 1990 Surface Water Design Manual (10 & 25 year/ 24hr. detention and biofiltration), and to contribute $7,500 to a basin study for the area. It is expected that the drainage requirements would be similar here. 1 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 21, 1991 Mr. John Rabel c/o Mr. Danford Henke Helsell, Fetterman, Martin, 1500 Puget Sound Plaza 1325 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 21846 Seattle, WA 98111 PHONE # (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Todd & Hokanson Re: NC Machinery meeting that occurred on November 12, 1991. Attendance: Dan Henke Bart Treece John Macklin Gary Schulz Ron Cameron Ross Heller John Pierog Helsell, Fetterman, David Evans & Assoc., Inc City of Tukwila As a brief summary of our meeting, the NC Machinery project is a proposal to fully develop a reserved portion (1.67 acres) of the existing Star Industries' site located at the intersection of Andover Park E. and S. 180th Street. This portion of the site has a "constructed wetland" (detention pond) and an adjacent, non - constructed wetland area. A new building, parking lot, and underground detention system are proposed for the additional development. The following points were discussed. 1) The existing detention pond is defined by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) as a constructed, and therefore, non - regulated wetland. The delineated wetland, situated outside of the pond, would likely be treated as regulated wetland because it was not "intentionally created" for a drainage or detention function. Per the SAO, the final determination on regulated wetland will come from the Director of Community Development. 2) Assuming there is a regulated wetland area that would be filled for development, a 1.5 to 1.0 mitigation ratio may be performed on an off -site location. A developer's agreement was proposed as a mitigation alternative but would require review and approval by the City Council. This agreement would include a mitigation fee, paid to the City, to construct • • Mr. John Rabel November 21, 1991 Page 2 (create) wetland area on City owned or managed property. It was also noted that a new ordinance may be needed to allow wetland mitigation fees for the City's use on drainage related projects. Developing a specific ordinance or amendment would likely require more time to complete than organizing a developer's agreement. 3) The City will conduct a drainage basin study for this area but the analysis has not been initiated. A recently developed property, located a short distance to the north, was reviewed by the City including drainage requirements. The drainage requirements followed the King County 1990 Surface Water Design Manual (10 & 25 yr. /24 hr. detention with biofiltration) and included a $7,500 contribution to the planned basin study for the area. Public Works anticipates the drainage requirements would be similar for NC Machinery. 4) A revised SEPA checklist with the current $225 review fee will also be required as part of the building permit process. Per our phone conversation yesterday, proposed mitigation costs for the wetland area outside of the detention pond need to be calculated at an area replacement ratio of 1.5:1.0. Wetland plantings used to determine related costs should represent increased species and habitat diversity. Excavation costs should consider the potential for off -site disposal. Please provide the City with a letter regarding proposed project needs including wetland regulation and mitigation. If you have additional questions regarding the site or this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, G, C. Gary Urban Ert(rironmen cc: Bart Treece, Ron Cameron, John Pierog, Rick Beeler, list David Evans & Assoc. Inc. - Project Engineer Tukwila - City Engineer Tukwila - Associate Engineer Tukwila - DCD Director 4 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665 TO: i a4,---14406 a DATE: 002 9/ // TITL FROM: y MPANY: 4J1.jj 1 Y -7;-(41. .� TITLE: D e/ i1g0/ 7 1/ G/ 1//r6 0,e / EPARTMENT: J EPARTMENT: 112C-)e --°"/Cliftn, /iti: . o NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS) IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: *---3‘602 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431 -3670 6300. Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 06/15/00 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: / rt /QC- *loh D TE: O c�t�ik l/ 9/ TITLE: An - //2 -k /; L # / i� FROM: 661 ccC COMPANY` aP16 't/ Z74c1/h< SAS'oCactt te.' TITLE: DEPARTMENT: ' _ DEPARTMENT. , _ _ _ yt12112 FAX NO. NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS Pe, l c ; l 7 ory f en4/ t )4 mac—,' 4-74 lO -o.It PNee_ku4,71-- IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT ' CLEARLY RECEIVED, PT RASE CALL: ,31/ 5616D2--- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office: (206) 431 -3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 C- 06/15/!10 CONVERSATION RECORD TUE 14E0 THU FRI SAT SUN DATE: l6 / Zl / 9( TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference KTelephone- TIME:'; ?CS Incoming 0 Outgoing Nalne of E person s) contacted or in contact with you: Organizatigq (,p ice, de bureau, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Tele hone No Est —, +-24 Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: 03a,, itzavexri SUMMARY: \e, \PALL:. 1\G aJ r O / ftv“c L c - Chi" i -Q. Q a shi t -6r IPP.S ce a, Piri 9:ted4 pc3,4x, crt) sr ,0 RICHARD 5. WHITE WILLIAM A. HELSELL GARY F. LINDEN JOHN E. EDERER PHILLIP D. NOBLE DAVID F. JURCA LISH W HITSON RALPH J. BRINOLEY JOHN G. BERGMANN R. BROH LANDSMAN DANFERD W. HENKE KAREN J. VANDERLAAN PAULINE V. SMETKA DAVID GROSS BRUCE H. BENSON RAGAN L. POWERS BRADLEY H. BAGSHAW ANDREW J. KINSTLER FREDRICK D. HUEBNER MARK F. RISING KEVIN L. STOCK MARK C. DEAN LLEWELYN G. PRITCHARD C. JAMES FRUSH ROBERT G. RUPP MANAGING DIRECTOR via Messenger LAW OFFICES OF HELSELL, FETTERMAN, MARTIN, TODD & HOKANSON 1500 PUGET SOUND PLAZA 1325 FOURTH AVENUE P.O. BOX 21846 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98111 (2061 292-1144 FAX (206) 340 -0902 BELLEVUE OFFICE 909 BELLEVUE CORPORATE PLAZA 600 - 108TH AVE. N.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 (206) 292 -1144 FAX (206) 455 -3713 PLEASE REPLY TO SEATTLE OFFICE September 16, 1991 Mr. Gary Schultz Tukwila Planning Administration 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Star Machinery site, Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Schultz: PATRICIA E. ANDERSON DIRK A. BARTRAM POLLY K. BECKER SCOTT W. CAMPBELL B. JEFFREY CARL LAWRENCE R. COCK SCOTT E. COLLINS ANN G. COPLEY ROBERT N. GELLATLY JACKI L. KIRKLIN QUENTIN M. KNIPE DEBORAH L. MARTIN JOAN L. ROTH MCCABE PAUL E. MURRAY LAURA F. PASIK SUSAN L. PETERSON FELICIA G. PORTER LINDA M. ROUBIK LINDA D. WALTON OF COUNSEL WATSON B. BLAIR LINDA J. COCHRAN ROGER L. DECKER CRAIG R. DODEL PAUL FETTERMAN MARK T. HIGGINS RUSSELL V. HOKANSON THOMAS W. HUBER HAROLD R. ROOKS LLOYD SHORETT LYNN B. SQUIRES JERRY E. THONN THOMAS TODD Attached please find a copy of the latest report drafted by David Evans and Associates regarding the above -named property. This letter also confirms the meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 1991, at 9:00 with yourself, Mr. Jack Pace, John Rabel, Dan Henke, Bart Treece and John Macklin to discuss Star Machinery's application and this revised report. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Odette Taverna Secretary to Danferd W. Henke T/ enclosure a(1/0,/ L.'/ Y l9 /d) SS/IS 02Y3-02° 0 STAR September 16, 1991 • INMISTRIES" City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Gentlemen: Change of Address Please correct your records to reflect the following change for correspondence mailed to John Rabel (see enclosed envelope and insert). The correct address should read as follows: John Rabel Star Industries, Inc. 130 Lakeside Avenue #200 Seattle, WA 98122 Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter:- Sincerely, Betty K. Kuechler Assistant Secretary mys enc. STAR INDUSTRIES, INC. * 130 Lakeside Avenue #200 * Seattle, Washington 98122 Telephone (206) 328-1600 * Fax (206) 328-4036-3 CITY OF TLIkWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE # (206) 4331800 3 September 1991 Star industries John Rabel P.O4 Box 3595 8eatt1e Wabhih4toh 98124 Gary L VahDusen, Mayor RECEIVED SEP 9 1991 ha gubjeOti Epic Fi1 16-90 - ri;c: kaohifieky Co; beai Ai% Aabeii tik16eed Is a copy of the environmental checklist and plans ubmitthd to the City in June 1990, As you ate akatee at the time that you submitted the enclosed iatekiaibi the City had a moratorium in effect but would aii6a enifikonffiehtai review ta ko846d with submittal of ah a4teekeht to abide by the sensitive akeaa ordinance when adopted: The City never received the 6hVitohilienta1 review fed of $106:00 dollars And the agreement or y�ur proposed project tihe ondinq ehitikOhffiehtal tile hag therefore been c1beed: Wfideketafid that you wish tb,ptbdeed 4ith the project and will be '00ikifiq with Gary Schulz i tukt1la,6 016AAeL be prepared to itubMit Aft efiiiiiafiffiefitAl CheOkiiAt; the OtiOii fe nd any other supporting doduniefitatibh that itay be Wedeeeaky to review yofik requested hatioh: Y0 ha-6 iy 4fieatibfia; please Caii Me a 433.6i or Gary at 4j11=360: a(gaW iikadgha4 Aggoalate Plahhgt 88: daky Schulz CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE 11 (206) 4331800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 3 September 1991 Star Industries John Rabel P.O. Box 3595 Seattle Washington 98124 Subject: Epic File: 16 -90 - N.C. Machinery Co. Dear Mr. Rabel: Enclosed is a copy of the environmental checklist and plans submitted to the City in June 1990. As you are aware, at the time that you submitted the enclosed materials, the City had a moratorium in effect but would allow environmental review to proceed with submittal of an agreement to abide by the sensitive areas ordinance when adopted. The City never received the environmental review fee of $100.00 dollars and the agreement for your proposed project The pending environmental file has therefore been closed. I understand that you wish to proceed with the project and will be 'working with Gary Schulz, Tukwila's Urban Environmentalist. Please be prepared to submit an environmental checklist, the $225.00 fee and any other supporting documentation that may be necessary to review your requested action. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -3651 or Gary at 431 -3662. YDurs/t�rulyy,/ Moira -Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner cc Gary Schulz TO: Rick Beeler FROM: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE: r -16 December 1990 SUBJECT: Star Machinery Site According to currently worded definition of wetlands, the majority of the undeveloped site is a wetland. The July 1978 Site Drainage Plan for the City of Renton shows a ditch along the north property line and also shows the words "additional available detention storage" and "do not waste excess material in this area ". (Neither of these later areas is delineated.) The above plan would be a demonstration of intentional creation of drainage and detention areas; however "from non - wetland sites" has still not been proved. Several key facts presented so far is: 1. A seasonal high water table, 2. Soil boring descriptions of gray fine sand with some silt (loose, wet), which is classified as a hydric soil, and 3. Inconclusive vegetation information. I spoke with Bill Leonard, Wetlands Section, Department of Ecology, regarding the information provided to date. He felt that the information more conclusive of a wetland than of an upland site. A side note, but possibly a relevant one is the wildlife habitat mitigation requirements of Renton Resolution 1923 and satisfying this on the undisturbed portion (subject area) of the site. cc: Laura Anderson STAR INDUSTRIES December 7, 1990 TO: Moira Bradshaw/City of Tukwila FROM: Betty Kuechler SUBJECT: Star Machinery/NC Machinery Warehouse Facility John Rabel asked that I send these to you in regard to the Star Machinery/NC warehouse site. [ 1 i. . ... . . I.-.. A's, \-',0'si:: 1...$■.:;-1. DEC 10 1990 I DETE "ION FACILITY MO ' !CATION FOR NC. MACHINER Job # ODD255 June 7, 1990 Q= C•I•A Tc= 5 + 1030 = 5 + 17.16 = 22.16 MIN 1(60) C.= .90 I.= 1.03 in /hr. A.= 7 acres Q10= .90 (1.03 in /hr.) 7 Ac go= 6.49 cfs. Q= 6.49 = 1.03 cfs. 7(.9) T10 = -25 + 70.500 26.4 QO T = 25.92 MIN Vs = 2820T - 26.4Q0T T+25 1,435.5 - 704.8 = 730.70 VT = Vs • C- • Ac VT = 4,603.4 Fr USE 530 LF 50" x 31" Arch Pipe, Area = 8.7 FT2 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS. PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS OFFICES IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA 301 - 116TH AVENUE S.E.. SUITE 170 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004-6477 (206) 455-3571 FAX (206) 455.3061 �7 F91 JUN 27 1990 1 CITY u PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 John Rabel P.O. Box 3595 Seattle, Washington 98124 PHONE # (206) 433.1800 October 11, 1990 Subject: N.C. Machinery Warehouse /Fabrication Facility Dear Mr. Rabel: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor To follow up on your testimony at the Planning Commission Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) public hearing, I was asked to review your property and the applications filed to date. As you are aware from your wetland biologist, your site exhibits all three characteristics of a wetland and is therefore regulated by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. Due to the moratorium on development in sensitive areas, we are able to process only your environmental checklist. The environmental review can commence upon you signing a written agreement that the process will not be finalized until after the effective date of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance and that the provisions of the Ordinance shall be part of the substantive policy on which the environmental determination will be made. Our attorney is currently drafting the above agreement, which I will send to you when it becomes available. The Tukwila Public Works Department will likely conduct a storm water analysis of your surrounding drainage basin this winter, which would provide some additional hydrology information regarding your site. If I can be of more assistance, please call me at 431 -3651. Sinc4;0110 el 1 0,4141AllUr frilr Moira arr adshaw"Tt Associate Planner s gealVa ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Con+ a1 No. OD -0((3 J 1 EpilliFile No. /G/ —92) Fee $100.00 Receipt No. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: N.C. Machinery CO. Warehouse /Fabrication Facility 2. Name of applicant: Star Industries 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: P.O. Box 3595, Seattle, WA 98124 Contact: Mr. John Rabel (206) 328 -2535 4. Date checklist prepared: May 16, 1990 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction - Summer 1990 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. NO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Field delineation of artifically created wetland area. Geotechnical study to to be completed prior to application for building permit. 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 such applications are pending -2- JUN 27 1990 ci i Y (:I' I uv,;;.A PLANNING DEPT. • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Grading Permit, Building Permit, Shoreline Permit 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. Site grading and subsequent construction of 20,000 sq. ft. (Type 111 -N, Sprinklered, H -4 Occupancy) warehouse facility and reconstruction of associated storm drainage facility. 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. The proposed .warehous- - . . -.. • .- .. ' Machinery site lying west of the W Valley litghway hPginning apprnximately 12n' nnrth of S. 180th St. (Sec, 25- 23 -4EWM) Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Yes - Wetlands -3- TO BE COMPLE; r' APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2% 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. Puyallup fine sandy loam (Py), Newberg silt loam (Ng) Woodinville silt loam (Wo) - Soil t,irvay, Ding Comity Area Washingt_ nn", TISTIA Soil C'1nservation Servi ra 1973 d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. if. g. The Pastern 250' of the site willbe filled to elevation 24' (F F_ = 25') to achieve proper drainage. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Construciton activiteis increase the potential for erosion. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 100% alu ation for Agency Use Only :. .auation for • Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Silt fences will`be installed along the north and east property lines. 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. Construction activities result in a short -term increase in dust level and fumes. In the long term additional vehicle traffic will incrementally inrreaSP carhop monoxide levels 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 air, if any: None Proposed 3. Water 33 Sq. 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. Yes - 0.72 acres at the eastern end of the NC Machinery site are seasonally flooded due to overflow from the existing stormwater detention pnnci The existing pond can not perform as designed due to the lack of maintenance of the downstream ditch. • 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. yes - the existing detention em and • . • . -. }-hi anfiire eastern end of this site will be fillirl an average of 1' -2 ". 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. See attached site plan. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No surface water withdrawls are proposed. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. NO 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The storm drainage system outlets to an existing ditch. 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. She prnpnsPd tiarehovse - facility will be served by Pnhl;r SPwPrs_ c. Water Runoff (including storm water): Evalt..: pion for Agency Use Only 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. AdA;t;nnal storm -water run -off generated by the ylrl;r;nnal impervious surfaces. Run -off will be d;rar'tPd into new underground detention, designed per City rPduirements, and outletted to the existing ditch thrnngh the existing outfall. The existing ditch PNrantnally flows into Springbrook Creek. • • Evt Lion for Ager .:y Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Storm -water run -off typically includes urban pollutants. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The storm drainage system will be designed per City requirements. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain x wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation 12) What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing vegetation will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Nn threatened or endangered spgciaq _Are knn.rn to ha nn nr naar the Gi to • • Ev_ pion for Age >,:;y Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any : j,an sc^a= i ng wi 1 1 be i_nattalled_.ger ity • Beauirements_ 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, eagl songbirdj1' other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered specis are known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed • • E • ation for Ag;:},cy 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. F]ertririry will be ised is fabrication. Natural Cac will be ,n'Pd to-heat-the-bidding. -- 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: The warehou.SP building will be const ted to current City conservation standards. 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. Construction activities involve some risk. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Medical Aid 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: Good construction management practices • b. Noise • Evalu a for Agency a Only 1). What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The project site is located in a commercial /industrial area. Existing sources of noise incldue automobile and truck _ traffic, usual commercial /industrial noise, and railroad traffic on the C.M. St. P and P main line railroad tracks approximately 100' to the east. 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. construction activities will generate a short- term increase in noise levels. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction per current City Standards. 8. Land and Shoreline Use v What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site - existing NC Machinery Sales and Service building, associated parking and storage yard. Adjacent-truck rental (north). West Vally. Sijhway - (west) Puget Power 14./W-- Railroad (east). single family and small commercial (south -). b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. NO c. Describe any structures on the site. Nn q_triirttirPa _p_ri ct nn the PActPrn portion of thp, CitP • Eval�, �_ ��n for • Agency t,se Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Nn strurturPS will hp ,dpmol i shed_ e. • What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1, Light Tndustrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Light Tndustria1 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes- Wetland i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 15 people would work in the new facility. J. • Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Approval of permits by City 1 9. Housing • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? N/A - b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 21' Ceave ). - 22' (ridge) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views will be altered nr nhst-riic-tPd_ ':c) Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No aesthetic impacts are anticipated. • 11. Light and Glare • Evalu4..ion for Agency Use Only a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The warPhnuse facility will generate only limited light and glare during evening hours. 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: All lighting will be directed on -site. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A 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: N/A • • 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. No such places or objects are known to exist on the site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site is provided by S. 180th St. and West Valley Highway. