HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-23-89 - LOURIE CONTRACTING - ALPINE ESTATES SUBDIVISIONALPINE ESTATES
SUBDIVISION REZONE
FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES
65T" AVE. S. & S. 152ND PL.
EPIC -23 -89
City of Tukwila
Steven M. Mullet, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
January 16, 2001
Alton S. White Jr.
14202 149t1i Place SE
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Request for Public Record
The Department of Community Development is in receipt of your request for public
record /documents dated January 16, 2001.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires prompt responses to requests for public
record. The City has five (5) business days in which to respond by:
• Providing for inspection and /or copying of the record(s);
• Acknowledging receipt of the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the
time necessary to respond; or
• Denying the request. Ha request is denied, a written statement must accompany the
denial setting out the specific reasons therefor.
Your request has been copied and distributed to affected departments for the gathering of
necessary document. Once gathered, the documents will be forwarded to the City Attorney's
Office for review to ensure no portion of the documents are exempt from the public records
statute. Therefore, we anticipate having the documents ready for your review or a response from
the City Attorney's Office on or by February 16, 2001. We will call you as soon as the records
are available.
Your time and patience are appreciated as we work to fulfill your request.
Sin erely,
5114 -.-_ -
WyiYetta Bivens
Department of Community Development
cc: Bob Baker
Tammy Beck ,
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
•
0
•
City of%Tukwila
Department of Community
February 18, 2000
Alton White
14202 149`1' Place SE
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Request for Public Record
evelopment
Steven M Mullet, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
Thank you for your recent request for public record. We anticipate having the files
available for you to look at by February 28, 2000. We will call you as soon as they are
available.
We appreciate your patience as we process your request in the most efficient manner.
Sincerely,
/e-e(4./y..4
Wynetta Bivens
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
c: Jane Cantu
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 0 Fax: 206 - 431 -3665
$
•
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS
DATE: IFC p r a 6 o cs
NAME: %t 5 D1■C S •W g.
MAILING
ADDRESS:
f�� -ate- ig5-
PHONE: ' �L5 — 3� (1
FAX #: -SA-T coil
TYPE OF RECORDS YOU ARE REQUESTING:
❑ Building Permit ❑ Mechanical Permit ❑ Utility Plans
Date Range: Date Range: Date Range:
Permit #: Permit #: Permit #:
❑ Building Plans ❑ Utility Permit ❑ Land Use File
Date Range: Date Range: Date Range:
Permit #: Permit #: Permit #:
❑ Other:
Orig. Bldg. Name/Occupant:
SITE ADDRESS: ilvv-v40
N P► u G E s`Y Wrt S
N( Current Tenant Name: N
PLEASE DESCRIBE IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE WHAT YOU ARE
LOOKING OR OR D COPIES OF:
YOUR REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS WILL BE RESPONDED TO WTTHIN'FIVE WORKING
DAYS.(RCW42.17.320)
(There will be a .15 cent per page charge, oversized items will be assessed additional fees.) RCW 42.17.260
Date Received: 2-8=2- Staff Initials: w R
City of Tukwila.
Department of Community Development
June 17, 1993
Shupe Holmberg
Baima Holmberg Inc.
1505 N.W. Gilman Blvd., Suite 7
Issaquah, WA 98027
Re: Alpine Estates Subdivision (88 -1 -SUB),
Rezone (L92- 0002)-and
Environmental Review (EPIC- 23 -89).
9j `',, '_
W
John Butts; Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
Dear Mr. Holmberg,
I have discussed the continued lack of progress on this
application with Tom Redding of your office on June 7th. Tukwila
staff have provided you with a consistent set of design standards
for,plan revisions over the_past years, with our last detailed
comments sent on March 11,199.2 (attached).
The plans received in response to these comments were received on
March 1, 1993 and continue to be deficient. This situation
culminated in a City staff decision to meet with you'and actually
participate in doing the work needed to.prepare acceptable plans.
Unfortunately, your staff canceled this meeting and has not
rescheduled despite an acknowledgement of responsibility, an
agreement to reschedule, and my reminder calls.
As discussed with Mr. Redding, we have: now passed the deadline to
receive acceptable plans need for a public hearing before the
Planning Commission in July. The following actions still need to
be completed:
a. meet with Tukwila staff to get feed back from the last
submittal,
b. work with Tukwila staff at that meeting to develop
actual plans (optional), and
.c. submit complete plans for.review.
Plan submittal does not to.mean that a positive recommendation is
guaranteed; merely that a complete review will be possible.