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? unknown c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will provide 114 parking spaces - 66 spaces are required. Eva1u,:ion for Agency Use Only 1 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. The C.M. St. P and P railroad tracks lie approximately 100' to the east. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The 15 new employees will generate trips during the morning and evening commute. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: Access will be designed per City requirements. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposed shop /warehouse addition will incrementally add to the demand for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Construction to current City standards and payment of taxes. Eve sAion for AG_ .:.y Use Only • 16. Utilities • Evaluati,n for Agency Use Only refuse service,, is 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. The warehouse /fabrication shop will be served by an extension of the existing public utilites. All utility construction will be confined to the project site. 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 COMPLETED BY APPL IT • Evaluat : 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? The primary objective of this proposal is to consolidate NC Machinery facilities at the exisitng site. The consolidation requires the existing warehouse /fabrication shop to move to the West Valley Highway site which already contains a 28,490 sq. ft. sales and service building. A second objective is reconstruction of the storm drainage system to include piping with underground detention so that the system will function as originally designed and approved. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The only alternative to construction of the warehouse /fabrication shop at this site would be moving the existing 28,490 sq. ft. to a new site large enough to also accommodate the warehouse /fabrication shop. NC Machinery has no such site under its control. The storm drainage system could be designed with above- ground detention (i.e. pond). 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Consolidation of facilities on this site is the preferred course of action inasmuch as no other large site is owned by NC Machinery. The underground storm drainage detention is preferred as this permits best utilization of the site and requires less maintenance. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? The proponent does not believe this proposal conflicts with policies in the Comprehensive Lan use Policy Plan. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- Evaluation for Agency Use Only .ECEWNVIRONMTAL REVIEW JUN 2 9 1990 ROUTl�G FORM CITY OF TUKWILA ' Puauc WORKS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 EPIC: 16 -90 PROJECT NC Machinery Co. (Warehouse /Fabrication Facility) ADDRESS 17900 West Valley Highway, Tukwila DATE TRANSMITTED 6 -28 -90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7 -6 -90 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. :.Please review. an comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination.: environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, :. Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM I. *Pr pr/) pb41 in- - , -4c., 1frove „T. ( - 'deI / /PIG- 33-89 a r 414n5 Iv�y�jBP�I -1 /n� 4.41s e.- d •• firil0"0047194C- • P r-o-v /Jed e,a i 7144111 /' _A _A__ Al/dam in7 L/G' J)i y . C ssza i)1 1/ •- 3 5 -A' 9 n� S9Sit JeeLyn ?rOt,Je. 1 idi f-i 11 g --7Or i 4)4.7r4 per /75'd ICfh '' II i ���� S 3c4 ►^ I ttGe . G��, r. s, /`7Gn� ...4.- �o er► /oro - f rov.je 4 7 9 are g-flood gii•R 4-9 r e 4 v e 4 7 1 l f a JP /J'5L2I-i) �' �tee-- arl-i c //1 2/D / 7 bPic - COMMENT Date: Comments prepared by; , I.����. C. fro O 14/09 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONIVI TAL REVIEW ROUTIM FORM EPIC: 16 -90 Building planning : hPub Wks [ Fire .:Police Parks /. NC Machinery Co. (Warehouse /Fabrication Facility) 17900 West Valley Highway, Tukwila DATE TRANSMITTED 6 -28 -90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7 -6 -90 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review: an comment betow to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination ... ;The environmental :review file Is available in the Planning Department through •the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below ITEM fy Date: Comments prepared by: 0.114186 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: 11 Building IJ Planning lxJ Pub Wks 1RX l Fire . • . tx j Police F4J Paft/Reo ENVIRONMWAL REVIEW ROUTIM FORM EPIC: 16-90 PROJECT NC Machinery Co. (Warehouse/Fabrication Facility) ADDRESS 17900 West Valley Highway, Tukwila DATE TRANSMITTED 6-28-90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7-6-90 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson DATE RESPONSE. RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project Please review an comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The environmental 'review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinatoi•. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted In the comment section below,. . . . . . • .• • . • . . •• ITEM COMMENT /e/...44971/71e4r-6 /020/Neyt.4 0/41' 4/ )de- X/tW(Oli/ 40gtar4,-/- ‘eed'S';/jelat4e-l/la Date: Comments prepared by: , 011/114/89 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building Planning; W Pub Wks PROJECT ADDRESS ENVIRONIUI'- TAL REVIEW ROITI ,, ; FORM EPIC: 16 -90 NC Machinery Co. (Warehouse /Fabrication Facility) 17900 West Valley Highway, Tukwila DATE TRANSMITTED 6 -28 -90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7 -6 -90 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project..Piease review an comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determinations The • environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator.: Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, .: Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT Dater _r ,� . , 3 Comments prepared by; 09+14189 ENVIRONM TAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EPIC; 16 -90 NC Machinery Co. (Warehouse /Fabrication Facility) ADDRESS 17900 West Valley Highway, Tukwila DATE TRANSMITTED 6 -28 -90 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 7 -6 -90 STAFF COORDINATOR Darren Wilson DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review an comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The :..environmental review file is available in the Planning Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board. of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM o e07)1197p17ts COMMENT Date: -27_90 Comme its prepared by: , cr/g11 09/14189 r V' • • • May 1, 1979 Wit/ OFFICE OF THE LEWD USE HEARING EXANNER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: Star-Machinery Company FILE NO. SP- 178 -78 Property located approximately 120 feet north of S.W. 43rd along the east side of West Valley Road. Applicant requests approval of a special permit for fill and grade to prepare the site for planned future development. (Preload of building area only.) Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions. The Planning Department staff report was received by the Examiner on April 19, 1978. After reviewing tho Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: The hearing was opened on April 25, 1978 at 11:20 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Municipal Building. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report waa entered into the record as Exhibit 01. Michael Smith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit N1, and entered the following additional exhibits into the record: Exhibit N2: King County Assessor's Map Exhibit 113: Site Plan with Sections and Drainage Exhibit 14: Letter from Lance P. Mueller to Planning Department, dated April 19, 1978 Exhibit 05: Memorandum from Donald G. Monaghan to Hearing Examiner, dated April 24, 1978 The Examiner asked the representative for the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit *1. Responding was: Lance Mueller 130 Lakeside Seattle, WA 98122 yr. Mueller indicated his concurrence but wished to address requirements for drainage plane denoted in Section P.8 of Exhibit 01. He indicated that upon receipt of final site approval, drainage plane will be coordinated with divisions of the city and sutmeitted for approval. He referred to previous projects which his architectural firm had accomplished in areas adjacent to the.subject property and reported his intent to prcv..le similar plans for design and storm drainage for the project. He requ•sted_ approval of the special permit subject to submittal of the final drainage Blahs at' a — later .fate upon final development. Mr. Ma'' er also questioned the intent of recommendations noted in Sections 0.13 and P.4 relating to control of dust and mud on the 60 -foot access roadway, noting the apr1i...nt'; intent to utilize crushed rink in lieu of permanent paving on the right - of -way. Mr. Smith responded that due to previous problems associated with fill and grade operations, the Public Works Department is responsible for reviewing impacts relating to adjacent properties and considering proposed methods to reduce such impact such as treatment or surfacing of the roadway. The Examiner noted a method of water sprin.cling which had been previously utilized for this purpose. • • SP°i78 -78 Page Two The Examiner asked for testi' support or opposition to the request. There was no response. The Examiner II .ed Mr. Smith if the proposal meets landfill composition requirements of the „rdinance. Mr. Smith reported that the proposed granular -type preload material meets ordinance requirements for compaction and is acceptable. Responding to the Examiner's inquiry regarding requirements for an additional special permit prior to further development, Mr. Smith advised that the subject special permit would allow surcharge operations for the building site, and that subsequent application for building permit would allow a certain amount of on- site construction including fill and grade procedures under the requirements of the Mining, Excavation and Grading Ordinance. He noted that if additional excavation totaling over 500 cubic yards other than the proposed preload was planned prior to issuance of a building permit, application for an additional special permit for fill and grade would be required. In response to the Examiner's inquiry regarding participation of'the applicant in a proposed local improvement district on West Valley Road for installation of a left - turn lane, Mr. Smith reported that the property owner would be required to participate. The Examiner inquired if methods of erosion control such as hydroseeding would be included as part of Planning Department requirements. Mr. Smith reported placement of straw bales surrounding the detention pond in the outer area and sufficient proposed buffering surrounding the entire preload for erosion mitigation purposes. The Examiner asked Mr. Mueller if the applicant was amenable to hydroseeding requirements on the slopes of the preload. Mr. Mueller responded that because construction on the preload area would occur within three months after approval of the special permit, the maximum height of the preload was only seven to eight feet,'and natural runoff generated by a 30,000 sq. ft. area or 11,000 -cubic yards of surcharge would not be significant, he felt hydroseeding would not be practical or necessary. He also reported that a 60 -foot area south of the surcharge operation would remain in a natural state. The Examiner noted that the time limit established in Exhibit #1 for comple.iion of_the proposed fill and grade process in a maximum three -year period could be eatiLy met by the applicant. Mr. Mueller agreed and reite-ated previous comments relating to commencement of construction in mid - summer, 1.78 following receipt of shoreline permit approval. The Examiner asked Mr. Smith if the applicant's intent of eliminating hydroseeding procedures was acceptable to the department. Mr. Smith indicated departmental concurrence. The Examiner asked for further testimony. Sine there was none, the hearing on File No. SP- 178 -78 was closed by the Examiner at 11:50 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS S RECOMMENDATIONS: Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a special permit for a landfill of about 11,000 cubic yards. 2. The Manning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies an4 provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, Iis uncontested), and is hereby attached as Exhibit 41 and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. i'urseant to the city of Reenton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1.171. as amended by R.:'.W. 41.21.C., a 1cclaration of Non- Significance has been isaueu for the subject proposal by Gordon Y. Ericksen, responsihle official. 4. Nan:. fur tit.• pru;..sal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the ,ti this development. 5. r':. t :: :.tS no :,)arts i t ion to !:10 r rnpos,,: expressed. E. '. .•... :,; vt iiities are avail.,;,),• .,::1 ::r ..lose Proximity. :',;r • ° :�. is .umpatib.••with this i,•;, :;red setbacks, 10'. c,vf.rage and I•cight r' .;u: t •• r• :.• s of Sections 4 -73„ (M -P: ,:r•i 4 -2114 of Title i': , Ordinance No. 1r, :1, �1n :metal _rdinances. p•.••. :ai p..rmit is required for 1.'vr.:o; -.•nt .ind use •,f ti.e site p..gr Sect.on 4- 2302.2. F,:..t ilitacion of the site is requ.r,d per Section 4 -230u. The architect indicated t'..' : onstruction :If the propoc,,.f building is to begin as soon as possible after ..s.t.rnce of the Snoreline Management Permit. Plans for rehabilitation of the site ...u. in,1ute; a•)t:r.q review or ,ho s.c..ial permit for the ;proposed building. 1 1 SP- 178 -78 Page Three 10. The landfill operation is scheduled for corpletio:; in three months (Sectic:. 4- 2307.3). 11. An annual license from the Planning and Public Works Departments is requlred per Sections 4- 2307.2.B, 4- 2307.4, 4 -2310 and 4 -23Ui. 12. During the operation the requirements of Section 4 -2312, Work in Progress, most be met. Access is proposed via a portion of the property abutting S.W. 41rd. Street which is acceptable to the Public Works Department. 13. Storm drainage plans (Exhibits 03 and $4) have been submitted per Sections 4- 2307.5.E, 4 -2313 and 4 -2318 and found by the Public Works Department to conform to the requirements of these sections as well as Ordinance No. 3174 ( Exnibit 05). 14. Barks of the slopes meetthe requirements of Sections 4- 2312.1 and 4-2316.0 per staff comments on Exhibit 03. 15. Th.1 fill material conforms to the criteria of Section 4- 2316.4. 16. Erosion control per Sections 4- 2312.10, 4 -2313, 4- 2318.2 and 4 -2319 yi11 bei- provided by straw bales and the existing and remaining, undisturbed,'easter1y pnrtf nn of the site. 17. The wildlife habitat mitigation requirements of Resolution No. 1923 are met via the existing undisturbed portions of the property. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposal conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and Shoreline Management Master Program. 2. The operation will "...not be an'unreasonable detriment to the surrounding area..." (Section 4-2303.2.B) provided certain conditions are met. 3. For purposes of flood control, the elevation of the final grade of the fill should conform to that of the northerly properties. 4. Dust must be minimized on the access road (Section 4- 2312). 5. The Public Works Department should review whether or not traffic control measures are required at the intersection of the access road and S.W. 43rd Street. 6. Additional review of the need to hydroseed the slopes of the landfill is necessary. 7. The landfill is reasonable and appropriate for development purposes (Section 7.08.01.F; Shoreline Master Program). DECISION: Based upon the record, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the decision of the Examiner to approve the requested special permit (Exhibits $3 and •4) subject to: 1. coordination of the final elevation of the landfill with the northerly adjacent properties per approval of the Public Works Department. 2. Appropriate dust and mud control measures as required by the Public Works Department. 3. Provision of traffic control devices as required by the Public Works Department. 4. Inclusion of )iydroseedinq the landfill slopes per approval of the Planning and Purlie Works Departments. S. A;.E•ruval of the King County Flood Zone Control Permit and Shoreline Mana, :t..tent soloitantial 0evelopment Permit. 6. Sru,mittal of rehabilitation plans with'the special permit application lot development of the site. •mjletion of the landfill operation within one year. R. :•mpltance with all provisions of Chapter 23. ). :ruston of the abovementtoned conditions in restrictive covenants that are signed by appropriate parties. ORDERED THIS 1st day of May, 1978. SP- 178 -78 Page Four Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 1st 'day of May, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the parties of record: Lance Mueller, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, WA 98122 TRANSMITTED THIS 1st day of May, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour- Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before May 15, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner nay, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed ly Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of $25.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. • • •• MaY 19, 1478 OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER CITY fE RENTON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: The hearing was opened Municipal Building. on Star Machinery Company FILE NO. SA- 1t8 -78 East mid. of the west Valley Road approximately 12e feet north of Southwest 43rd Street. The applicant seeks site approval of • facility for office sales and maintenance of construction eq'.ileaent, and the outside storage thereof. Planning Department Recommendation: Approval with conditions. Hearing Examiner Decision: Approval with conditions. The Planning Department staff report was received by the Examiner on May 10, 1978. After reviewing the Planning Department report, examining available information on file with the application, and field checking the property and surrounding area, the Examiner conducted • public hearing on the subject as follows: May 16, 1978 at 9:45 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the Renton Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. It was reported that the Hearing Examiner and the applicant had received and reviewed the Planning Department report, and the report was entered into the record as Exhibit 61. Michae"TSmith, Planning Department, reviewed Exhibit el, and entered the following additional'exhibite into the record: Exhibit 42: Site Plan with staff comments Exhibit 01: Site Plan as submitted The Examiner asked the representative for the applicant if he concurred in Exhibit el. Responding was: Lance Mueller 110 Lakeside Seattle, NA 98122 Mr. Mueller indicated his concurrence in the report. The Examiner requested testimony in support or. opposition to the request. There was no response. Regarding the 20 -foot landscaping area between the easterly portion of the outside storage area and the access roadway to S.W. 43rd Street for which landscaping is not proposed at this time, the Examiner inquired if the area would be required to be landscaped if the access road were developed into a public street. Mx. Smith responded affirmatively, and advised that roviw of the 220 to 240 -foot area on the easterly side of the site would occur if subsequent subdivision or future development occurred on the site. The Examiner requested confirmation that the previous special permit for landfill activity, File Nc. S(- 178 -78, would not include the parking areas and outside storage in the building envelope, and that the landfill activity for the site plan will be done in connection with the building permit. Mr. Smith confirmed the Examiner's comment and noted that the applicant had so testified at the prior hearing. The Examiner advised that • subsequent spect.il permit must be acquired if all landfill was not accomplished concurrently with the building permit. Mr. Mueller indicated his concurrence in the matter. The Examiner asked for further comments. Since there were none, the hearing on Fi!.e No. SA- 168 -78 was closed by the Examiner at 10:10 a.m. SA- 168 -78 Page ^..o 'FINDIN(.. 'CLUSIONS 6 RECOMMENDATICNS: Having r d the record in this matter, the Examiner makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The request is for approval of a site plan for an office, maintenance building and outside storage areas for the sale and service of construction equipment. 2. The Planning Department report accurately sets forth the issues, applicable policies and provisions, findings of fact, and departmental recommendations in this matter, is uncontested, and is hereby attached as Exhibit #1, and incorporated in this report by reference as set forth in full therein. 3. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended by R.C.W. 43.21.C., a Declaration of Nor.- Significance has been issued for the subject proposal by Gordon Y..Ericksen, responsible official. 4. Plans for the proposal have been reviewed by all city departments affected by the impact of this development. 5. There was no opposition to the proposal expressed. 6. All existing utilities are available and in close proximity. 7. The proposal is compatible with the required setback, use, lot coverage and height requirements of Section 4 -730 (M -P) of Title IV, Ordinance No. 1628, Code of General Ordinances. 8. A special permit for a landfill operation within the limits of the proposed building was approved by the Examiner on May 1, 1978 (SP- 178 -78). Since the applicant testified that a building permit application would be submitted consecutively with spreading the landfill to other portions of the site, a special permit is not required for the proposed enlarged area of landfill. The conditions of the special permit continue to apply to the proposal. 9. Primary access is to be from the West Valley Road (SR -181). In order to accommodate left turn movements on the road, the applicant is required to participate in the L.I.D. being formed for necessary improvements. Off -site improvements are required as well. Secondary access is proposed via a 60 -foot strip of property abutting S.W. 43rd Street. Pavement of 24 feet is proposed at this point, which is apparently acceptable to the Public Works Department. Off -site verents are required along this portion of S.W. 43rd Street. 10. The easteik1V approxjmate one -third of i.,,e site is to remain in its natural state and include a 'scoria drainage retention pond.. This area and the landscaping for the proposal will more than 'meet the 2% wildlife habitat mitigation specified per Resolution No. 1923 and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan. 11. Parking for 50 cars is proposed on, the site. The requirements of Section 4- 2208.3 (Parking and Loading Ordinance) specify an additional 32 parking spaces. It was indicated in the testimony that these additional spaces could be accommodated within the proposal. 12. The proposed outdoor storage and display areas meet the standards of Section 4- 730.030.5 (M -P) and objectives of the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan provided sufficient landscape screening is included. A landscape plan was not submitted; howev'?r, general areas of landscaping were shown on the site plan (Pxhtbit '2). The 20 -foot landscape strip at the most easterly boundary of the proposal .ind for screening the outdoor storage area is to be implemented when the easterly one-third of the site is developed. 13. The building design is compatible with the Manufacturing Park character and existing development. 14. A State Flood 'Lon, Control Permit and Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit are required prior to construction. CONCLUSIONS 1. The proposal is compatible with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan provided certain conditions are met. • • •68 -78 Page Three 2. The conditions of the special permit (SP- 178 -78) should be extended to the enlarged landfilling occurring in the proposal. These conditions would insure that erosion control is maximized and rehabilitation occurs, among other accomplishments of the conditions. 3. Improvement of the alternative access road to S.W. 43rd Street should be coordinated with the existing S.W. 43rd Street improvement project. Off -site improvements and roadway alignment should be compatible with the improvement project per the approval of the Public Works Department. In addition, the 24 -foot proposed roadway should be evaluated. by the Public Works Department for adequacy for circulation of the landfill and sales and service operations on the site and compliance with applicable city ordinances. 4. A landscape plan should be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval of the landscaping and conformance with Resolution No. 1923. On Exhibit 12 some comments were made by staff which should be incorporated into the submitted landscape plan. Also included in the plan should be the landscaping that may be eventually installed along the easterly fence of the large outside storage area. -'The_area along, West Valley Road should be landscaped similar to the Hill -Rowe Investment Company development to the north (File No. SA- 075 -77). Landscaping on the north and south perimeter of the site should constitute an effective landscape buffer. 5. A storm drainage plan has not been finally approved for the development by the Public Works Department; however, it appears that the system utilized during the landfill . operation may be used for the development also. The final drainage plan should be approved by the department. 6. The proposed sign is within the jurisdiction of the normal staff review and approval process. DECISION: Based upon the record,, testimony, findings and conclusions, it is the Examiner's decision to approve the proposed development (Exhibit 12) subject to: 1. Compliance with the conditions of the special permit (SP- 178 -78) and rehabilitation of areas where landfill occurs per approval of the Planning Department. 2. Improvement of the access road to S.W. 43rd Street and off -site improvements thereto per review and approval of the Public Works Department for compliance with app:icable city ordinances and compatibility with the S.W. 43rd Street improvement project. 3. Submittal of a landscape plan including fencing per staff comments on Exhibit $2 for review and approval by the Planning Department for conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, Resolution No. 1923 and Conclusion No. 4. 4. Submittal of a final drainage plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department. 5. Addition of 32 parking spaces to Exhibit 12 per review and approval of the Planning Department. 6. Approval of the State Flood Zone Control Permit and the Shoreline Management Substantial Ucvelopment Permit. 7. Submittal of .n agreement to participate in an L.I.D. on an equitable, fair -share basis f.,r construction of a two -way left turn lane in the West Valley Road (SR -181) per rei4airements of the Public Works Department and other applicable agencies. 8. Uses confined to the areas designated on Exhibit 12. 9. Preservation of the easterly approximate one -third of the site in its existing state, except for storm drainage provisions. 10. Installation of landscaping along the easterly fence of the outside storage area upon development of the easterly one -third of the site. The Planning Department shall review and approve the landscape plan for this area and require a performance bond or other method as deemed necessary to guarantee compliance with this condition. • • IA-1b8-78 Page Four • 11. Planning Department approval of refuse dumpseer locations and screening. 12. Compliance with all applicable city ordinances and regulations. ORDERED THIS 19th day of May, 1978. Land Use Hearing Examiner TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of May, 1978 by Affidavit of Mailing to the Parties of Record: Lance Mueller, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, WA 98122 TRANSMITTED THIS 19th day of May, 1978 to the following: Mayor Charles J. Delaurenti Councilman Richard M. Stredicke Councilwoman Patricia Seymour- Thorpe Warren C. Gonnason, Public Works Director Gordon Y. Ericksen, Planning Director Ron Nelson, Building Division Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney Pursuant to Title IV, Section 3015 of the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before June 2, 1978. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is hased on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for review by the Examiner wi•hin fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after view of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the;City Council is governed by Title IV, Section 3016, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk accompanying a filing fee of 525.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection in the City Clerk's office, first floor of City Hall, or same may be purchased at cost in said office. r • APPLICANT: FILE NO: • PLANNING DEPARTMEN • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING MAY 16, 1978 STAR MACHINERY COMPANY ,SA- 168 -78, SITE APPROVAL A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant seeks site approval of a facility for office sales and maintenance of construction equipment and the outside storage thereof. B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner of Record: 2. Applicant: 3. Location: 4. Legal Description: 5. Size of Property: 6. Access: 7. Existing Zoning: 8. Existing Zoning in Area: 9. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: 10. Notification: C. PURPOSE OF REQUEST: JOHN RABEL STAR MACHINERY COMPANY East side of the West Valley Road approximately 120 feet north of Southwest 43rd Street. A detailed legal description is available on file in Renton Planning Department. Approximately 7 acres. Via West Valley Road and Southwest 43rd Street. M -P, Manufacturing Park. M -P, Manufacturing Park B -1, Business Use G, General Classification H -1, Heavy Industry Manufacturing Park The applicant was notified in writing of the hearing date. Notice was properly published in the Record Chronicle and posted in three (3) places on or near the site as required by City Ordinance. To permit the building of structures for office sales and maintenance of construction equipment and outside storage of the same. D. HISTORY /BACKGROUND: The subject site was annexed it Number 1745. The site was rt.• Ordinance Number 3134. ■he C,;y of Renton on April 14, 1959 by Ordinance , Manufacturing Park on May 9, 1977. by J :.J 7I 11, YIY.gik PLANNING DEPARTMENT • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: STAR MACHINERY COMPANY, FILE NO. SA- 168 -78, SITE APPROVAL MAY 16, 1978 PAGE TWO E. PHYSICAL BACKGROUND: 1. Topography: The site is relatively level. 2. Soils: Puyallup fine sand loam (Py), permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. Seasonal high water table. Soil is used for row crops, pasture and urban development. Newberg silt loam (Ng), permeability is moderate, runoff is slow, erosion hazard is slight. Seasonal high water table. Soil used for pasture row crops. Woodinville silt loam (Wo), permeability is moderately slow, runoff is slow, hazard of erosion is slight. This soil used for pasture, row crops and urban development. 3. Vegetation: Scrub grass and brush. 4. Wildlife: Existing vegetation may provide some habitat for birds and small mammals. 5. Water: No streams were apparent on the subject site. The site is subject to seasonal high water table. 6. Land Use: The property directly north of the subject site is filled but presently undeveloped. Existing homes and businesses are located south of the subject site along Southwest 43rd Street. The Puget Power right -of -way and railroad mainline tracks are located directly east of the subject site. F. NIEHGBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The general area is experiencing a transition from undeveloped land to commercial/ industrial uses. G. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Water and Sewer: An eight inch sanitary sewer is located along the Puget Power right -of -way, a twelve inch water main is located along West Valley Road, and a storm drainage ditch is located along the Puget Power right -of -way. 2. Fire Protection: Provided by the Renton Fire Department as per Ordinance requirements. 3. Transit: Metro Transit route 155 operates along Southwest 43rd Street. 4. Schools: Not applicable. 5. Parks: Not applicable. H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE: 1. Section 4430, Manufacturing Park. I. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR OTHER OFFICIAL CITY'DOCUMENTS: 1. Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976. J. IMPACTS ON NATURAL SYSTEMS: Fill and development of the subject site will disturb existing soil and vegetation, increase storm water runoff and have an effect on traffic and noise levels in the area. However, these can be mitigated by proper development controls and procedures. K. SOCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable. . PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: STAR MACHINERY COMPANY, FILE NO. SA- 168 -78, SITE APPROVAL MAY 16, 1978 PAGE THREE ►► L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT /THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended, RCW 43.21C, a Declaration of non - significance has been issued for the subject proposal. This declaration is based on the provision of suitable developmental standards which will screen and buffer outdoor storage and provide compatibility with the M -P zone and Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan objectives. M. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A vicinity map and a site map are attached. N. AGENCIES /DEPARTMENTS CONTACTED: 1. City of Renton Building Division. 2. City of Renton Engineering Division. 3. City of Renton Traffic Engineering. 4. City of Renton Utilities Division. 5. City of Renton Fire Department. 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. The proposed development is consistent with the existing M -P zoning of the site, and the Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan, June 1976. 2. Suitable areas around the outdoor storage areas have been designated for screening and landscaping as part of the proposal,'to provide consistency with the M -P zone concept and purpose, and the Comprehensive Plan site objective, Page 8, which states that "less aesthetic uses, such as loading areas and outdoor storage areas, should be adequately screened and landscaped and placed so they are not visable from adjacent public rights of way." The screening and landscaping requirements of the bulk storage standards were utilized together with the site design and layout to achieve such an objective. 3. Detailed plans of the proposed landscaping and screening areas should be approved by the Planning Department at the time of building permit application. The types of material shall provide suitable evergreen screening around outside storage and work areas and parking areas as well providing suitable wildlife food and /or habitat per the SCS Valley Drainage Agreement (adopted by Resolution Number 1923, City of Renton; and Green River Valley Comprehensive Plan Objectives Pages 5 -8.) 4. The amount of planting area also is consistent with the 2% of site area requirements of Resolution Number 1923. 5. Earth berms, minimum of 3 to 4 feet in height, shall be provided in landscape areas around the open storage areas, Green River Valley Cumprehensive Plan, Objectives Pages 5 -8. 6. The feature equipment display area is consistent with the M -P 60 foot setback. If properly landscaped and maintained such display for a maximum of two pieces of equipment at any one time is compatible with M -P standards and Valley Comprehensive Plan site objectives. However, all other outside storage of equipment shall be located in the designated area behind the building, except for the landscaped/ screened new equipment storage area near the northwesterly portion of the site. 7. The proposed development is consistent with the other requirements of t ::a M -P zone as well as the requirements of the parking and loading ordinance. however, the parking requirement for the maintenance area is 10 instead of 7 and the uncovered storage area requires 29 stalls. These additional 32 spaces can be provided along the southerly portion of the site. • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: STAR MACHINERY COMPANY, FILE NO. SA- 168 -78, SITE APPROVAL MAY 16, 1978 PAGE FOUR 8. The proposed access to West Valley Highway will be contingent upon creation of a left -turn lane. This has been initiated in the form of an LI0 for the general area south of the Scarsella property to Southwest 43rd Street. The proposed access road to Southwes 43rd , greet a s: acceptable on-aff.V terim al ernate access`,ba'°sis Its improv ents and- location relative to the Southwest -' 43`rd`'Str`eet- ifip`rovement project should be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. All areas not utilized for developed access roadway shall be re- habilitated and /or landscaped per Planning Department approval. In the event that the undeveloped portion of the site is developed to a different use than that proposed, such access to 43rd Street may be required to be dedicated and improved to city street standards. 9. A preload for the building area was approved as a Special Permit by the Hearing Examiner on 5//d/7d% The remainder of the site shall be filled as part of on- site construction and a valid building permit. If fill is proposed prior to this, another special permit for such fill will be required. 10. The subject site is within the jurisdiction of the State Shoreline Management Act. A substantial development permit, pursuant to the city's shoreline master program and the state act has been submitted to the Planning Department for review and process. 11. A State Flood Zone Contract Permit is also required for the proposed development. 12. The 20 foot landscape strip along the easterly edge of the storage area shall be landscaped at the time of further development of the easterly portion of the site and the access road. Depending on future circumstances, setbacks and landscaping requirements may vary from that indicated on the plans (i.e., if the easterly portion of the site is sold and /or developed as a separate use and a public road provided). The "' future -development area" - should beT,-maintained-4n i`ts :natura&1 s,ta�te -unti 1, iFt ai�stspecifically de,ve:lo ed;. — , 13. The proposed ground sign should be compatible with the manufacturing park concept and Valley Comprehensive Plan objectives and subject to approval of the Planning Department. 14. Drainage has been a problem in the area. To prevent further problems as a result of the proposed development, the applicant has proposed drainage to a retention pond at the northeast corner of the site which would then flow at a controlled rate. into a drainage.ditcb flowing north- ..to.a point where it would then flow east into the established greenbelt area between the railroad tracks. Final specific drainage design should be approved by the Public Works Department as part of the building permit process. 15. Off -site improvements (curb, gutter, sidewall, street planting) will be required along the portions of the site adjacent to West Valley Highway and Southwest 43rd Street as part of development per Public Works Department comments. 16. Utilities are available to the subject site. P. PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the site plan subject to: 1 Final Planning Department approval of detailed landscape and screening plans for the entire site development with emphasis on suitable landscaping and berming to reduce visual impacts of outside storage and parking areas, together with material suitable for wildlife food and habitat. An 8' screening fence shall be provided around the storage area. ' PLANNING DEPh• NT • • • ' PRELIMINARY REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING: STAR MACHINERY COMPANY, FILE NO. SA- 168 -78, SITE APPROVAL MAY 16, 1978 PAGE FIVE 2. No outside storage except as designated in the feature display area and new equipment display area shall be permitted closer to West Valley Highway than the rear (east end) of the proposed building. 3. Parking spaces shall be provided per ordinance requirements and Planning Department approval. 4. The easterly portion of the site shall be preserved in its natural state until future specific site development occurs. Such development shall be subject to City of Renton development standards, including possible subdivision requirements. 5. The landscaping along the easterly portion of the site shall be installed per ordinance requirements and Planning Department approval at the time of future site development of the easterly portion of the site. Such requirements and setbacks may vary depending upon future ownership, access, and development alternatives. 6. The proposed access to West Valley Highway shall be improved and coordinated per Public Works Department approval with the requirement for a left -turn lane provision along the portion of SR 181 fronting the subject site. The Public Works Department shall also approve the access to Southwest 43rd Street and improvements as an interim measure. Further access improvements and possible dedication may be required as part of future site development. Access must be coordinated with Southwest 43rd Street improvement project. All area not utilized for access im- provements shall be rehabilitated and /or landscaped per Planning Department approval. 7. Public Works Department approval of final detailed drainage plans which will provide suitable on -site retention and off -site handling so as not to impact adjacent properties. 8. Approval of Shoreline Management and Flood Zone Control permits. 9. Planning Department approval of refuse dumpster location and screening methods. 10. Fire Department requirements for fire flow, fire hydrant location, and other applicable fire code standards. 11. Planning Department approval of a ground sign or monument sign. 12. Final design and approval by Public Works Department of utilities plans together with any charges which apply. Mr. John Rabel Star Machinery Company Box 3595 Seattle, Washington 98124 r Dear Mr. Rable: • ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES EARTH SCIENCES August 4, 1977 Foundation Investigation Proposed Repair and Display Building Star Machinery Company RLA Project No. 240 -01 INTRODUCTION . This report presents the results of our foundation investigation for the proposed repair and display building for Star Machinery Company. The site is located on the east side of the West Valley Road and north of South 180th Street as shown on the attached Plot Plan, Plate 1: The purpose of our investigation is.to evaluate the subsurface con= ditions as a basis for recommendations regarding site development and foundation design criteria. Our work included four test borings, field and Taboratory' soils testing, and engineering analysis. The, scope of our Work is described • in our proposal letter of April 7; 1977, which was authorized by your purchase order number 35777 dated July 13, 1977. The finished floor slab elevation and .structural loads have not been computed. We have assumed.values for these items :.ln order to provide recammen dations for site preparation and foundation design:.Wh.en your,constructi*plans are finalized we request that we be allowed to. review our recommendations'to see that they are compatible with your proposed development:' The proposed building will include approximately 5,000 square -feet of office space and 20,000 square feet of equipment repair and display space: Pre - liminary plans are for single story construction using tilt -up concrete walls for the repair and display area and possibly wood frame construction inthe.office area Interior -spans are on the order of 35 feet,and the clear height to the: MAIL - POST OFFICE BOX 530, MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040, TELEPHONE (208) 232 -5325 LOCATION: ISLAND OFFICE PLAZA, SUITE 213, 2737 - 77th AVE.; S.E.; MERCER ISLAND Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page 2 roof is on the order of 25 feet. Slab -on -grade floors are planned throughout. The building loads would include heavy earth moving equipment and relatively light machinery. There will be no heavy concententrated loads from parts and material storage. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is nearly level with a ground surface varying approximately between Elevation 20 and 24 (City of Renton Datum is used.throughout this re- port).' The property is vacant pasture with some areas' overgrown with brush. We explored subsurface conditions by drilling four borings. The 10- cations of the borings and the proposed "structure are shown on the attached Plot Plan, Plate 1. We obtained soil samples from the borings and performed labor- atory tests on representative samples to aid in evaluating their engineering properties. A description of the field and laboratory work and the resulting data are presented in the Appendix to this report. The site is underlain by alluvial deposits of stratified silts, sands and silty sands. These deposits commonly have significant variations over rel- atively short horizontal and vertical distances, however, there is a general re- lationship among major soil strata encountered at the boring locations. There is a layer of sod and topsoil approximately 6 inches thick,across the site. Underlying this there is a deposit of moderately compressible loose silt and fine sand extending to a depth of approximately 8 to 10 feet. From • depths of approximately 10 to 20 feet there is a loose silty fine sand with occasional lenses of silt and fine sand. Underlying this'is a compressible strata of soft to medium stiff silt with organics and lenset of peat which varies.in; thickness from about 3 to 5 feet and extends to depths of from approximately. 21 to 27 feet. Below approximately 25 .feet there.are alternating strata of loose.. to medium dense fine sands and silty sands with some lenses and layers of silt. The maximum depth of exploration was 50 feet. Groundwater levels were 9 feet or more below the surface at the time our borings were completed, but water levels had probably not completely stab. ilized. The borings were drilled during the dry summer season. We know the area is subject to high groundwater levels and flooding of'low areas. From-our Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page 3 'experience we expect that groundwater levels can rise to within a foot or two of the surface. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS' SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING - The ground surface in the building: area ranges from about Elevation 21 to 23. We have assumed the planned finished surface of the slab -on -grade floor . will be approximately Elevation 24 to'26... Prior to filling, we recommend mowing and `removing vegetation; Stripp- ing of sod is not recommended except in a portion of the building area as des cribed later. The building area and any future building addition areas should be graded to provide placement of 18 inches of select fill material beneath the slab: Before filling in the building or yard areas, the subgrade should be com= pacted to a firm unyielding surface by a heavy compactor or loaded dump truck: = During this operation the site should be inspected to locate any areas of soft or wet soil. .These. should be repaired by replacing the soft soil with ;select fill. Select fill for support of the floor slab should be well- graded,`free draining coarse sand and gravel essentially free. from- organic matter`.or' debris. The permeability of compacted fill should be'0:05.1cm /sec or more ._The maximum .- particle size should be 4 inches: No more than"5% of that portion 'of the' soil" smaller than 3/4 inch.in size should pass the No:' 200 sieve: Fill to.:supportH. the floor slab should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in"loosOhic,k- ness and compacted to at least.95% of the maximum density: In this'report maximum density refers to the maximum determined. by" the Modified Proctor- `(ASTM 0 -1557) method. To allow for settlement during the' surcharge. fill program, the select fill should be placed to a height'of 12 inches above" the' planned.subgrade elevation. Superior floor performance and dryer floors will be obtained if.'the. subgrade fill is well drained. We recommend that perforated drain pipes be :laid" 'perforations down around the building perimeter. The drains should be- located in the exterior footing backfill which should also be select fill: The drains Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page 4 should be 18 inches or more below floor grade and extend to discharge to a storm drain system or to daylight at least 18 inches below floor grade. It may not be possible to perform the site preparation work as recom- mended during wet weather or periods of high groundwater levels. We recommend that you check weather forecasts and patterns and begin the work only during periods projected to have favorable weather. In severe wet weather or high groundwater conditions we recommend raising the floor grade by 6 inches and placing 24 inches of select fill. Grading should be arranged so that slopes are away from the buildings and to a storm drain system. Percolation of water into the ground does not appear feasible and may be harmful to floor and pavement support. SURCHARGE FILL Because of the variable soil conditions and irregular settlements that will occur, we recommend that a surcharge fill be used to "precompress" the site and minimize post construction settlements. By leaving a surcharge load in place for a sufficient time, total and differential settlements of the floor slab and footings can be reduced sufficiently so that the risk of post construction differential settlement damage is small. Without surcharging, either pile support is necessary or potentially serious settlement damage is likely. After completion of the surcharge program, the soil may be used as fill in paved areas. If you plan to do this, the surcharge material should be free draining soil that can be moved and recompacted in wet weather and which will provide good subgrade support. We calculate that a surcharge fill placed to a height of 4 feet above the planned floor elevation and left in place for approximately 2 months should be sufficient.. The surcharge should extend at full height to at least 10 feet outside the building lines, and to at least 25 feet outside the building lines in areas of any planned future building addition. This extension is necessary to eliminate the need for a future surcharge close to and possible damaging to the planned building. Star Machinary Company August 4, 1977 Page 5 Compaction of only the lower foot of the surcharge is necessary. The remainder can be placed loosely, but we suggest compaction of the surface with smooth tired equipment or rollers so that it will tend to shed water. The surcharge should remain a place until settlements are substantially complete. Although we estimate that settlement will be complete in two or three months, the duration is difficult to compute accurately. We recommend that settlement plates be installed and monitored to evaluate the settlement of the fill. Five settlement plates should be installed at the locations shown on the Plot Plan. A sketch illustrating construction of a typical settlement plate is presented on Plate 2. The initial riser pipe is generally about 4 feet long. During filling, additional riser pipes are added so that the top of the riser is always at least about 2 feet above the fill grade. Settlement plate locations should be well marked and help protect them from damage by construction equipment. The settlement plates should be installed and an initial measurement of elevations made before filling of the site begins. Elevations should be re- ferenced to a permanent bench mark at least 200 feet outside of any area to be filled. A precision surveyors level, capable of measuring to 1 /1000 of a foot, should be used to measure elevations. A second measurement should be made upon completion of the surcharge fill, and thereafter at intervals of about 1 week, 3 weeks, 5 weeks and 8 weeks after the fill has been placed, and thereafter over a month. The height of fill at each settlement plate should be recorded. Each set of level data should be referred to us for plotting and analysis. We will advise you when settlement are effectively complete and when the surcharge may be removed. FOUNDATION SUPPORT Approximately the upper 10 feet of the on -site soils are in a very loose or soft condition and should be compacted or partially replaced to support con- ventional shallow footings for columns and walls. We believe that there is a good chance that compaction can be satisfactorily accomplished and that this will be a substantial saving compared to replacement of the soil. We recommend compaction of the soils using small self propelled vibra- tory equipment. Compaction should be across an area at least twice the footing Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page 6 width, and continue until a density of at least 95% of the maximum is obtained to a. depth of 12 inches below the footing subgrade. Aerating and /or sprinkling of the soil may be necessary to obtain a moisture content suitable for compac- tion. There also will be areas of silty soils which may no compact satisfactorily. These soils should be removed and replaced with clean sand. Compaction can only be accomplished during dry weather and low water level conditions. During wet weather or normal spring time high groundwater levels, we recommend overexcavation of footings to 3 feet below footing grade, and to at least 3 feet outside the footing perimeter, measured at the bottom of the excavation. The overexcavation* should be backfilled with crushed rock or well graded sand and gravel containing less than 5% fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) in that portion of the fill finer than 3/4 of an inch. Backfill below footings should be placed in layers not exceeding 12 inches in loose thick- ness and compacted to 95% of the maximum density. We estimate that the maximum interior column loads will be approximately 60 kips and the maximum wall loading will be about 2500 pounds per lineal foot. In general, footings should be as high as possible and lightly loaded to limit stresses and settlements in the deeper strata. The minimum footing width should be 4 feet for isolated or column footings and 3 feet for continuous footings. Interior footings should be founded at least one foot below the finished surface on the floor slab and exterior footings 11/2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. A design bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot should be used for foot- ings founded as recommended. This bearing pressure is for combined dead and live loads including wind and siesmic forces. The weight of the footing and backfill over it may be neglected. Please call us if there are any questions concerning the suitability of bearing soils encountered during construction. SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOOR After completion of site preparation and surcharging, the subsoils should provide adequate support for the slab -on- grade floor. We recommend that the slab be designed based on a subgrade modulus of 150 pounds per squre inch per inch. Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page 7 To reduce the tendency for differential settlement and cracking be- tween the floor slab and footings, the floor slab should be reinforced and structurally continuous with the footings. Provided that the floor subgrade fill is relatively free of fines as recommended, the usual capillary break can be omitted. There should be a vapor barrier beneath the slab. If desired, a 2 inch layer of sand may be placed over the vapor barrier to protect it and to provide drainage and improve curing of the concrete. SETTLEMENT BEHAVIOR Upon completion of the recommended surcharge program, we estimate settlement due to the weight of the floor slab and an average live load of 250 psf would be about 2 inch thick. If stiffening effect of the structural connec- tion between the floor slab and column footings is ignored, the computed settle- ment of the footings is 12 inches. Real differential settlement should be less, and we expect that the risk of differential settlement damage to the building is small. ..If your building sequence permits it, differential settlement between the building footings and floor slab could be further minimized by delaying floor slab to footing connection until after the full column dead loads are in place. We estimate differential settlement across the slab will be on the order of 2 inch in 50 feet. The majority of the settlements should occur within a few weeks after placing the loads. JMH /RAL /ls Attachments 4 copies submitted Yours very truly, ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES Jack Hogan Roger Lowe STAR MACHINERY COMPANY AUGUST 4, 1977 PLATE 1 PROPOSED OFFICE, REPAIR AND DISPLAY BUILDING 0 50 100 150 200 SCALE IN FEET RECOMMENDED SETTLEMENT PLATE LOCATION BORING NUMBER & LOCATION I --- PROPERTY LINE t S.W. 43R0 STREET REFERENCE: " SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHY FOR ANDERSON - STAR MACHINERY CO." BY LEONARD I. SCHROETER, NO. 122/49. 5/4/77 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES PLOT PLAN Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Plate 2 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE N 2' -0" INITIAL RISER PIPE 2 LAYERS 2' X 2' X 3/4" PLYWOOD 1' —o" ADD COUPLING (S) AND RISER PIPE (S) AS REQUIRED DURING FILLING TO MAIN- TAIN TOP OF RISER PIPE AT LEAST 1 TO 2 FEET ABOVE TOP OF FILL nnoiiiiiw a iiii a iiiiiiii. oimmm omIIoomaywoomm 2" DIAM. BLACK IRON PIPE, THREAD BOTH ENDS 2" X 5 -1/2" BLACK IRON FLOOR FLANGE 5 BOLTS REQUIRED, WASHERS EACH BOLT SAND LEVELING PAD, IF REQUIRED NOT TO SCALE ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES 1 SETTLEMENT PLATFORM DETAIL APPENDIX FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING STAR MACHINERY COMPANY RENTON, WASHINGTON FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling four borings to depths of from 39 to 50 feet. All borings were drilled using a truck mounted continuous flight hollow stem auger. The drilling was continuously logged by our representative who examined and classified the materials recovered, evaluated the drilling progress and other drilling behavior indicating variations in soil conditions, and selected inter- vals for obtaining representative soil samples. Samples were classified in accord- ance with the Unified System which is described in Plate A -1. The exploration logs as presented on Plates A -2 through A -7 are modified from the field logs to reflect the additional information from laboratory testing. Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained using either a 3- inch outside diameter heavy duty sampler with brass liner rings or a 3 -inch out- side diameter thin - walled tube. The heavy duty sampler consists of a barrel which is split and can be disassembled for removal of the sample. The sampler was driven with a 140 pound hammer falling a distance of 30 inches. The thin - walled tube samples were obtained by pushing the tube-with the hydraulic pull - down on the drill rig. The length of sample driven or pushed, sample condition and recover, and the resistance to driving are noted on the exploration logs adjacent to the sampling notation. All samples were sealed to prevent moisture loss, labeled and return- ed to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING The samples were examined in our laboratory and representative samples were selected for moisture /density determination, direct shear testing and consolidation testing. The moisture and density data are presented adjacent to the sample notations on the boring logs.. The three strain controlled direct shear tests were performed on fully submerged and consolidated samples. The direct shear test results are presented Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Page A -2 on Plate A -8. Consolidation characteristics were evaluated by performing two standard one- dimensional stress controlled consolidation tests. These results are shown on Plate A -9. Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 • Plate A -1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL DESCRIPTIONS COARSE GRAINED SOILS _ MORE THAN soY OF MATERIAL IS IARGFR THAN N0. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC- TIEN RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE GRAVELS (LITTLE O NO FINES) GW WELL- GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIS DBEs. LITTLE OR NC FINES GP POOPLY.GRAUE[) GPAvE' -5. GRAVE! - snm MIYTVRES. LITTLE 7R NO FINES GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) GM SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL -SAID -SILT MIXTURES GC CLAYEY (,RAVE.(S. GRAVEL -FANO -SILT MELTUPES SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRAC- TICK PASSING CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE O NO FINES) SW WELL GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR no FINES SP POORLY- GRADED SANS. GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE WENT OF FINES) SM SILTY SANS. SAO -SILT MIXTURES NO. 4 SIEVE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES •1 FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN sox OF �5MALLLE MATERIAL SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 ' ML INORGANIC FLOUR. SILTY O VERY FINE SILTY FSADS, SAMS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PL`sT'C'r' CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS OL ORGAN(: SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 MH INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DIaTO- MACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS ' CH ' INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY FAT CLAYS 200 SIEVE SIZE OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIt:M To HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH OPGAIIC CONTENTS NOTE. OVAL SYMBOLS INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATION KEY TO SAMPLE DATA — 25.2 I I 91.7 ! \ 35 .. BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE ( SAMPLER 12 INCHES WITH DRY DENSITY; (PCF) 140 LB. HAMMER: MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT, (% OF DRY DENSITY) STROKE 30 INCHES. \ (P INDICATES PUSHED) DEPTH OR ELEVATION (FEET) SAMPLE RECOVERY SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHIC LOG I I UNDISTURBED HD — 3 INCH SPLIT TUBE SAMPLER DISTURBED TW — 3 INCH THIN WALL SAMPLER NO RECOVERY SPT — 2 INCH SPLIT TUBE SAMPLER C — ROCK CORE DARN LEVEL B — BULK LETTER SYMBOL FOR SOIL TYPE DISTINCT CONTACT BETWEEN SOIL STRATA GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA BOTTOM OF BORING 0000,0 DISTURBED DURING DRILLING SAMPLE �` ROGER LOWS RSSOCIRTES UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA • Star Machinery Company • August 4, 1977 Plate A -2 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FE 0 BORING ONE GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION OSE, WET) S OF ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES LOG OF EXPLORATION 44.7 73.3 4 IN SOD AND TOPSOIL BROWN TO GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (VERY LC MOIST) SM ML 5 -- � 8 !���, 10- mg SM GRAY FINE SAND WITH SOME SILT (LOOSE, 5 15- 43.9 76.5 TW SOME WOOD AND ORGANICS 76.3 52.5 PUSH 20- 60.4 54.7 4 I ML GRAY SILT WITH A TRACE OF ORGANICS ANI 25- OL OCCASIONAL LENSES OF PEAT (SOFT, WET) 39.5 79.1 TW SP BLACK FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL LENSE PUSH SILTY SAND (LOOSE, WET) 30-- ' 10 I 35-- SM BLACK MEDIUM SAND WITH SOME SILT AND OCCASIONAL LAYERS OF SILT (LOOSE, WET 18.5 PUSH SH OSE, WET) S OF ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES LOG OF EXPLORATION Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Plate A -3 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT 40 BORING ONE CONTINUED GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION 50 BORING TERMINATED AT 50.0 FEET ON 7/22/77 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION 6 VIII '45-- TW JO ML GRAY SILT WITH SOME SAND (LOOSE, WET) PUSH 50 BORING TERMINATED AT 50.0 FEET ON 7/22/77 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Plate A -4 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT 0 20.3 5- 10- 34.8 15- 30.6 20 - 27.9 25 - 89.5 30- 35 - 83.1 93.0 95.1 48.1 BORING TWO GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION ?Li ML SOD AND TOPSOIL BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) 8 TW PUSH 9 Mil 26 SP /DWI GRAY FINE SAND WITH SOME S LT (LOOSE, WET) PT BROWN FRAGMENTS AND PEAT (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) SP BLACK FINE SAND WITH SOME SILT (LOOSE, WET) (MEDIUM DENSE) 40-- BORING TERMINATED AT 39.0 FEET ON 7/25/77 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Plate A -5 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT 0 BORING THREE. GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION CE L TIFF, OF OF ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION 46.2 71.9 5 VIII SOD AND TOPSOIL MOTTLED GRAY AND BROWN SILT WITH A TRA OF SAND (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) ML 5 -- 37.7 77.2 6 11111 jit GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONA SM l0 ~ LAYERS OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) 62.9 61.4 12 VIII 15 - / 48. 1 72.5 9 11111 h1L GRAY SILT WITH SOME ORGANICS (MEDIUM . OL WET) SM BLACK FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL LAYER: 124.1 37.8 TW OL ORGANIC SILT (LOOSE, WET) PUSH 25-4 11 V 30-- SP BLACK FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL LENSE! SILT 1LOOSE, WET) 15 11111 35- 36 VIII NO SILT LENSES (MEDIUM DENSE) CE L TIFF, OF OF ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION Star Machinery Company August 4, 1977 Plate A -6 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT 40 45 - 50 - BORING THREE CONTINUED GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION 99 HID 33 SP (VERY DENSE) (MEDIUM DENSE) BORING TERMINATED AT 49.0 FEET ON 7/22/77 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES I LOG OF EXPLORATION • Star Machinery Company • August 4, 1977 Plate A -7 DEPTH DRY BLOWS IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT 0 51.2 42.6 10- 15- 27.1 20- 97.8 25- 30- 35- 78.6 75.2 95.8 44.2 BORINNG FOUR GRAPHIC LOG SOIL DESCRIPTION ML SOD AND TOPSOIL MOTTLED GRAY AND BROWN SILT WITH A TRACE OF SAND (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) SP GRAY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL LAYERS OF SILT (LOOSE, WET) v GRAY SILT WITH LENSES OF PEAT (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) SP .DARK GRAY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) CHANGING TO BLACK MEDIUM SAND (DENSE) 40- BORING TERMINATED AT 39.0 FEET ON 7/25/77 ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION N fi z (D 0 a c 0 EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) MOISTURE CONTENT %. DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT2) CONFINING PRESSURE (LBS /FT2) SHEAR RATE* (IN. /MIN.) INDICATED STRENGTH (LBS /FT2) YIELD PEAK 1 2.5 44.7 73.3 415 170 240 2 2.5 20.3 83.1 830 430 620 IWE ASSOCIATES 3 2.5 51.2 78.6 1246 520 740 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 1 • KEY: *ALL TESTS ARE RUN ON SATURATED SAMPLES AT A STRAIN RATE OF 0.05 •INCHES PER MINUTE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. N fi z (D 0 a c 0 • Star Machinery Company • August 4, 1977 Plate A -9 N O 2 4 6 8 10 12 CONSOLIDATION 20 22 24 PRESSURE (LBS /FT2 x 103) 1 . e . 