Tukwila staff cannot to continue reserve staff time or a Planning
Commission hearing date open for this project. This would be
unfair to other projects which are ready for review. Therefore,
your project is being put on hold until vesting expires or the
action items above are initiated.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington _98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
Alpine Estates Subdeision
June 17, 1993
Page 2 - -
Future submittals will be treated, as a new project. This means
that project applications which are current at the time of your
resubmittal or request for further review, will be allocated
staff:time and hearing dates before review time will be
considered for Alpine Estates. .Alpine Estates will be allocated
further review time as staff become available.
Please feel free to contact me at 431-3684 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
ATTACHMENT
Assoc. Planner
cc:Public Works Dept., Dan Lourie, Fire Dept.
file: alpine\shupe
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
Letter of Transmittal
To: -1--)1 v■.) j
Date: .� _ I - 993
Job No: $`i-DO
RECEIVED
CM( OF TUKWIL A
MAR 1' 1993
PERMIT
We are sending you ; attached ❑ under separate cover via CEIVTF
No. Copies Description
/0 317r pz,VA/ /riz/xi-P -/ z /e,?t- "4W4 -P'/44
2 h 4i/v AL - s
r/vylr 9 A) w47tn,7 41- £i/ /t_Gy C.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
for approval ^ approved as noted ❑ approved as submitted a as requested
REMARKS:
copy to: signed:
7)0b1 c.7
100 FRONT STREET SOUTH • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 -3817 • 206/392 -0250
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
Control..
Epic File No.Lq -[)C)Oa
Fee4100.00 Receipt No.
*22-5 .q2
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Alpine Estates Subdivision
2. Name of applicant:
Lourie Contracting
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
P.O. Box 69283, Seattle, WA. 98168 -9283 206 - 241 -4837
4. Date checklist prepared: June 12, 1989 (Revised 2- 22 -93)
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Spring, 1993
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. _
6/3/89 IES Assoc. wetlands evaluation & impacts analysis and 2/2/90
IES Assoc. wetlands mitigation plan; 11/30/89 Dept. of army letter
OYB -4- 013259. Wetlands report by Logan & Jones.
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. Rezoning from R -1 -12.0 to R -1 -7.2
-2-
i C u V 7)
6111,2 1 ISM
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNITY
• •
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Metro, DOE
Land altering permit - City of Tukwila: Nation wide permit
(army corps of engineers) building permits; utilities /street use /access
permits; rezone.
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.
10 lot subdivision 5.7 acres for residential home sites. This environmental
checklist is also in response to the proposed rezone requirements. The
proposed rezone is from an existing zoning of R- 1- 12.0 -to t-7T.
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.
65th Avenue South & South 152nd. Place Tukwila Washington
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes
-3-
V
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN410 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
Steep slopes
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 53%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Silty sand
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.
There will be 3000 cubic yards of excavation
required for roadway- construction.
siro
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Yes, however a temporary erosion and sedimentation
control plan will be prepared to minimize erosion.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
25%
-4-
Mg 1 1593
COMMUNITY
DEVELGPM ENT
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
TESC plan will be prepared
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the
the proposal (i.e., dust,
industrial wood smoke) during
the project is completed?
describe and give approximate
air would result from
automobile odors,
construction and when
If any, generally
quantities if known.
Dust and exhaust from automobiles and tractors
during construction. Exhaust from automobiles
and possible wood smoke from future Homes.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
Automobile exhaust from apartment complex and
roadways.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
None
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? . If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into. There are two seperate
wetland areas on this site; identified as Tract "A"
and "B" on the drawing. Tract „T"- is- Located approximately
in the middle of the southern portion orfHe site.
Tract "A" is located in the western portion of the site.
A small stream runs north to south along the western side of
the site, in Tract "A ". Flow goes into I- 405 /Gilliam Creek/
Green River.
•
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- site plans included
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. _
Fill and dredged materials will not be placed
in, or removed from surface water or wetlands.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
Runoff from new street will flow througIT
biofiltration into wetland.
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• SEvaluation 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.
Footing drain around house foundations will
direct subsurface water into the storm system.
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.___ --
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water from new roadway, homes & driveways.
A small portion of roadway runoff will be collected
and sent into the city storm system. The majority
of storm water runoff will be collected and directed
through biofiltration and into wetland To replenish
wetlands.
2) Could waste materials enter ground
waters? If so, generally describe.
Biofiltration, oil /water separator
wilI
eliminate any materials from enter
water from street runoff.
•
or surface
re�Tc uce o`r
entering ground or surface
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Storm detention will be provided to controTpeacT
runoff rate from site. Biofiltration and —6117x75-ter
separators will reduce /eliminate poIrutants and—Preserve
water quality.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of
site:
vegetation found on the
XX deciduous tree: •er, maple) aspen, other
yX_— evergreen tree: ® ce arj, pine, other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
The site will be cleared for home construction
The wetland area will be enhanced per Logan & Jones
mitigation plan.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None
•
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Lawns and flower beds wi11.Q planted
around home sites.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbirds other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• III Evaluation for
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.
Electricity and natural gas are available to
the site. Individual home owners could use sTTar
or wood heat.
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:
Homes will be constructed to conform current
energy codes
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.
N/A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
N/A
Agency Use Only
■
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic from busy roadways and apartments.
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.
Noise from construction during daylight hours
and from homes during all hours. Construction
_equipment will meet Federal and State noise level
standards. and city noise ordinance.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Site is undeveloped. N jacent sites are
--apartment-complexes and residential homes.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site?
R -1 -12.0 f( 'R .2os1E w rp•bw.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the Site? Low density w /special density consideration
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
N/A
9.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes, the west side of the site has been
designated as wetlands
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
10 Homesites
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
Diane
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Project conforms to existing and
comprehensive plan zoning.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing?
10 Middle income homesites
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building . material(s) proposed?
35'
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
The site will be landscaped after
construction.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it main)y occur?
Glare from windows of homes during daylight
hours. Light from homes 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?
Light and glare from adjR0-114517. and homes.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:.
None
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Fort Dentpark and Green River are 174 mile east,
Tukwila Park on 65th Ave. S. 1/4 mile South, and a
trail on the west side of the development.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: None
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 road will connect to 65th Avenue South
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
No. One Mii—Frock
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Add 15 places. None
•
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).
One dead -end street, running through project
site to serve homes.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
100 trips. Peak volumes will occur dining normal- -
peak traffic times.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
None
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.
Yes. All public services will be increased
to serve 10 more homesites.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
The new access street and utility corridor will be
--developed to paTic— standards tor turnover to the
City as part of this . suEalT.7 ion.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. s.l��t>ii1ities_currently ay.ai1able..at-- the_.s.i.te:
(electri ity',.(iatural gam, water, efuse servic;
re- ep one, sanitary sewer-, septic system,— other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Water, sewer, storm, electric, gas, cable TV,
and phone services wT1T1e extended-10 serve
the property.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that,the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC/•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise?
Additional storm runoff would occur due to
additional impervious area. An increase in
emissions could occur if woodstoves are used
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Storm detention will be provided to control
storm runoff. Woodstoves would be constructed
to meet current emission standards.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Small animals on site would leave. Exisiting
trees would be cleared.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
-- For home construction. Both wetland areas
will remain.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resou0 rces?
1 new homes would use energy for heat
and light.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resources are:
Homes would be constructed to meet current energy
code requirements.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
Permit has been obtained from the Army Corps
of Engineers (OYB -4- 013259) To fill small
wetland, however, this will not be done.
On site wetlands will remian.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
N/A
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
N/A
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
N/A
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
10 new homes would put increase in 3eman3-
for all public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
None
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
N/A
:';TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA•
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
Evaluation for
Annnry tICG fnly
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT • • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
To provide 10 new homes for middle to upper middle
income families
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
New homes will be constructed in a different locale.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
This site is preferred. All utilities and public
services are available and the site is near two
freeways.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
4
- 1 2 r R I I G . 1 "F.' B i i i r�'f �x H E t i'i C a
• •
Baima & Holmberg Inca
ENGINEaR9 do gURYEY0R9
100 ?WONT 'TREE? SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3817 (208) 392-0250
FAX P (20e) 391 -3055
ATTN:
DATE:
FRO*
DOCUMENVSUmJECT:
REMARKS:
PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 2"
FAX NI: A791
MAR 201
CITY OF ' UKW LA
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
March 20, 1992 54 -001
Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd Ste 100
Tukwila WA 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
Dear Darren:
I received you fax regarding additional information needed
for Alpine Estates. We have the information for the
utilities, but some time is going to be needed to complete
the grading plan. Given our current work load, we will be
able to provide the information to you the week of March
30th.
Please call me at 392 -0250 if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Very truly yours,
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
W. Shupe Holmberg, PE PLS
WSH:sls
cc: Dan Lourie, Lourie Contracting
M OM
MAR 24
1992
c676F-TdKvilLA
ANNlNC
100 FRONT STREET SOUTH • ISSAOUAH • WASHINGTON •' 8027 -3817 • 206/392 -0250
• _ •
� , City of Tukwila
1909
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
John W. Rants, Mayor
March 11, 1992
Baima &Holmberg
Shupe Holmberg
1505 N.W. Gilman Blvd
Suite 7
Issquah, Wa. 98027
RE: ALPINE ESTATES SUBDIVISION /REZONE /SEPA
Dear Mr. Shupe:
This letter is to summarize our meeting of Monday, March 9, 1992.