3 . 4 .5 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 5( ,\ N. KEY BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT (X) DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT3) 1 3 22.5 2.5 0 L M L 60.4 46.2 54.7 71.9 ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS W[. /9. II d=9191 STAR MAciliNER \Co, ItANDVILL CP6t=2,9ro 2.4.0 OFF =24.o u f SGS WS,„ 56a 0. ws = 28. 1 . t-1 w5 f • .7 s 181 See Smear 41 -1 by lance 4,.e : i,•. s .t • ... ,.. ; •.,. f1)1 and surrharor maters& ,:a e. . Y.' Surcharge material :. ' br . asphalt paved area:. "repo+•• r r. • The contrartnr i•. rr•l' :nne-' indicated .,: nr Pa...:.: : and paving pia by ea.- •..r : ', Ben. elrrar rn:. a►. nes .•, areas d•Cw: n•.•'r. fir•! . ^,��• , LEGAL DESCRIPTION - STAR MACHINERY PROPERTY .t. • .N ` _ _ .. \,. That portion of Geverrtment Lot 2 AND the Northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington, lying Easterly of West Valley Road and Westerly of Puget Sound Electric Railway right of way and lying between ltges 150 feet and 480 feet North of measured at right angles thereto and parallel to the North line of Henry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; EkCEPT 1 that portion thereof lying within State Highway No. SR 181. ALSO that portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. Township 23 North, Range 4 East, M.M., in King County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at a point 30 feet North and 735.75 feet West of the 'brtheast corner of Penry Adams Donation Land Claim No. 43; thence North 120 feet to a line which is 15n feet North of and parallel with said North line; thence West along said parallel line 6n feet; thence South 120 feet; thence East 60 feet to the point of beginning. Situate in the City of Renton, County of King, State of Washington. SUBJECT TO: Assessments which the grantee herein agrees to assume and pay according to terms and conditions therein, said assessments are as follows: LID No. 269, Parcel 15'dated October 13, 1971; LID No. 285. Parcel 6 dated February 17, 1975; and LiD No. 269, Parcel 34. ail to City of Renton; SUBJECT TO: Easement to City of Renton for public utilities dated November 4, 1970 and recorded 0ecem6er 23, 1970 under Auditor's F11e No. 6726577; Easement to City of Renton for public utilities dated November 4, 1970 and recorded December 23, 1970 under Auditor's F11e No. 6726578; Easement to City of Renton for public utilities dated, September 24. 1071 anti vmen.ws n.... NoTcf4I ercov sic F•tils.0 T7r.T site plan • Troht teat, 16 A N ✓J OCCUPArVCy • (32 (24 ° /0 ") B 1 ( ?!o % -) Cc sr r PE 1LN P4JTO r. PR IN F LEYZE Conk M - P . . -.c. - _ Alb gm f•3E L. • fEA; -.G •c i •F 5••e J :CtA= i*U• 1N R-MoTioNI :N kfpLic- '(o.,i . 147 ERIsTlrlu S Pc S.. -;..14s ; rtpNi 10 . r\PlA�.S CAN) et.it4e fart isa6o.l:4 fee4412,0 #ate 49. tak►.U.S -lb • lid 0\ .‘ H 1 F 11 I.hI l ti •▪ • Ntu1.A111 .wR�r v0 of 4' ,�, To • ' Irwt "rfir -t,�•T �stUfb �[R�Hav�G.d 1 ►r , v►I,�E‘tM vwL a •:•Pf Irr C.I.0 io,lf VPP4L1- � ". r1:;teF r ' 7 - . L ' _ 15 c4VC1[ M'i.- K EP -' iM•NIV l(' F:■.•., e.a�vE - , lf 'yrU6 - ups vs 7� P'7'B4 � 1a MFK ,,- ,.rn u• r �. 'ter ----.x., tfi ...0 • r .. ;....4�.TV R .P.0 YP/r s . :Rb+.. ()MfCI.I Ef to : ti .. 1. ..&,.-...-..d„,44.---- ---- -- 2 'cl`>r'Ca /oa t; l•gv1'7101 -1 �-.--„ + ..?-e-MeCr Nell 4' K To C•4st'ca a Jpt�- % •'o Ewe *v Teti: • ,ot►•1Yada Ia4ISRT EL I - _ Pl l+t* r. 2e1ro. 4' '1' � (Nt t N ,F'j� do 61 : '4 -1 C r:' 4.47"': ♦ l•-:;' _ , co .iE.Rjc -l�r, ..__ . --, r. L`�QZIfY vl%�I. •GJ ?:1.(:1;. ) -- •I) . 1 _ ,-1 If.* 1) 6( .1rca ,iy,,N„ I , ) ---5 � ) ' - -- .. 1 a Jet .t?. 64 C •L'�arr'.or+ cF 1141.012.16 12- wotLK� • . %'• i 4. _J • i • T • • . • •, 4 _...._.�..c.._ ..- . I- 1 • Pew FAxe -Jur 4css ro wege. - .s11-45 ( Re pi tivixtut . ,„( (4.apit40.-11 Nipt.11.1' — c4,felt mx•iiKEVI "00•14117•41" " - U e 4olbiL,e ofFle-e I I 6*-v• 42.• f7.4c1,-: 17.7"C\ 1 I It- /•••.c rAN/14 4- • e . — • - _ . r Nesti 44.4 !o e41•(.1 e.' - vestie-0 s 1.4 4eflE1 et. 1) 03 k ;. • VI 10 h111141410PL PIZ& Ot./41:1 1 :tar 2.1 It ,fir.r4-44; , 11610A 1-iev-I 21 ci,r- 4- t.• . -",./ • ••-• 711- 7 c ••••■- •7: ..k- . • • NCH 6IffUtt t . • • < • _ - 111/MNINwEL....,....■■■■•■•■ 4 • reizmirrea, ■■• • • • • • / • • - "'I': 1. ' • •t" ^Ice • • • . 0 2 �1 ~. •.• - • . l C-- 1 • rT 2 TN�cKENtD A C• PPv,NG 16 2X4, CtO•R & ED - STAK , �CIZUSI1‘ O ROCK • PAVED EDGE. ��7r =i O' 17 a air .. r r'- • IkFENO.;. FEfc 27/A U1N�fZc 5t1/4 II 2sG' Ctr''.- SC 0 rrZthNhcu.RCCK. I7A f *XMuotio CON.. an 6 Esc ' SET' - I "_ •CX )t ( 16roc 1 GYZ L D JT C O C- TNICKtN AC T 5 F1.41 NCB CURF3 Gti pi 4" w'OC- �TAr -�Itc pf NIN6 E 18' oc ccrc S►ItE r Ftow • 0 . r. F 1 1 1 1 1 (1) 1 1 .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION ON THE NC MACHINERY SITE Tukwila, Washington Prepared for John Rabel RABEL PROPERTIES 130 Lakeside, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98122 Prepared by Lawrence L. Devroy and Ronald D. Kranz DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 301 116th Avenue S.E., Suite 170 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Revised May 23, 1990 ill-3MM JUN 27 1990 CITY (Jr 1 ur.vViLA PLANNING DEPT. ___.J INTRODUCTION The site is located within a light industrial area immediately east of West Valley Road (S.R. 181) and borders on the north side of, South 180th Street (also know as Southwest 43rd Street) in Tukwila, Washington (Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E). A BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad Line is located east of the property while the light industrial development is west and north of this 1.67 acre parcel. The subject property consists of a fairly square, flat piece of property with cottonwoods mainly on the north and south borders and grassy areas throughout. The parcel presently receives stormwater runoff from the adjacent developed areas, which in turn drains via small ditches to an existing detention pond in the northwest portion of the property. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to determine presence and extent of wetlands on the subject property. The need to know wetland presence and size is the result of the heightened concern over wetland loss due to increased scientific, public and governmental awareness of the importance of wetlands primarily for wildlife habitat and water biofiltration. This increased awareness, is manifested as expanded federal and local regulations of wetland development. Potential impacts to your proposed project due to this increased governmental regulation make the present study warranted. - APPROACH Prior to the field examination, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil series for your site were reviewed. In the field dominant hydrophytes, soils, and hydrology were inspected. This investigation occurred in August 1989 and March 1990. Soil probes were performed down to a depth of 20 inches and soil colors were determined by use of the Munsell Soil Color Chartbook. Indicators of hydrologic inundation were observed and noted. Finally, using vegetation, soils, and hydrology, and the methodology of the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD), the apparent wetland limits were flagged with orange and black- striped survey ribbon, and professionally land surveyed. RESULTS Vegetation Two community types exist on the site: forest and herbaceous. The trees include red alder (Alnus rubra), willow (Salix lasiandra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). The herbs include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) and common reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). They range from the facultative wetland (FACW) classification (willow, reed canarygrass) to the facultative (FAC) classification (red alder, black cottonwood) to facultative upland (FACU) (Himalayan blackberry) and upland (UPL) (common tansy). The dominant species overall is reed canarygrass, however willow is found in the road -side ditch and the ditches extending east across the site to the existing determination pond. Black cottonwood is prominent in the northern third of the site and on its south border, blackberry occurs in the understory of the cottonwoods and is found in a dense mass on the northwest. Red alder intermixes with the black cottonwood on the north and covers the northern half of the berm on the east property line. Common tansy occurs in small pockets widespread on the site. Based on the above discussion plus the fact that the common tansy and Himalayan blackberry are upland species, but are not dominant in any plat, all plats possess hydrophytic vegetation. All species found on site can be found in wetlands to varying degrees, but the facultative upland and upland species previously mentioned are usually found in uplands. Soils Review of the WI maps showed no wetlands located on the site. This conflicted with the SCS soil survey information which has the site mapped as Woodinville soil series, a hydric soil unit associated with the Green River Valley. Four 20+ inch deep by two inch diameter soil samples were examined in four distinct areas defined chiefly by vegetative types and /or elevation (Table 1). Other verification plots were conducted to ensure the location of soil lines throughout the property. Plot #1 was sampled in the south- central region adjacent to the property line where cottonwoods give way to reed canarygrass. Here, the soil color was 10YR 4/4 and dry to the bottom of the sample with no stain line evident. Plot #2, performed near the geographic center of the site in a homogeneous stand of reed canarygrass, yielded results similar to #1, but below 10 inches, 2.5YR 3/4 colors were observed. In the north - central portion of the site, within a stand of cottonwood, in the existing detention facility exists. Plot #3 was taken on the edge of this facility yielding a 5 YR 4/2 sample color from the surface to ten inches subsurface while a 5 YR 4/3 color with weak mottles and saturation was observed from 10 20 inches 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 subsurface. Standing water 2 - 4 inches in depth was noted over about a third of this approximately 625 square foot facility. The fourth and last soil sample was excavated in the northwest corner of the site and the Munsell soil color most closely approximating the sample was 10 YR 4/4. Table 1 - MUNSELL SOIL COLOR PLOT 1 2 3 4 0 - 12" 10YR 4/4 10YR 4/4 5YR 4/2 10YR 4/4 10 - 20" 10YR 4/4 2.5YR 3/4 5YR 4/3 W /Weak Mottles 10YR 4/4 Hydrology Due to the initial site inspection during the dry season, a follow -up investigation during the early portion of the growing season was needed to fully assess the hydrologic conditions. During the August site inspection, only one soil sample showed any signs of saturation. That sample, Plot #3, was taken in the detention facility described previously. In the area to the north within the ditches and the cottonwood stand, indicators of inundation were evident although soil saturation was absent. These include water- stained fallen leaves, silt lines on the willows and cottonwoods, the hypertrophied lenticels and adventitious rooting of the willows. All of these indicators are located in the northern -third of the site extending from the eastern berm westward to the roadside ditch. Elsewhere on the site no indicators of hydrology were observed. During our March 1990 investigation, wetland hydrology was observed to be more extensive than previously indicated by field markings. Several sampling pits were dug throughout the site to accurately delineate the wetland boundary. Where water was present within 18 inches of the surface, wetland hydrology was determined to be present. These sample pits were the overall criteria used to determine wetland boundaries. Wetland Determination Based on vegetation, soils and hydrology data collected, wetland boundaries were flagged and surveyed. Figure 1 depicts the location and extent of wetlands on the subject property. OSED SHOP/ WAREHOUSE FOR MACHINERY CO. lance mueller & associates architects 81a 130 lakeside • eeettle wash. 08122 • 208 32B 2664'! Y > i A WASH. lob no. drawn checked 12711,99 date no revision date 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The 0.72 -acre wetland covers 45% of the property. Field data is presented in the appendix and is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 - WETLAND DETERMINATION MATRIX Plot 1 2 _ 3 4 Veg + + + + Soils - - + - Hydrology* + + + + Wetland No No Yes No *Field verified during March 1990 Discussion and Permit Implications As previously stated, the National Wetland Inventory map for the site and surrounding vicinity shows no on-site wetlands. Soils on the southern and northwestern portion of the site do not meet the hydric soils criteria. Hydric soils with appropriate chromas and mottling were observed throughout the wetland delineated area. The Woodinville soil series as described by the SCS is not characteristic of on -site soils though mapped as such. This is often due to inclusions of other soils types within the main unit. In this case up to 45 percent of the total acreage mapped as Woodinville may be other types, so- called inclusions. Therefore, the discrepancy between the SCS mapping and the NWI map is most likely attributable to such inclusions within the larger typical map unit. The Corps of Engineers has congressional authority to issue Nationwide Permits for isolated wetlands in which less than one acre of fill is proposed. This site's northern wetland does not directly extend to the ditch offsite. Drainage is controlled by a restrictor manhole and f culvert outlet. A berm has been constructed between the off -site drainage ditch and the subject property as part of the detention facility. This high area isolates the wetland from the adjacent ditch. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit 26 regulations state that such fills are automatically authorized. However, submittal of an application for such a fill will verify that the conditions of the Nationwide Permit are being met. No mitigation is required under this permit. The City of Tukwila may or may not have additional permit authority. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4OOE PV/YT. \ 1 1 I II1 1 11 'i1! II JIJ PL UG j CAP 1 1 I I I E X/5T//YG 1 I /P" STUB 1 1'! 1. II 11 1 �I 1' 1 11 111 11. 111 i elm Ln +' EASEMENT I 1 I'1 i t. 1,1 ;1 1. a 1: II li 1 I 111 L 111 Al... 1 11 111 iiI 11, 1 11 1 111 1 tr 1 1 1 111 11 1i1 I 1 , ;1i 11 111 ; gl1 11., . ?AV INO I \ 8 / � N / 2 / o / N 4 • ATA r BP Gf)SHED' ROcic. Lext4flS4ePt co vewAY %PING 0 0 I 1 1 .I - 11 /1 221sto ., PROP,©SED SHOP/ WAREHOUSE .... 20,OO O SF. TYPE III-0 S1:RIr1 K LE,TzeD 1+-4 oc .uPPPNcy ,. 21 5. 180 T1l <ID •2 WETLAND AREA TYPICAL SOIL PLOT 601 N.C. WAREHOUSE SITE WETLAND iD BOUNDARY MAP SCALE: 1"= 60' 0 30 60 120 Dann EVANS NNDASSOCIM S, INC. REFERENCES Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. Hitchcock, C. Leo, and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reprint 88 (26.9). United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Kirkland, Washington. Prepared for the Office of Biological Services for the National Wetland Inventory. DATA YORK INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigators) : 1-Al2/FY `7E- v/ZJY/ & KRANZ Date: %� / 1?'9 Project /Site:, i'7910 w•VALLEY riwY, StaterriXmtLoN4County: K)N Applicant /Owner: Tn by i'A erEL. Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method -1 g Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot#, .A o P: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ********************************************* * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * ** * ** *, Do normal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? yes_ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No - (If yes, explain on back) Ind,. . ominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. 20)01 • P/4A/ Ail/ S AR?I fPiNACS-A4,J `/17 ? 14. 15 /a 2 .• PO P"I LV -S •11L/1 -k - C 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are 0 FACW and /or FAC /i (11:) Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes ✓ No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes NojL io Y r 4 4 SUI) SUJ`; Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes V No ; S✓/'A — SE 41 SO '1 1N1/ ST. Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: / L S No-r 14 v7,) C This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method.. Indicate which method is used. DATA PORM1 INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator(s): L4 /l/-2'% 1)/i-9" 1 K'"I'• Project /Site: VTLt- V ilWY State:- r4f(tivILA Applicant /Owner: 7----1/4 Vegetation} level 0nsite Determination Method g r(F?Atl„ Date: '-/ %/ 1, / . A.County: Kl�>•/G Unit # /Name Or Intermediate- j..: Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# l as.: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ******* * * * * ** * * *** * * * ** * * * * ***** *** * ********* * *** * * * * ** * * *** * * * * ** * ** * * * * *f, Do normal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes y No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) Ind• Ind•• pominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. )95701. PIJ 4 i 44/ ?J C N c i t)/ m } =DJ* * t l E' '& 14. 1,10 2. ----4/voce-_--":7-1../1 IIiI I0" IIPL __ 'Z? 15. 3. 16. 4. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are $:))31.., FACW and /or FAC Is the hydrophytic criterion met? YesjL No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No V /o y' SU/, SYt: =7 P Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes V/ No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No Y Rationale for jurisdictional decision: -r /)1 L A/OT This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. DATA PORM1 INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigators) : ,�, aXY VVR9Y /zoN it At)Z Date: 9�.: / 7 Project /Site: 17,'JO IA/ ( /ALLi_' 1 -ftlY, State:771KW►LA.Yh4, County: tl/aidr-7, Applicant /Owner: ,1') /-/N R a L Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method nr Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data for or a field notebook. ******************************************** * ** * * * * * ** * * * ** * * * ** * * * * * * * ***, Do no al environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes , No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegeation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) W7--1-E2 - S7•. / NED '— zTS 1_1-1 Yl ,ro 1'111 ✓ W / ?L.6' U/ ,Firf .��V:E- 'r -r AiILL13W Ind • 240-r S /L-r LJtJcs on.) vv/LL ; Ind.Gcn-T-0.iw01 Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. 0' /0 1. Pi P) I)c ;.A( SAAiir A ,'AC TRH ` 14. S % 2. S Li X LA -/ e n t g-A CA_ (W + 4 E'i' 73 15. _ 5% 3. 4.:1/ A/1/ NPijm/N CAl`Y11 1-ni 16. 4. 17. 5. 18. 6. 19. 7. 20. 8. 21. 9. 22. 10. 23. 11. 24. 12. 25. 13. 26. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *1 Percent of dominant species that are FACW and /or FAC /CO Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes v/ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met ?. Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Rationale for jurisdictional decision: �n 4/: 3 —10 "'l S' UA' /' No S )'R , -1/,::5 ; n _ ^-. a J' /E1 K Al Yes ✓ No .. ,9i i J''v`-1 17 S. /Z. //V °i� .5-7-4/Vg/71( Yes No j,/.4 7Tc SC - -1l_; �4YV/? /C This data for can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. " " • DATA YORX1 INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator(s): L..iV'i'' ivEVRi`%' /Qm N KW/Me-Date: 79 Project /Site: 17900 VI.VALL6Y aw7, State:-; n)KwiLA.WACounty:, Applicant /owner: r'N N t://3(0 15-L. Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method a Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# 4- Kg.tg: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ******************************************** ** *** : * * : * * * * *** * *** ** * * *** **** Do normal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes -V No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No --/_ (If yes, explain on back) Ind. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. $03? 1. In1-IAL.A2t' i1RVN!)INAC1A AC J' 14k &, 20'/O 2. jU 8(J c - 171 S COL R r" C U - 3. "i'A JACt rvm 1lllL.;AP€ On- I "f? 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Ind. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. ********************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * ** FACW and /or FAC U °70 Percent of dominant species that are Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes V No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No \/ Y(' Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes _IL No ,SSUN} -l) po5._7RY / : =AS'ON /NV5 Y Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No V Rationale for jurisdictional decision: N" u " -7Q IC 1 1_ S S(,..P :U[/;t,i; This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE HISTORY OF THE N.C. MACHINERY SITE 1976 -1991 Tukwila, Washington Prepared For: John Rabel RABEL PROPERTIES 130 Lakeside, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98122 ODDX0242 Prepared By: Ronald D. Kranz and John D. Macklin DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES 301 116th Avenue S.E., Suite 170 Bellevue, Washington 98004 1 1 May, 1991 1 1 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE AND APPROACH Preliminary Research 1 Aerial Photograph Review 3 Site Investigation 3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3 CONCLUSION 6 REFERENCES 7 APPENDICES A. List of Aerial Photographs Reviewed 8 B. Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties 9 List of Figures 1: Vicinity Map 2 2: Star Machinery Drainage and Paving Plan 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has reviewed the drainage history of the Star Machinery site in Tukwila, Washington. As part of the development of the site in 1979 and 1980 for industrial use, the northeastern corner of the property was developed as a stormwater detention area. A pond was excavated, and a berm was constructed along the eastern end of the property to impound water beyond the excavated pond. This part of the property continues to function as a detention area, impounding water throughout the winter and early spring in response to storm events. Due to a lack of maintenance, vegetation has overgrown the detention pond, resulting in wetland -like conditions. DEA's investigation has verified that this part of the property was developed as a detention area during the initial construction of industrial facilities on the site. Because this wetland was artificially created to impound and detain stormwater, it falls within the City of Tukwila's definition of a "constructed wetland," and is thus not subject to the wetland regulations of the City's Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. i INTRODUCTION At the request of Rabel Properties, Inc., David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has conducted an investigation of the recent drainage history of the N.C. Machinery property in Tukwila, Washington. The property is located north of South 180th Street and west of a Burlington Northern Railroad right -of -way (Sec 35, T23N, R4E, W.M.). Most of the property is occupied by N.C. Machinery industrial facilities that were constructed in 1978- 1979. A 1.67 -acre tract in the eastern end of the site is presently overgrown by vegetation and is partially occupied by a functioning, but vegetatively overgrown detention pond. Figure 1 indicates the site location. This area is relatively flat, and is partially forested. A wetland has been delineated in the northern end of this tract (Devroy and Kranz, 1989). PURPOSE AND APPROACH The purpose of this study was to review the recent drainage history of the N.C. Machinery site with respect to wetland conditions and landscape alterations including an existing stormwater detention facility. Three main tasks were involved: (1) preliminary research, (2) review of aerial photographs, and (3) field observation of current conditions. Preliminary Research Published information about local environmental conditions was reviewed for the subject land parcel. These sources include the following: * National Wetland Inventory (NWI), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987; * Soil Survey of King County, USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1973; * Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties, Devroy and Kranz, 1989 * City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc, 1990. 1 U Longacres Race Track SITE OCATION Orillia SW 43rd Street Angle Lake (Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1:100.000 Digital Line Graph Data) SITE LOCATION §)@tit 3000 0 3000 Scale in Feet 1 Figure 1. Vicinity map. West Valley Highway Property ' 000x0242 -0a1 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs for most years from 1976 to 1979 were reviewed for evidence of clearing and grading, inundation, changes in vegetation, and other changes. Photographs reviewed are listed in Appendix A. Site Investigation DEA biologists visited the property on March 8, 1990 in order to review existing site conditions and drainage patterns. Observations included inundation, topography and drainage patterns on -site and in adjacent areas, vegetation composition, and tree ages. In addition, the most recent aerial photograph was "ground - truthed" to facilitate accurate photo interpretation. INVESTIGATION RESULTS Although neither the Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations nor the National Wetlands Inventory identify wetlands on the subject property, wetlands were delineated on the site in 1989 using the Unified Federal Methodology (FICWD, 1989). The King County Area Soil Survey maps the property as Woodinville silt loam, a poorly drained hydric soil. The 1989 wetland delineation, however, concluded that the on -site soils were predominantly non -hydric inclusions within the SCS soil mapping unit and did not match the profile described for that unit. While the Soil Survey describes this soil as gray (5Y5/1) silty clay loam from 3 to 38 inches below the ground surface, soils on site were described as dark reddish brown to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, 2.5YR 3/4, 5YR 4/3) in the B horizon (Devroy and Kranz, 1989). Moreover, during the March 8, 1991 site visit, soils in the grassy southern part of the on -site wetland were observed to be of a friable loamy texture with little clay as compared with the SCS description of silty clay loam. Aerial photographs show that the property has a recent history of increasing human disturbance. In 1976, the property had been cleared and was occupied by herb and shrub regeneration, with scattered trees concentrated in the northwestern quarter of the site. A 1976 photograph indicates possible wet conditions across the eastern part of the property, but no distinct wetland areas. During 1977, a large site to the north of the property was cleared for development. In 1978, clearing began on the western end of the subject property. 3 By 1979, industrial facilities occupied approximately the northern three quarters of the subject property, and the stormwater detention facility had been constructed in the northeast corner of the site. A swale running along the northern property boundary collected stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces on site. Figure 2 shows the site plan for these developments. The drainage ditch shown running diagonally across the eastern part of the property, however, was actually constructed along the east side of the on -site access road. By 1980, additional grading had been carried out along the eastern end of the northern edge of the property. This area is presently the highest part of the site, and is underlain by gravelly material in contrast to other areas of the property. During this period, industrial development was completed in the area immediately north of the subject property. In 1980 or 1981, the southeastern corner of the subject property was graded, and a ditch was excavated across the northeastern part of the property to channel stormwater runoff into the detention pond. Between 1982 and 1985, an access road across the eastern part of the property was extended to the northern property boundary, blocking the ditch that had been excavated in that area. No other clearing has occurred between 1982 and 1989, and natural revegetation of the eastern end of the property has proceeded rapidly, with tree cover concentrated in the detention pond and along the ditches. Currently, the detention facility constructed in 1979 is forested, with black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) dominating. Water is impounded in this facility by a berm along the eastern property boundary. A small gap in the northern end of the berm allows overflowing water to discharge into a ditch running north -south under in the adjacent utility corridor to the east. Although a ditch originally connected the detention facility with a swale running along the northern property boundary, this connection is now blocked. A small area along the western access road and immediately south of the on -site ditch has been disturbed by vehicles or machinery at some time between 1989 and the present. Water impounded by the eastern berm (Figure 2) has backed up beyond the excavated detention pond, causing inundation and saturation in part of the adjacent reed canarygrass (Phalaris anundinacea) field. 4 RO GRLV +N ::F' P STEP; 1- 5.'.. LAt: 12' :Mf I.L. 16.7 F.L. 16.1: 1 1 1 FLOW - -:'r: :: FRAM: GRATE 56 7-.T PESTR :COON /PO:LCT;O1. DEr :_' IS ::SIDLE AT EDGE OF 0°ES R•.O EIPECTLP DYER THE L::.;,ER (-tiVERFIOW ELEV. 21.7 s- 0.0040 12" CAP • 0+818 - 20Or CAPACITY 51818 WHEN GATE IS DOA'N WELL CAA :N TO C6 FRG( it (1ST:NG GROUND \ • r -F.L. 16.21 •ATER116WT CLEANOUT GATE d114 N11.. 8 GAUGE SLIDE X4.7/8' DIA. SHARP.Era DRIFICE -TYPE II -C ' PER NPWC NOTE: ..E. 18.07 GRAVEL 1E. l0%0 - 4 4 '4 CEDAR COP? AT 15' CE•+TERS STAKEC VIT8 2 - ' :• F GAIT-PIPE \ DEEPEN O :TC.- STA (1 v SEE SECTION E -1 '.,APPROXIMATE DEPTH PETROLEUM PIPELINE ALL METAL PARTS AND SURFACES MUST BE MACE Of CORROSION RESISTANT MATERIAL OR GALT. COMPLETE CGRR051a PROTECTION MUST BE ASSURED. CONTROL STRUCTURE NOT TO SCALE • II/ CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. FOR EXACT LOCATION MO DIMENSIONS Of PROPOSED BUILLIa. III SIDEWA& • A.C. PAVING. LANDSCAPING. GRAVEL AREAS. ACCESS ROAD. FEN(ING. ETC. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN. .. All C.M-P. TO BE MINIMA 18 6A. 3. MAX :`tN DEFLECTION OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT FROM ITRUE GRADE TO BE 1/8' IA 1:' PER WSND. SU86RADE TO BE SCARIFIED MINIMUM OF 12' AND COMPACTED TO 951 OF R18XI1RM DRY DENSITY PER ASIN 1557 (MODIFIED AASNO). 5. 4't OF LOOSE 50D (NEACC` MAT) TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL PAVED AND GRAVELED AREAS AND STARED OM SITE ABOVE ELEVATION 22.0 FOR USE IN LANDSCAPING. 1 1 1 1 1 1 COMPACTED SI86RADE• IN 6RATELEC AREAS TO REMIT MINIMUM 12' OF ON SITE S1R0iARGE MATER :A_ COMPACTED PER PARAGRAPH 3 OF SURCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS. LEGEND h 23.5 TO 24.6, F.L. WEST EAST VARIES i 1 no FNNB. ML °° I„ iao o � N cN 0. ELEVATION E50 23.5 EN. 21.9 r• `BEL)• T- !E 7' RBCVE 01I0T153 • GRADE. LEAN 2' 0►ENa.I.G EVERY 50' TO AL1C.' PITOFF FRCP S8LIF TO ENTER DITCH SECTION A - A NOT TO SCALE BEG1A CHANNEL. END BERM 8.1. 21.4 nI :c' !'7 :1' -74.f RIM ELEV. r „ EASE- �'� E`_' SEEP SANITARY Ei :EP K.15 Wlo• _ u i' '•c P El 14.Q Tsl •∎- EXIST:\; GROU.: '- DEEPEN 01TCH TO ELEV. 17.0 '-14,V: 0.-IER OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE LOCATE IT PR10R TO EICAYATIAG SECTION B - B 4407 TO SCALE LEA*: OUT 2'n SECTION OF CUPS FVEP.r 7C' FOP DAMAGE TO %%ITN - �'- --- 1 - BEP1'`TO'BV 3• 88011E • . EXISTIM6,, GRACE. ,;"P` *LANDSCAPE'' SLUT 2:1 0: 3:1 *PAVE 1516.PT W:TF ASP4A:'' rY::E1tTSilNG GRFf- -a._.. ..ENTIRE 048.88(1 RAY BE 1AN8S.CAPED -WHERE 8(08 t LINE ELEV. IS' BELOW 19.7 . , {,�_`;;..._r.: • : :.�. SECTION C•= G NOT TO SCALE e. Q 912.1".' CONTROL STRUCTURE 12' SOUTH AND 20' WEST OF N.E. PROPERTY CORKER. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET - .E. 18.10 28 L.F. OF T2' CIP NOICATES APPRC1IMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED P. LEAVE OUT S't SECTION OF CtR9 FOR DRAINAGE /1 DRAINAGE OETENT10R STORAGE CWYi1EI. SEE SECTION C -C. LENGTH I5 800' S -0.0340. PAVE WESTERLY R l •9 1:P ID X' PER CITY OF SEATTLE 0111 24.0 -1 /'COMIECT TO R00F LEADERS I.E. 21.85 CONCRETE UI:OAD DOCKS • C.B. TtNF N;.1-C PEP 0F06 SC' EAST ANO 4' N011- -44 OF N.E. BLDG. CORNER TO' GRATE 2 I.E. FROM S.A. 1.0 I.E: TO RORER 21. t'1 PROPOSED 0'3110INGS FINIS FLDER ELEY. 25.0 40' a 18' CONCRETE 485' RACP TOP Or GRATE Or OIL SEPARATOR 24.50 SEE DETAIL NO NOTES T81S $HEET CUT DRAINAGE DITCH FROM EAST END OF 8' CULVERT 0834.147 AT (LEN. 20.5- ts. • 5' WIDE CONCRETE VALR MPWC LATEST EDITION OF STD. SPECIFICATIONS FOR RAICIPAL PUBLIC RORKS CONSTRUCTION vsw • LATEST EDITION OF STD. SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 23.5 (USTI% SPOT ELEVATION 24 8 P818851D SPOT ELEVATION (AT BASE OF CURB) =-R-, EXISTING CONTOUR LIME -4i-- PROPOSED CCMTOU LIMA ^'r. T ECU ASPHALT AND CONCRETE CIAO T TOP OF BERN - _ TOE NN' BIM ' Ts' OT1 ELEVATION AT SOUTH FENCE 1INE 23.9 CONTRACTOR NAY WASTE EICESS EXCAVATION AND SURCHARGE MATERIAL BETWEEN THE ENTRANCE ROAD AND THE EAST PROPERTY EIRE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. SLOPE TO DRAIN TO N.E. PROPERTY CORNER 32 1.8. OF 8' OP CMAVERT INV. ELEV! EAST END 21.8 A BEGIN 0110! 1.1. 23.1 SEE SECTION A-A 578.58' 'A « END D1TCN ANT BERM BEGIN 8" CMP CULVERT 8.1. 21.9 REV NO BRAWN BY ADDED HIP 4 RP • PTN AM- • 'TH PROBE REVISIONS 2 - INCA .6 DATE LANCE MUELLER 8 ASSOCIATES STAR MACHINERY DRAINAGE AND PAVING PLAN --ye `PROPOSED BERN AT ELEVATION 23.0 INSIDE SOUTH. EAST AND NORTH PROPERTY LIRE 23 221.16' EXISTING M.N. RIM 24.2 STING 1" HATER LUE ` EX1STIM6 12' HATER LINE ',EXISTING 11' GAS LIFE S.W. 43R0 ST. 6 1411STING 2• GAS LIRE IS' LRILITY EASEPFAT PETROlEIM PIPELINE LOCATION APPROIENATE. VERIFY BEFORE EXCAVATING CONCLUSION As shown in the 1978 drainage plan, control structures, berms, and drainage ditches were constructed in 1979 -1980 in the eastern end of the subject property in order to create a stormwater detention area. Stormwater from the remainder of the property has been directed to these facilities, where the water has been impounded and detained. Review of aerial photographs shows that the area was cleared, graded, and excavated over 10 years ago. Since that time, vegetation has regenerated throughout the stormwater detention area. Although hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil have resulted, the area falls within Tukwila's definition of a "constructed wetland," and would thus not be regulated as wetland (Tukwila Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance 1991, Sections 18.06.185, 18.06.938). 6 REFERENCES Devroy, L.L., and R.D. Kranz, 1989. Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties - Seattle, Washington. Bellevue, WA: David Evans and Associates. Federal Interagency Committed for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Jones and Stokes Associates, 1990. City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations. Lance Mueller and Associates, 1978. Star Machinery Drainage and Paving Plan. City of Tukwila Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance, March 15, 1991. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetland Inventory. APPENDIX A LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED 1976 - 1" = 100' Color, Washington Dept. Natural Resources (DNR). April 7, 1977 - 1" = 100' black and white, Walker and Associates June 2, 1978 - 1" = 100' black and white, DNR. June 26, 1979 - 1" = 100' black and white, Washington State Dept of Transportation (WSDOT). April 27, 1980 - 1" = 150' black and white, Walker and Associates, Seattle, WA. August 1, 1981 - 1" = 100' black and white, DNR. June 16, 1982 - 1" = 150' black and white, Walker and Assoc. August 1, 1985 - 1" = 200' black and white, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps). June 10, 1986 - 1" = 200' black and white, Corps. July 20, 1988 - 1" = 100' black and white, WSDOT. Sept. 10, 1989 - 1" = 200' color, Walker and Assoc. 8 APPENDIX B 9 1 1 1 1 1 §Dca 1 1 1 1 1 PREPARED BY: WETLAND DETERMINATION ON THE TUKWILA SITE OF RABEL PROPERTIES SEATTLE, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR: JOHN RABEL RABEL PROPERTIES 130 LAKESIDE, SUITE 200 SEATTLE,. WASHINGTON 98122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LAWRENCE L DEVROY AND RONALD D. KRANZ DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 301 116TH AVENUE S.E., SUITE 170 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 OCTOBER 11, 1989 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOQA FS, INC ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, S©E TIS S INTRODUCTION The site is located within a light industrial area immediately east of West Valley Road (S.R. 181) and borders on the north side of South 180th Street (also known as Southwest 43rd Street) in Tukwila, Washington (Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E). A Burlington Northern Railroad line is located east of the property while the light industrial development is west and north of this 167 acre parcel. The subject property consists of a fairly square, flat piece of property with cottonwoods mainly on the north and south borders and grassy- appearing areas throughout. The parcel presently receives stormwater runoff from the adjacent developed areas, which in turn drains via small ditches to a pit on the north. P " OSE The purpose of this report is to determine if wetlands are present on the subject property and, if present, to determine their extent. The need to know wetland presence and size is the result of the heightened concern over wetland loss due to increased scientific, public and governmental awareness of the importance of wetlands primarily for wildlife habitat and water biofiltration. This increased awareness is manifested as expanded federal regulation of wetland development. Potential impacts to your proposed project due to this increased governmental regulation make the present study warranted. APPROACH Prior to the field examination, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil series for your site was reviewed. In the field dominant hydrophytes, soils, and hydrology were inspected. Soil probes were performed down to a depth of 20 inches and soil colors were determined by use of the Munsell Soil Color Chartbook. Indicators of hydrologic inundation were sought and noted. Finally, using vegetation, soils, and hydrology, and the methodology of the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD), the apparent wetland limits were flagged with orange and black - striped survey ribbon. RESULTS Vegetation Two community types exist on the site: forest and herbaceous. The trees include red alder (Alms rubra), willow (Salir lasiandra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsomife a). The herbs include Himalayan blackberry (Rebus discolor), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) and common reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). They range from the DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS facultative wet (FACW) classification (willow, reed canarygrass) to the facultative (FAC) classification (red alder, black cottonwood) to facultative - upland (FACU) (Himalayan blackberry) and finally upland (UPL) (common tansy). The dominant species overall is reed canarygrass, however willow is found in the road -side ditch and the ditches extending east across the site to the central pit; the black cottonwood is prominent in the northern third of the site and on its south border, blackberry occurs in the understory of the cottonwoods and is found in a dense mass on the northwest; red alder mingles with the black cottonwood on the north and covers the northern half of the berm on the east property line; and finally, common tansy occurs in small pockets widespread on the site. Based on the above discussion plus the fact that the common tansy and Himalayan blackberry are upland species, but are not dominant in any plot, all four plots possess hydrophytic vegetation. All species found on site can be found in wetlands to varying degrees, but the two upland species previously mentioned are rarely found in wetlands only one percent of the time Sas Review of the NWI maps showed no wetlands located on the site. This conflicted with the SCS soil survey information which included the site in the Woodinville soil series, a hydric soil unit associated with the Green River Valley. Four 20+ inch deep by two inch diameter soil samples were examined in four distinct areas defined chiefly by vegetative types and /or elevation (Table 1). Plot #1 was sampled in the south - central region adjacent to the property line where cottonwoods give way to reed canarygrass. Here, the soil color was 10YR 4/4 and dry to the bottom of the sample with no stain line evident. Pit #2, performed near the geographic center of the site in a homogeneous, stand of reed canarygrass, yielded results similar to #1, but below 10 inches, 2.5 YR 3/4 colors were observed. In the north - central portion of the site, within a stand of cottonwood, a well - incised pit exists. Plot #3 was taken on the edge of this pit yielding a 5 YR 4/2 sample color from the surface to ten inches subsurface while a 5 YR 4/3 color with weak mottles and saturation was observed from 10 - 20 inches subsurface. Standing water 2 - 4 inches in depth was noted over about a third of this approximately 625 square foot pit. The fourth and last soil sample was excavated in the northwest corner of the site and the Munsell soil color most closely approximating the sample was 10 YR 4/4. DAVID E 'ANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, P(ANN' FRS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIEN11StS Discussion and Permit Implications As previously stated, the National Wetland Inventory map for the site and surrounding vicinity shows no on -site wetlands. Soils present on -site do not meet the hydric soils criteria, except over an approximate 0.5 acre area on the northern portion of the site. The Woodinville soil series as described by the SCS is not characteristic of on -site soils though mapped as such. This is often due to inclusions of other soils types within the main unit. In this case up to 25 percent of the total acreage mapped as Woodinville may be other types, so- called inclusions. Therefore, the discrepancy between the SCS mapping and the NWI map is most likely attributable to such inclusions within the larger typical map unit. The Corps of Engineers has congressional authority to issue Nationwide Permits for isolated wetlands in which less than one acre of fill is proposed. This site's northern wetland does not extend to the ditch offsite to the east since no direct association exists; a topographically distinct high edge exists which is well vegetated with mature alder and cottonwood trees. This high area isolates the wetland from the adjacent ditch. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit 26 regulations state that such fills are automatically authorized. However, submittal of an application for such a fill will result in issuance of a formal permit, if desired. DAVID FANS AND ASSOCIATES, LNC ENGNEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS TABLE 1 - MUNSELL SOIL COLOR PLOT 1 2 3 4 SURF - 10" 10YR 4/4 10YR 4/4 5YR 4/2 10YR 4/4 10 - 20" 10YR 4/4 2.5YR 3/4 5YR 4/3 10YR 4/4 W/WEAK MOTTLES Hydrology Despite the fact that we are assuming positive site hydrology due to site inspection during the dry season, observations can be made relating to indicators of inundation. First, only one soil sample showed any signs of saturation. That sample, Plot #3, was taken in the pit described previously. In the area to the north within the ditches and the cottonwood stand, indicators of inundation are evident where soil saturation was not present. These include water - stained fallen leaves, silt lines on the willows and cottonwoods, the hypertrophied lenticels and adventitious rooting of the willows. All of these indicators are located in the northern -third of the site extending from the eastern berm westward until reduced down to the area within the two ditches which receive drainage from the roadside ditch. Elsewhere on -site no indicators of hydrology were observed. Wetland Determination Based on vegetation, soils, and hydrology, only the area within the flagged boundaries is considered a wetland by FICWD criteria i.e., only in the flagged area are positive wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology found (See Table 2). All three criteria must be met for an area to be considered an actual wetland area. TABLE 2 - WETLAND DETERMINATION MATRIX PLOT 1 VEG + SOILS - HYDROLOGY + 3 4 WETLAND NO NO YES NO DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BUNTERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHPIECTS, SCIENTISTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 §Xga REFERENCES Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. Hitchcock, C. Leo, and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Kranz, Ronald D., M. Carroll, and K. Krueger, 1989. Wetland Determination on the Proposed Westpark Business Park Development, Redmond, Washington, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reprint 88 (26.9). United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Kirkland, Washington. Prepared for the Office of Biological Services for the National Wetland Inventory. DAVID E% NS AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGLNTBS, SCRVEliORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIEN ng15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1' 1 �3v 43111 .0b. (%U%U.lb H intuits vc.1 • 10 1 •1•41IHHA1\ •tsinu.:•� 0)41%1 fuilkn N1•I I Pu[nl\p.utt.1 /1M.r y11 11•11!14 Mb r pre 1 Pgo.recr /70a9 (f eor HwY &HEFT Jod Pat: /Cl 4L Z. pt� KGre-.v RT /ES FO. DRAWN Df aaa ter DE bbN Df D. /7T fop p DATA POUT' INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ON8ITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator(s): 440217Y 'D.E✓nOv /i? ^l1/ wPAIV Date: Project /Site:, :'7) ") W. V4L.LEY -rwv; Stater 1.fl \A,iLA. $$.County: KIN Applicant /Owner: 777,144A, k'A F.Z. Vegetation Unit 1 /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method-1/ Qx Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# 4 Note,: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. **tt********** t* t**************************** * * * * * *t * * * * * * * ** * * * ****t *t****1 Do normal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes-7,Z_ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No - (If yes, explain on back) In_. Ind. ' ominant Plant Species ,$tat. r t Dominant Plant Species ,S tat. Strat. SC 01. PNALAni S AP's ifiAct -ky,Ac W . 14. >/r/02. PCPI LL'S 3 II ;SAM I T/?E?' 15. X3. AL. -AIVS 2U(:RA- eAc. —Z 16. 4. 17. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. ****t*************************************** t * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * ** * *t Percent of dominant species that are0)31.4. Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes_ Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? FACW and /or FAC k:10 No NoL lOYn Yes ✓ No A Siffil irD S8-q S•J eel /N tie's-7 Yes No ✓ Rationale for jurisdictional decision: "J L S �A/0 N WW2 1 C This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. '" 1 1 1 1 1 1 DATA 7ORM' INTERXEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE.ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigators) : LA/'4V Dt 1/R ^v / '''/ '(k' -'I Date: Q /.l //: Project /Site: �!'^ \ /,1L;/SV "=WY State:-rjeinia.' A.County: Irl/t;(3/ Applicant /Owner:" T ^1J Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method •J Qi Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data for or a field notebook. *************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *** * * * * * * * * * **** * *** ***** * * ** Do nor- pal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes V No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No _L (If yes, explain on back) 1 =_ Ind, Dominant Plant Species $tat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species ,Stat. Strat. U >95%, 1. f 14J /PIS I k'1ND /I'IAC '►Cw• IJE1 Z 14. -d .S' /0 2. - -ANAC r!-!'1 'P % g4fE �JPL 4 EMI 15. - 3. 16. 4. 17. 5. 18. 6 19. 7. 20. 8. 21. 9. 22. 10. 23. I 11. 24. 12. 25. 13. 26. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are v FACW and /or FAC % S---° Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes.L No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes No_L /S iR .. S:/ i? ci 2. c'Y/2 Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: S ')1 Lc' NO7 /-4\/)Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. • DATA 7ORM' INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator(s): 77E-1/..)%r- /,N KRAfJZ Date: !4/f7 Project /Site: 177'10 ;v %aLLE-1 State f71JK0ILA.. j,4, County: /{,a i,- / Applicant /Owner: ')L4N /' Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method V Qr Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# 3 Vote: If a more detailed site description is necessary, data for or a field notebook. use the back of ******************************************** * ** ** * * **** ** * ** ** * * ****** * :t *t Do no al environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vege tion, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) W -ATff-2 - S-744 1 E D 1•Pr .r 'o P111 ✓ k//2L6' W •LETIT7 A"DV�,VTIT�ot. S •%r,LLOYv"DLL 24c"7 s /L-r Llllcs oN w /Lt,ohl�Ind.C�77-��,y�; Dominant Plant Species Sat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. /0% �c 1. POG'UL ✓S OALSAM10ENA -AC T 'E 14. ,S % 2. .5t4 Li X LA A172 rAi:W+ l -±ERN 15. .5-% 3 . f 3l - 4 r / A/1 i ' NP laNAC A C'YV 16. 4. 17. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. **********************************+********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes\/ Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? FACW and /or FAC /O 0 No No Yes l/ No 'i A-7- 7 L /'/ >=3'/-7- " Yes No = 7 = 1 �, , //1T� Rationale for jurisdictional decision: SO/ L RY2R1 C 1 This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which method is used. DRAINAGE HISTORY OF THE N.C. MACHINERY SITE 1976 -1991 Tukwila, Washington Prepared For: John Rabel RABEL PROPERTIES 130 Lakeside, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98122 ODDX0242 Prepared By: Ronald D. Kranz and John D. Macklin DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES 301 116th Avenue S.E., Suite 170 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RECEIVED May, 1991 OCT 1 91994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE AND APPROACH Preliminary Research 1 Aerial Photograph Review 3 Site Investigation 3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3 CONCLUSION 6 REFERENCES 7 APPENDICES A. List of Aerial Photographs Reviewed 8 B. Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties 9 List of Figures 1: Vicinity Map 2: Star Machinery Drainage and Paving Plan 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has reviewed the drainage history of the Star Machinery site in Tukwila, Washington. As part of the development of the site in 1979 and 1980 for industrial use, a stormwater detention pond was constructed in the northeastern corner of the property. The detention pond continues to function, impounding water throughout the winter and early spring in response to storm events. Due to a lack of maintenance, vegetation has overgrown the detention pond, resulting in wetland -like conditions. DEA's investigation has verified that the area was developed as a detention pond during the initial construction of industrial facilities on the site. Because this wetland was artificially created to impound water and function as a detention pond, it falls within the City of Tukwila's definition of a "constructed wetland," and is thus not subject to the wetland regulations of the City's Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance. i INTRODUCTION At the request of Rabel Properties, Inc., David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has conducted an investigation of the recent drainage history of the N.C. Machinery property in Tukwila, Washington. The property is located north of South 180th Street and west of a Burlington Northern Railroad right -of -way (Sec 35, T23N, R4E, W.M.). Most of the property is occupied by N.C. Machinery industrial facilities that were constructed in 1978- 1979. A 1.67 -acre tract in the eastern end of the site is presently overgrown by vegetation and is partially occupied by a functioning, but vegetatively overgrown detention pond. Figure 1 indicates the site location. This area is relatively flat, and is partially forested. A wetland has been delineated in the northern end of this tract (Devroy and Kranz, 1989). PURPOSE AND APPROACH The purpose of this study was to review the recent drainage history of the N.C. Machinery site with respect to wetland conditions and landscape alterations including an existing stormwater detention facility. Three main tasks were involved: (1) preliminary research, (2) review of aerial photographs, and (3) field observation of current conditions. Preliminary Research Published information about local environmental conditions was reviewed for the subject land parcel. These sources include the following: * National Wetland Inventory (NWI), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987; * Soil Survey of King County, USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS), 1973; * Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties, Devroy and Kranz, 1989 * City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations, Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc, 1990. 1 (Source: U.S. Geological Survey 1:100.000 Digital Line Graph Data) SITE LOCATION DAVO EVANSMO ASSOOATESJNC. 3000 0 Scale in Feet 3000 Figure 1. Vicinity map. West Valley Highway Property 0DDX0242 -0R1 Aerial Photograph Review Aerial photographs for most years from 1976 to 1979 were reviewed for evidence of clearing and grading, inundation, changes in vegetation, and other changes. Photographs reviewed are listed in Appendix A. Site Investigation DEA biologists visited the property on March 8, 1990 in order to review existing site conditions and drainage patterns. Observations included inundation, topography and drainage patterns on -site and in adjacent areas, vegetation composition, and tree ages. In addition, the most recent aerial photograph was "ground - truthed" to facilitate accurate photo interpretation. INVESTIGATION RESULTS Although neither the Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations nor the National Wetlands Inventory identify wetlands on the subject property, wetlands were delineated on the site in 1989 using the Unified Federal Methodology (FICWD, 1989). The King County Area Soil Survey maps the property as Woodinville silt loam, a poorly drained hydric soil. The 1989 wetland delineation, however, concluded that the on -site soils were predominantly non -hydric inclusions within the SCS soil mapping unit and did not match the profile described for that unit. While the Soil Survey describes this soil as gray (5Y5/1) silty clay loam from 3 to 38 . inches below the ground surface, soils on site were described as dark reddish brown to dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, 2.5YR 3/4, 5YR 4/3) in the B horizon (Devroy and Kranz, 1989). Moreover, during the March 8, 1991 site visit, soils in the grassy southern part of the on -site wetland were observed to be of a friable loamy texture with little clay as compared with the SCS description of silty clay loam. Aerial photographs show that the property has a recent history of increasing human disturbance. In 1976, the property had been cleared and was occupied by herb and shrub regeneration, with scattered trees concentrated in the northwestern quarter of the site. A 1976 photograph indicates possible wet conditions across the eastern part of the property, but no distinct wetland areas. During 1977, a large site to the north of the property was cleared for development. In 1978, clearing began on the western end of the subject property. By 1979, industrial facilities occupied approximately the northern three quarters of the subject property, and the stormwater detention facility had been constructed in the northeast corner of the site. A swale running along the northern property boundary collected stormwater runoff from the impervious surfaces on site. Figure 2 shows the site plan for these developments. The drainage ditch shown running diagonally across the eastern part of the property, however, was actually constructed along the east side of the on -site access road. By 1980, additional grading had been carried out along the eastern end of the northern edge of the property. This area is presently the highest part of the site, and is underlain by gravelly material in contrast to other areas of the property. During this period, industrial development was completed in the area immediately north of the subject property. In 1980 or 1981, the southeastern corner of the subject property was graded, and a ditch was excavated across the northeastern part of the property to channel stormwater runoff into the detention pond. Between 1982 and 1985, an access road across the eastern part of the property was extended to the northern property boundary, blocking the ditch that had been excavated in that area. No other clearing has occurred between 1982 and 1989, and natural revegetation of the eastern end of the property has proceeded rapidly, with tree cover concentrated in the detention pond and along the ditches. Currently, the detention facility constructed in 1979 is forested, with black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) dominating. Water is impounded in this facility by a berm along the eastern property boundary. A small gap in the northern end of the berm allows overflowing water to discharge into a ditch running north -south under in the adjacent utility corridor to the east. Although a ditch originally connected the detention facility with a swale running along the northern property boundary, this connection is now blocked. A small area along the western access road and immediately south of the on -site ditch has been disturbed by vehicles or machinery at some time between 1989 and the present. Water impounded by the eastern berm (Figure 2) has backed up beyond the excavated detention pond, causing inundation and saturation in part of the adjacent reed canarygrass (Phalwis anundinacea) field. 4 STEP1 .!::!•.: F.ViP ELEV. 21.7 12' SW 1 1 1 1 . 11.3 FLOW .:••• Mth. 8 GAUGE SUM 011. S•Le.R:.Etrz oeiria • -TYPE II-C DER WWE • :APAC:Tv SLACK WHEN GATE IS 004 WELC C-A. TC cs ram( NOTE : - •1):37:AL GPOUNC `N, r / !.E. :9.07 \ XEcE!- \j1 SEC::% I. -APPROCHATE sEPT). pErooLELR PIPELINE ALL FETAL PARTS AND SURFACES MIST BE ea OF URPOSION RES:VIM: NATEP.IA1 OP GALT. CZMPLITECDRP3SICNPROTECTICM MLST BE ASSuPED. CONTROL STRUCTURE NOT TO SCALE • 111[STRUCTICM MOTES FOR EXACT LOCATICW ANC CIPENSICWS OF PROPOSED BUILDING. SIDEWALKS ; A.C. PAVING. LANDSCAPING. GRAVEL AREAS. ACCESS ROAD, FENCING. ETC. SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAR. 2. ALL C.M.P. 77 SE MINIMUM 18 GA. DEFLECTION OF OSIN-AITIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT FRCP va or LOOSE SOD (MEADOw MAT) TO BE REMOVED FR ALL 4. SUBSRAC* TO BE SCARIFIED MINIM, OF 12• AND COMPACTED TO 95S Of MAXIMUM DRY CERSITY PER AST N 1557 (MODIFIED AASHO). 0 \ 41 0 IL III TRUE GRAM TO BE 1,8' :N 1:' PEA PAVED AND GRAVELED AP.EAS AND STORED Cm SITE ABOVE ELEVATION I - 22.0 FOR USE IN LANDSCAPING. :1141 4. 7.49ACTED SUBGRADE IA GRAVELED AKAS TO RECETVT MINIMUM 12' 411 ON SITE SLR:HAASE MATEP:A. C.AFRCTE; PEP PARALRAPH 3 OF iPt, ii;R:•4•RU SPE C: FICATI EPt S . . 3r1 1 • _J1 Z.."' 1 1 • WIDE CAN:RETE WALK LEGEND ponec LATEST EDITION or STD. SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLINICIPAL PLSLIC WORKS coksrourrico h5H0 LATEST EDITION CW STD. SPECIFICATILVS FOR ROAD MD BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 23.5 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION 24 6 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION (AT RASE OF CURB) ---28---- EXISTING ONTOUR LINE 13 PP.:POSED COITOAN LIKE •=3••••'75•ToAr EDI ASPHALT AND =DM cm_ 1 TO, OF IEVP TtOFIE lc. tr■V., . 4 • : CEDAP CIP? AT IS' CEn•EPS STAYED 2 • f GALv. FlPi F.L. ELEVATI;•;N-"' WEST EN: 21.: EAST EN: 2I.9 10 1- la›, • fa. AAA TT BE ?' EFIE7INI GRADE. ..!AVE 2 CIPE.:%:%G ELEA,' 53' TO AJ.C. POOFF FRCP. SCL7•. • TC ENTER DITCP SECTION A - A NOT TO SCALE ,BEGIN CANNEL. END BERM F.L. 21.4 2: E ELEJ l!' :E.E0 SM;TAP, 1:wEP .= • 1.• \-CEEPEN DUD. TO LEY. 17.D -,AVE CATER OF PETRCLEUR PIPELINE LC,C.LIF. 1T PRIOR TO EXCAVATING SECTION B - B NOT TO SCALE LEAVE OUT 2'2 SECTION OF CURE EYTPY 7C' FOP DRAINAGE TO NOM' •C. NOICATES APPROLINATI LIMITS OF PROPOSED 0 • P eurs7 I ... . \-Ci: DRAINAGE CETEKTICN STOWE CANNEL. SEE SECTION C-C. LENGTH 15 eoo• 5.0.040. PAVE WESTERLY 1110' LEAVE OR S.* SECTION OF CURS FOR DRAINAGE PER C1T9 OF SEATTLE .72 L., 23' BEVY TO BE I' ABOVE EXISTING GRACE *. ANDECAE - \ . 1.041 .0 .*ENTIRE CHANNEL MAY SE LANDSCAPED �K9RO FLO. LINE :LEY. IS ,E.ELON 19.7 SECTION C - C NoT TO SCALE CONTROL STRUCTU RE 42 ' SOUTH AND 20' WEST OF A.E. PROPERTY CORNER. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET _ _ -----COKNECT TO ROOF LEADERS I.E. 21.85 .. Ppcoostr r:pos- r:asr ELEV. N. .64\ 1 - -: i \ / \ScumECTI ONFoROF , \ / DRUM M -i04141.4f • , ?A 44..) ......._______, ......:LAR_PRO...___N : P_ATV Or 5T0 COMTE •----..--d. A0 XISTING 12* wATER LINE '24'6- i ,,_-_,-- 2 b ts' trn CONCRETE L94'.0AZI DOCKS 17.11' C.S. TVP1 N:.1-C PEP .F.:': SC' EAST AN: 4' !0li,,,4 OF LE. CLOG. CORNER IT., GPATE ONS . :.E. ;ROw 5.•.`,2k I.E: TO NORTH 2:. I , • . S'a4,013 40' p 18' CONCRETE WAS.- RAP... TO, or SPRIT Or OIL SEPARATCP Z4.5: SEE DETAIL AND METES Th:S 5-ill /.-ELEVATION AT SOUTH FENCE LINE 4, END CHANNEL F.L. 18.3 18 L.F. OF 12' 04.) ADDITICNN. AVAILABLE. DETENTION STORAGE (norms 11.9 RIO. 21.0 D3 NOT HASTE EXCESS MATERIAL IN 1/115 AMA r4.1 1,61 C7JE DRAINAGE DITCH 0801 EAST END or 8' CULVERT DAYL1049T AT ELEv. CONTRACTOR elT WASTE EXCESS EXCAVATION AND SURCHARGE ARTERIAL BETWEEN THE ENTRANCE ROAD AND THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AS DIRECTED Br THE ENGINEER. SLOPE TO DRAIN TO N.E. PROPERTY CORNER 23.9 32 ..F: OF 11" C3W CULVERT INV. ELM EAST END 21.D .E. 18.10 215 L.F. OF 12* CM 0 23 BOGIR DITCH F.L. 233 SEC sEmicm A-A 1,100 ' stirft&a, _------ 576.SE" 'A END DITCH ANT PER" _........s.....)EGIN2nCro CULVERT _ ft A D L.C.L. DRAWN ETV APPROVED DI% .K5Figli=a727VP COI .4/.4/44 VISONTS AUJLITA0 AtiO0Alli MC 0 ••■■■■ • ...msg. LANCE MUELLER 8 ASSOCIATES STAR MACHINERY DRAINAGE AND PAVING PLAN co ma 41. PAM 10.1...CI ICAO Lt•L 41/ CP•MIN • • • 221.16' k s-PPCPOSED BEAM AT ELEVATION 23.0 MICE " SOUTH, EAST AND NoRTH PROPERTY LINE 9 -EXISTING :' WATER LIRE S.W. 43RD ST. EXISTING N.m: RIM 24.2 ‘,-- EXISTING 12' NAM LIME "EXISTING 26' CAS LINE t-tx:sitio t• GAS LIRE 15' UTILITY EALEPENT /PETROLEUM PIPELINE LOCATION APPROCMATE. vERIFY BEFORE EXCAVATING 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONCLUSION As shown in the 1978 drainage plan, control structures, berms, and drainage ditches for stormwater detention were constructed in 1979 -1980 in the eastern end of the subject property. Stormwater from the remainder of the property has been directed to these facilities, where the water has been impounded and detained. Review of aerial photographs shows that the area was cleared, graded, and excavated over 10 years ago. Since that time, vegetation has regenerated in the detention pond, drainage ditches, and nearby areas affected by impounded water. Although hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil have resulted, the area falls within Tukwila's definition of a "constructed wetland," and would thus not be regulated as wetland (Tukwila Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance 1991, Sections 18.06.185, 18.06.938). 6 REFERENCES Devroy, L.L., and R.D. Kranz, 1989. Wetland Determination on the Tukwila Site of Rabel Properties - Seattle, Washington. Bellevue, WA: David Evans and Associates. Federal Interagency Committed for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Jones and. Stokes Associates, 1990. City of Tukwila Water Resource Rating and Buffer Recommendations. Lance Mueller and Associates, 1978. Star Machinery Drainage and Paving Plan. City of Tukwila Draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance, March 15, 1991. USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetland Inventory. 7 APPENDIX A LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS REVIEWED 1976 - 1" = 100' Color, Washington Dept. Natural Resources (DNR). April 7, 1977 - 1" = 100' black and white, Walker and Associates June 2, 1978 - 1" = 100' black and white, DNR. June 26, 1979 - 1" = 100' black and white, Washington State Dept of Transportation (WSDOT). April 27, 1980 - 1" = 150' black and white, Walker and Associates, Seattle, WA. August 1, 1981 - 1" = 100' black and white, DNR. June 16, 1982 - 1" = 150' black and white, Walker and Assoc. August 1, 1985 - 1" = 200' black and white, US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District (Corps). June 10, 1986 - 1" = 200' black and white, Corps. July 20, 1988 - 1" = 100' black and white, WSDOT. Sept. 10, 1989 - 1" = 200' color, Walker and Assoc. 8 APPENDIX B 9 11 it 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WETLAND DETERMINATION ON THE TUKWILA SITE OF RABEL PROPERTIES SEATTLE, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR: JOHN RABEL RABEL PROPERTIES 130 LAKESIDE, SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 PREPARED BY: LAWRENCE L. DEVROY AND RONALD D. KRANZ DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 301 116TH AVENUE S.E., SUITE 170 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 OCTOBER 11, 1989 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS INTRODUCTION The site is located within a light industrial area immediately east of West Valley Road (S.R. 181) and borders on the north side of South 180th Street (also known as Southwest 43rd Street) in Tukwila, Washington (Section 35, Township 23N, Range 4E). A Burlington Northern Railroad Line is located east of the property while the light industrial development is west and north of this 167 acre parcel. The subject property consists of a fairly square, flat piece of property with cottonwoods mainly on the north and south borders and grassy- appearing areas throughout. The parcel presently receives stormwater runoff from the adjacent developed areas, which in turn drains via small ditches to a pit on the north. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to determine if wetlands are present on the subject property and, if present, to determine their extent. The need to know wetland presence and size is the result of the heightened concern over wetland loss due to increased scientific, public and governmental awareness of the importance of wetlands primarily for wildlife habitat and water biofiltration. This increased awareness is manifested as expanded federal regulation of wetland development. Potential impacts to your proposed project due to this increased governmental regulation make the present study warranted. APPROACH Prior to the field examination, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil series for your site was reviewed. In the field dominant hydrophytes, soils, and hydrology were inspected. Soil probes were performed down to a depth of 20 inches and soil colors were determined by use of the Munsell Soil Color Chartbook. Indicators of hydrologic inundation were sought and noted. Finally, using vegetation, soils, and hydrology, and the methodology of the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation (FICWD), the apparent wetland limits were flagged with orange and black - striped survey ribbon. RESULTS Vegetation Two community types exist on the site: forest and herbaceous. The trees include red alder (Alms rubra), willow (Salix lasiandra), and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera). The herbs include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) and common reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). They range from the DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. E.NGLNEERS, SCRVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENT STS facultative wet (FACW) classification (willow, reed canarygrass) to the facultative (FAC) classification (red alder, black cottonwood) to facultative - upland (FACU) (Himalayan blackberry) and finally upland (UPL) (common tansy) The dominant species overall is reed canarygrass, however willow is found in the road -side ditch and the ditches extending east across the site to the central pit; the black cottonwood is prominent in the northern third of the site and on its south border, blackberry occurs in the understory of the cottonwoods and is found in a dense mass on the northwest; red alder mingles with the black cottonwood on the north and covers the northern half of the berm on the east property line; and finally, common tansy occurs in small pockets widespread on the site. Based on the above discussion plus the fact that the common tansy and Himalayan blackberry are upland species, but are not dominant in any plot, all four plots possess hydrophytic vegetation. All species found on site can be found in wetlands to varying degrees, but the two upland species previously mentioned are rarely found in wetlands only one percent of the time. Spits Review of the NWI maps showed no wetlands located on the site. This conflicted with the SCS soil survey information which included the site in the Woodinville soil series, a hydric soil unit associated with the Green River Valley. Four 20+ inch deep by two inch diameter soil samples were examined in four distinct areas defined chiefly by vegetative types and /or elevation (Table 1). Plot #1 was sampled in the south - central region adjacent to the property line where cottonwoods give way to reed canarygrass. Here, the soil color was 10YR 4/4 and dry to the bottom of the sample with no stain line evident. Plt #2., performed near the geographic center of the site in a homogeneous stand of reed canarygrass, yielded results similar to #1, but below 10 inches, 2.5 YR 3/4 colors were observed. In the north - central portion of the site, within a stand of cottonwood, a well - incised pit exists. Plot #3 was taken on the edge of this pit yielding a 5 YR 4/2 sample color from the surface to ten inches subsurface while a 5 YR 4/3 color with weak mottles and saturation was observed from 10 - 20 inches subsurface. Standing water 2 - 4 inches in depth was noted over about a third of this approximately 625 square foot pit. The fourth and last soil sample was excavated in the northwest corner of the site and the Munsell soil color most closely approximating the sample was 10 YR 4/4. DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGLNEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHI1ECI5, SCIENTISTS Discussion and Permit Implications As previously stated, the National Wetland Inventory map for the site and surrounding vicinity shows no on -site wetlands. Soils present on -site do not meet the hydric soils criteria, except over an approximate 0.5 acre area on the northern portion of the site. The Woodinville soil series as described by the SCS is not characteristic of on -site soils though mapped as such. This is often due to inclusions of other soils types within the main unit. In this case up to 25 percent of the total acreage mapped as Woodinville may be other types, so -called inclusions. Therefore, the discrepancy between the SCS mapping and the NWI map is most likely attributable to such inclusions within the larger typical map unit. The Corps of Engineers has congressional authority to issue Nationwide Permits for isolated wetlands in which less than one acre of fill is proposed. This site's northern wetland does not extend to the ditch offsite to the east since no direct association exists; a topographically distinct high edge exists which is well vegetated with mature alder and cottonwood trees. This high area isolates the wetland from the adjacent ditch. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Nationwide Permit 26 regulations state that such fills are automatically authorized. However, submittal of an application for such a fill will result in issuance of a formal permit, if desired. DAVID FANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGNEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIENTISTS TABLE 1 - MUNSELL SOIL COLOR PLOT 1 2 3 4 SURF - 10" 10YR 4/4 10YR 4/4 5YR 4/2 10YR 4/4 10 - 20" 10YR 4/4 2.5YR 3/4 5YR 4/3 10YR 4/4 W/WEAK MOTTLES Hydrology Despite the fact that we are assuming positive site hydrology due to site inspection during the dry season, observations can be made relating to indicators of inundation. First, only one soil sample showed any signs of saturation. That sample, Plot #3, was taken in the pit described previously. In the area to the north within the ditches and the cottonwood stand, indicators of inundation are evident where soil saturation was not present. These include water - stained fallen leaves, silt lines on the willows and cottonwoods, the hypertrophied lenticels and adventitious rooting of the willows. All of these indicators are located in the northern -third of the site extending from the eastern berm westward until reduced down to the area within the two ditches which receive drainage from the roadside ditch. Elsewhere on -site no indicators of hydrology were observed. Wetland Determination Based on vegetation, soils, and hydrology, only the area within the flagged boundaries is considered a wetland by FICWD criteria i.e., only in the flagged area are positive wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology found (See Table 2). All three criteria must be met for an area to be considered an actual wetland area. TABLE 2 - WETLAND DETERMINATION MATRIX PLOT 1 2 3 VEG + + + SOILS - - + HYDROLOGY + + + + WETLAND NO NO YES NO DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGLNEERS, SURVEYORS. PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIE.VTLStS REFERENCES Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative Technical Publication. Hitchcock, C. Leo, and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Kranz, Ronald D., M. Carroll, and K. Krueger, 1989. Wetland Determination on the Proposed Westpark Business Park Development, Redmond, Washington, David Evans and Associates, Inc., Seattle, Washington. Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reprint 88 (26.9). United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Kirkland, Washington. Prepared for the Office of Biological Services for the National Wetland Inventory. DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGLNEERS, SURVEYORS, PLANNERS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, SCIEYi1S S 11 it 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 4✓1 frdcf D61DIEVA.. %NI).\•v ■ •. EM.IVED v Militia, I•I '.•.I t$TisMotfue. •wu'•.:.. Db:h <• MIN n UI.I 1 I SI14I err,: tte5ure 1 Pg"1/41`r 170x9 ti/tor tou.G&-' HWY 72/fly/L A, 14/~NOTON f c: /14L. P S 7 /E5 .JoD 1a PRAWN ere DE'JI &N Y DATE -nn.a DATA 7ORK1 ' . INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE 0N8ITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator(s) : 4,4►2/?Y �.E ✓n01' //?ON KPAIVZ Date: 9 �V 7J C Project /Site: ;^� ^^ W.va; ± -iWV; StaterrVKvu►LA- 0%County: KIN Applicant /Owner: 77M-41v TAr% -� Vegetation Unit ; /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method "/ ar Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot# 4 Note,: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. *:******************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** Do normal environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes-7,Z_ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No -2/__ (If yes, explain on back) Ind• Ind• ominant Plant Species Stat.. t� Dominant Plant Species Stat. $trat. Fjcyl. f /4L_Ai2/ S AP0t9/NAc A AC pW R 14. >/,2. P'D P 1 L" c 3A !, AM l i'f"IIA C TR'= 15. _ < S X3 • AL U'JS 2L'&R -A- !A C 16. 4. 17. 5. 18. 6. 19. 7. 20. 8. 21. 9. 22. 10. 23. 11. 24. 12. 25. 13. 26. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are3i..t FACW and /or FAC Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes ✓ No ' � > �Jll;rr- Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes NojL h9 NOR 4/u'1 , UG - Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes Ni No • 'S ✓t'/' zr) . S. - - S'8-4 Ste'/ iti t/E Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: S."/ L S l-4 1,p ) C This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which Method is used. DATA PORN/ INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Sheet) Field Investigator (s) . LA. Y1�Zv V� /11/ / • rl k ' - I 'Date: ! f / Project /Site: C .�11,..; 1•1 =V/y State:--re) vti ;L'-'A.County: MtlliV Applicant /Owner: 7- ^u 41.4& C Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method 1 Q� Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect Plot$ Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. ********************* * ** ***** * * *** * ** *** **** * * * ***** ***lift * * ** * ***********1 Do norp al environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes V No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No L (If yes, explain on back) Ind.,. Ind. pominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. >9S' /o 1. f7NALA / Ht(D/i ► .vv_ iEP3 14. S' /o 2. --ANA il. , ,1 V % 1.C24 VP L. 4 E7nr- 15. 3. ' 16. 4. 17. 5. 18. 6. 19. 7. 20. 8. 21. 9. 22. 10. 23. 11. 24. 12. 25. 13. 26. ******************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Percent of dominant species that are o., FACW and /or FAC Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes.2_ No Is the hydric soils criterion met? Yes NoL / i'R ;f/ S:/ /? Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes ✓ No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? Yes No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: S1)2_ 5 NOT /-/')Q I This data form can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which bethod is used. " " t 11 1 11 t DATA PORK INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD OR COMPREHENSIVE ONBITE DETERMINATION METHOD (Summary Shoot) Field Investigator(s) : 7.7t1// '' //c��/ •K1= /4//Z Date: 9 4.1 II? Project /Site: 177 3 ;y 1ALLE ' -= Stater- IVO)►LA.rho, County: /pi / Applicant /Owner: T'1 /-I/V 2 Vegetation Unit # /Name Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method 2= Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method Transect_ Ploti 3 Note: If a more detailed site description is data for or a field notebook. necessary, use the back of *:t:::************************************** * * ** * * * * * * ** * **** ** * **** * * * * * ** Do no al environmental conditions exists at the plant community? Yes No (If no, explain on back) Has the vege tion, soils and /or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes No (If yes, explain on back) W _ATf-2 - s r ,Nt-D L�ry . H ),PE--■`7-go PIJI ✓ k'/Q.2 (/V Ai) vs s r /iLL'WLau 2OC" -S2 S/2 7 L/l'a-s N yvi LLD hI }Ind.Ca7--'0 /vwv -, IN pominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. Dominant Plant Species Stat. Strat. o io 1. PnG'UL ✓S PALSAMICE ' 'TREE 14. S v ^ 2. L1 X L 4 -/ a &r p,4 L'Ai:W+J-/ t a 15. /0 3. 44/ 4/1/' NP✓fww /NAGS= rACAI /- 16. 4. 17. 5. 18. 6. 19. 7. 20. 11 8. 21. 9. 22. 10. 23. 11. 24. 12. 25. 13. 26. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t******************************************* ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** Percent of dominant species that are FACW and /or FAC 10 0 Is the hydrophytic criterion met? Yes\/ No Is the hydric soils criterion, met? Yes Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? _ vR 4./ No ✓ _ ^ Yes V No j )/ } 17 S (i/L /// PiT .7• ='% 7;/ Yes No % • 14/ 11 T`' Rationale for jurisdictional decision: .SD/ HYVR/ C 1 This data for can be used for either the Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method or the Comprehensive Onsite Determination Method. Indicate which Method is used. 23_0 ST/ ' HOARD. GALVANIZED CB LADDER STEPS :-OFFSET FPA.YE..GPA1E SO EAT RESTRICTUR!POLLL'iON 2(3 C" I4 -[S YISIOLE AT BC!" OF 0 %01.5 :' :'o • AND DIRECTLY OVEP THE 500017 - •1A4:.ks.( GATE 15 0003 6111.11 (9011 TO C0 FRAME -OVERFLOW ELEV. 21.7 S"0.004.0 . ^r. 24.5 PIMP ELEV. 15' DEEP' 5AN11ANY. SEWER.' =RAVEL _ lU' LONG - 4 e 4 QUIP CURB AT 15 CENTERS 5061 :ED UITH 2 - '.' B GALV. PIPE 20'3 - LANDSCAPE ' -R VARIES •- to a'- BEAM TO BE 3' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE • ANDSCAPE - -. 12 ""CMP (-F.L. 18.3 F.L. 18.21- 23.9 TO 24.6 -F.L. 18.21 '-WATERTIGHT LEANOUT GATE WITH MIN. 8 GAUGE SLIDE I.E. 18.07 4 -7/8' DIA. SHARP ,EDGE ORIFICE -TYPE II -C ' PER MPHC SLOPE.2•1 TO 3.1 *PAVE INVERT WITH ASPHALT. .APPROXIMATE DEPTH•t PETROLEUM PIPELINE■ ' NOTE ALL METAL PARTS ANP CURFACES MUST BE MADE OP CCRRD01ON :M1 RESISTANT MATERIAL OR GALV:' (07PIE75 CORROSION PROTECTION MUST BE ASSURED. - F.L. ELE4AT ON NEST END 23 5 EAST END 21 9 FLOW' CONTROL STRUCTURE . NOT TO SCALE -35CM TO BE 3' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE. LEAVE.2'. OPEFNING EVERY 50' TO ALLOW RUNOFF FROM SCLTH. TO ENTER DITCH • 6: SECTION' A - A -- DEEPEN DITCH TO ELEV 17.0" =HAVE OWNER OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE. LOCATE IT PRIOR TO EXCAVATING SECTION' B - B I NOT TO.SCALE LEAVE OUT 2'_ SECTION- OF CURE EVER; '0' FOR DRAINAGE TO NORTP CONSTRUCTION NOTES I. FOR EXACT LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF PROPOSED BUILDING. SIDEWALKS A.C. PAVING, LANDSCAPING,. GRAVEL AREAS. ACCESS ROAD, FENCING, ETC: 'SEE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN. 2. ALL C.M. P. TO BE MINIMUM" 18 .GA. • 3. MAXIMUM. DEFLECTION OF ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT FROM TRUE GRADE TO BE 1/8" IN 10'. PER WSHO. 4. SUDGRADE TO BE SCARIFIED MINIMUM' OF 12" AND COMPACTED T0. 9533 OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY PER ASTM 1557 '(MODIFIED AA5H0). 5. 4 "3 OF LOOSE 50D (MEADOW. MAT) TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL PAVED AND,GRAVELED, AREAS AND,STORED ON SITE ABOVE ELEVATION,' N2.2.0:000:1155, 144,' LANDSCARING a- 3 - s6, GOMPAEfW-4.SURCHARg M "t0. M;;ACI;EO„RECE-T41M°442. ■0F' 01?'- SITU/ SURCHARBELMATERIAIrC01 .1PACTEO'..°ER''PARAGRAPH, 3 OF URC)(ARGE`. SPECIFICATIONS 4- ?' z ; - INDICATES APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED - P DENT . LFAVE OUT 5'o SECTION OF -CUR8•F0 DRAINAGE • 912.10' - '-C /L DRAINAGE DETENTION STORAGE CHN+7EI. SEE SECTION. C -C. LENGTH IS 801' S'0.0040.. PAVE WESTERLY ASPHALT USE "SD( CL 0 :5" PER C['5 OF SEATTLE' '.I , EXISTING GRADE `ENTIRERGHANNEL MAY DE LANDSCAPED:WHERE "FLOW LINE 'EUEV. IS BELOW 19.7 - • ' • 1'°' ` . CONTROL STRUCTURE 12' SOUTH AND 20' WEST OF -N.E PROPERTY CORNER. SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET -�- ti' AD010(07191 AVAILABLE DETENTION STORAGE -CONNECT TO 0000. :1.85 - - -' • CONCRETE uNLOAD "0551. • C.6 TYPE NO.1 -C PER.I4P(IC 50' EAST I' ANC 4' NORTH OF N.E. OLDG. CORNER /�" TS '.PATE 21.4 "1L. FROM 5.W.r21.0 I.E. TO NORTH 21 0 40 X 18%CONCRETE WASHLRACC4 ! .. TOP.OF;GRATE 0Ft0IL ?SEPARATOR'24[5 -EE DETAIL ANWNOTES `HTS'SHEE : 2- . 5' 'WIDE E0 CRETE WALK LEAVE OUT 5'0 -. ,- SECTION -OF CURB FOR DRAINAGE .11',.. /. O'D t ?09 4 i VFW. fix''6 BUNG 12" WATER LIVE 24 a 4 Q ti "1I OlTCH F.L. 23.5 SEE SECTION A -A -.ELEVATION AT SOUTH FENCE LINE 23.9 A X24 =� UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE • 578.58 5 j _ END PITCR ANC ?ECM BEGIN 8'• C5F CULVERT F.L. 21.9 2Q • CONTRACTOR MAY WASTE EXCESS EXCAVATION AND SURCHARGE MATERIAL BETWEEN THE ENTRANCE ROAD AND THE EAST PROPERTY LINE AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. SLOPE TO DRAIN TO N.E. PROPERTY CORNER �i3.' L.F. OF 8' CMP CULVERT .I;•/ ELEV. EAST END 21.8 �n1 IC �- PETROLEUM PIPELINE LOCATION APPROXIMATE. vENIF" BEFORE EXCAV0TIH6. 21 221.16' •PROPOSED" BERM AT _ ELEVATION 23.0 INSIDE SOUTH. EAST AND NORTH PROPERTY LINE EXISTING 4 :11 RIM 24.2 MPWC WS340 23.5 24'. 8 LATEST EDITION OF 5T0. SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION LATEST EDITION OF STD. SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 'EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED.5POT ELEVATION (AT BASE OF CURB) - EXISTING 'CONTOUR LINE • PROPOSED CONTOUR LINE • EDGE ASPHALT ANO CONCRETE CURB TOP OF BERM ICE OF BEFM . .505544111GE MATERIAL. COMPACTED TO PARAGRAPH' / 3 OF SURCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS FOR INITIAL 36" 7" CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE PER - SECTION 23. OF MPWC. 14," ASPHALT' CLASS "8" (BASE COURSE) PER W5110 SPECIFICATIONS 24 1'," ASPHALT CLA55.'8" (WEARING COURSE) PER 65•0 SPECIFICATIONS ,. 90 X30: 14 -EXISTING 1" WATER LINE 6" TWO: CONCRETE 5 (11,). PER MPWC SECTION` 37 000 39 3ITH 6,6 - 'WF ' -ELEV 24.50 1 • -E.-CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE' • . --- COMPACTED SUBGRADE . - '.COMPACTED ,SUBGRADE. SEE CONSTRUCTION -NO.4 S 7 • EXISTING .GROUND AFTER REMOVAL of 4 ", 05- "MEADOW MAT" '.'TSE SOD) - I.E.•21.70 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION- FOR =A.C. PAVING NO SCALE EXISTING 12" WATER LINE' rte_ G • ,,"'EXISTING 16" GAS LINE -G G'(- EXISTING 2" GAS.LINE'. S.W. 43RD ST uC (341 M01,., ^: t L.C.L. . ADDED 3' HIGH BERM ON NORTH 9N0 SOUTH PROPERTY LINE REV NOI DRAWN BYI REVISIO(dti 9 -2G -7E DATE 0 -TYPE 1 -C CATCH BASIN INLET PER IPWC (STD.. PLAN 52) • ,WASH RACK OIL SEPARATOR LOOKING NORTH APPROVED BV: • C6 if • =.STET F 447,4 •ij APPROVAL LANCE MUELLER 84 ASSOCIATES HARSTAD- ASSOCIATES:INC ! i.1.. . a.t{, .STAR MACHINERY DRAINAGE AND PAVING PLAN JOI HO. 471 - I71. DAIF JWLY_ 1979 .. 5X15[10 IY G'.D.N IMIWED. SHEET ESTRIO.T/OIJS FI/Z'A PLItATIo. ; use of i.�[ pat To OeTENr,ON PIPES w ieRE /LeQUIRE ..l, VICD IN ROAD /VW, 12CINP0FL.ED LONARC1E (AP Mv0r8e PE4IL N2P FOR 4O.100Xi- LoAP/NU oN. LOMP.KTBD PILL.. . Psraual Tank MP Ara Risers • loos among shown Mew, •• t'• 2•• 4GL alaeP. 8101 .AGOG PIA . . rAM waxen EMI fo LIN PA CAP FRAmed110(P N1IEO PG,RN7I •) MOUNTS cveg 241' 0. _ec eirreie Oremmc, ?•D•• Etteh.e ops• " ZZ bassi �(4o7 r4— iP «•r wine.. •()ETEIP1PU TNJ • Vv RAND VIE& W SOALe P i0400e0 LPYAI0'E me (70 Ile OESIy4E0 By�RS )o:oo roil- H2O WHEPL: SrewopARD c,xO4.0rM,H• LOAome, RINO ol COMPAcr0D 220 KLE0 DI0 ape M15d FI.. EMI* To 60 P uRe INTeo,RALLy SLIRj.Nr 'A�L 6 (Rrov.oe Irareaa./.r !.!1• . 42' Du. L1)P ROOK AND olb...er wrrw MEW PAC....141 9 i () - � ATE, META/. /RIPE DAP Amu Rims 3.s Mims 7.4.88 • TYP Plan View WY® ORA.21 CR PEA GRAVEL t PLACs r or 114• To . Or @Arm moot OR .2A 0RAw.t 507,4 Noes Cr PERCH TO ae•• • COWL %WM. t. 'AOPCC WALL COWER PORO, Cr 0'wr =MLA 440 MOE. 0.700 OE{ LrmS Cr M 0 0VtL N CODER TO M N TON AN GO MM OVERLAP or 2 03 u ORO. N 112 m Cwaee sec7wa 1-1A4.JI40LE . rer'S 12" 0.4. wELO o • SSC . 7131.173 a MANHOLE 5-rePS 28" min. dim. Its,/ OanGeNIN rAMK /7.0 . k Datmdon Tank Sire . raja r ruin. Ms. sir veal 23.03- = v, II II II I— i I: 11� -� TI 11 I^ -4_rJ' mea I' mea l SILTATION FENCE DETAIL 1Or2cs: - NQ6 -,.50 1. u56 2,40(4 .44 5 /4.1 • To ORINb FRAIRQTd GRAOE.. e. AU. 0E1.2 72 65 ^i3.1141uu4I ON 4ALEANIZED d ROPL1AL7103700 . ;TRa3n40Nr L .e EE.rTEa:) Section A —A NO SCALE CB' 3 TYPE R /rr IL. • 21.00 /E /N EL. • -10.39 CAE Our EL. • 16./9 CO'2 TYPE X • NOTE. AlINNr ours rarremn..sa01,4 2.dpaopI•Rdt.O _ RNY EL. • 1170 n.d.mnalt mud (Truman I or boor/ - /5 IN. Ec. • 14.3V - _ /E OUT EL. • 19./9' . - . ` i INSTALL P /(TER IASNCE- ALOAG R "'� - 912.601 Ft 3 SE - PROPIR711 LINE. „I' VICINITY MAP t (10 r CAP r1 ST/Na Yirl e . r /e✓ % � ..t 1 EDG[ Of rM:77.' NO I DETENT /ONND 1 L WET.AREA.reel ° °11):046 •'e vu.k t \II\ *9 OP M/ j, / V.1 ;1' 1 1 \. ally +c1 N� /c 1` / / 4) A 4 /� iw -r/5;6/e_ - ;.,/ /er 1144 / if w5TING 2 51LRY 4P♦LE5 ¶ e vice 9LGG oFFIce Wr 8 ' C Sc' BI f 02 OCEA /P, MAA I.rr. .9rPoo. .. - "1"/Pe N Sinew KLh12E � tce • 4000 2e'140 SF' EX /STD ENT/ONAAVO To EE r/ can .. EN9T'CB 4 TYPE. ,� . as I k t 2/004 20 EL '2/ IY I NEW /F /N 17.59 ,-our ` 1 III • New ASP. C'ONG • FAN6ME (FUTURE) , a� e C(2v5;e0 Foci< - CB' / 7YPE z GRATE CL.. • E3. SO /E IN EL • 2/ 79 1E Out EL., 2 /.S9 579.56' EsIST. '2.4' A.C. PRIVeWAy PROP,©SED: SHOP / WAREHOUSE SITE PREA s -1 ACES t JUN. 27 1990 j CITY. C.- tUI WiLA PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWIA JUN 1.1 1990 PERINI/CENTER sheet