The following additional information is necessary for completion'of
the SEPA, Subdivision and 'Rezone applications:
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION /S
The current SEPA application does not include the rezone request.
Therefore, you need to either revise the narrative to reflect the
subdivision and rezone request, or submit two separate
Environmental Checklists because two appeals were filed on this
project. The SEPA and WAC laws asked for the combination of both
applications.
I have attached Public Works comments which you received at our
last meeting. ! �
When all SEPA issues have been addressed and a SEPA determination
made we will schedule your public hearing. All information
regarding the SEPA application must be submitted by Monday, March
17, 1992 12:00 noon.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
A revised site plan for the subdivision was received on January 15,
1992. The following necessary information was notlincluded and
must be submitted in complete form.
* Show the location of contemplated building pads and structures.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
* Show the existing trees over 6" in diameter, including their
species and provide a tree retention /replacement plan.
* Locate existing and proposed sewer, water lines, culverts, and
other underground facilities on the property and indicate pipe
sizes and grades. Public Works Department may assist you in
gathering this information.
* Provide existing contours (solid) and proposed contours (dotted)
at intervals of 5 -feet or less and referenced to United States
Coast and Geodetic Survey datum. All contour lines must extend at
least 100 -feet beyond the external boundaries of the property
proposed for subdivision.
* Provide the names, locations, widths, and other dimensions of
proposed streets, alleys, easements, parks and other open space in
the vicinity reservations and utilities together with the purpose
and conditions or limitations of such reservations clearly
indicated.
* Clearly indicate the source of water supply, method of sewage
disposal, and manner of surface run -off control.
* Provide (1) one (PMT) Photomaterial Transfer of the preliminary
plat reduced to 8 1/2 by 11 ".
REZONE APPLICATION
The rezone application submitted on January 15, 1992 did not
include the following information which is necessary to process the
application:
* Provide an Environmental Checklist if you wish not to combine
both requests into one application. If you apply separately, a fee
of $225.00 will be required. No public hearing can be scheduled
until a SEPA determination has been issued.
* (7) seven copies of the set of plans must be submitted with your
application. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30', with the north
arrow, legend, scale and date all identified on the plans. The
license stamps of the architect and landscape architect shall be on
each appropriate plan.
* Provide (1) PMT of each plan reduced to 8 1/2" by 11 ".
• •
If this does not accurately reflect the understanding reached at
our meeting or should you have additional questions regarding this
matter, please contact me 431 -3670.
Thank You
Darren Tnfilson, Assistant Planner
cc: R. Beeler, DCD Director
J. McFarland, City Administrator
G. Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
P. Fraser, City Engineer
M. Kenyon, City Attorney
D. Lourie, Property Owner
ATTACHMENT
CITY 1PF TUKWILA - PUBLIP WORKS DEPT.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665
TO:
DATE:
TITLE:
FROM: �
L;v.
-7
COMPANY:
,� /
Zi4gil S' ry�U/7
TITLE:
/ e/s3) itot -..„ L
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT:
ZC2)
FAX NO. CALLED:
391 -3"s
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMTI"1'ED,
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET:
SENT BY
(INITIALS): 1)9
SUBJECT: 9�/v6—
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
,541/
'efe" /47riire fri/c ‘,246.e,es
7iFe‘-•es.
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - 6300 Southcenter Blvd, TukwiI TWA 98188 - (206) 433 -0179
01/21/91
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack Pace /Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: March 9, 1992
SUBJECT: Alpine Estates Subdivision - PW Comments
The request for comments, with Environmental Checklist attached, for
the subject development was received by Public. Works today. A review
was also carried out today and comments are as follows:
Page 2, Item 9 - The permits required for this development are more
appropriately listed under Item 10, Page 3. Fill and Grade Permit is
now Land Altering Permit. After Building permits, change punctuation
to semi -colon rather than colon. The question presented under this
item needs to be appropriately addressed..
Page 3, Item 12 - Change South 152nd Street to South 152nd Place and
identify same on the site plan.
Page 3, Item 11 - This is a general comment on requirements for
adequately describing this proposal. Public Works /Fire need the
following information for adequately addressing this SEPA review for
the rezone. request:
A. Existing and proposed two (2) foot contours to
determine access grade, extent of land altering,
utility location suitability, etc.
B. Public right -of -way and easement widths and
locations for proposed turnover of
street /utilities to City. This includes the
turnaround area at the end of the new street.
C. Topography shall address site modifications for
dwelling units (identify elevation of lowest floor
elevation for each dwelling unit) and other
structures as appropriate, i.e., rockeries or
retaining walls.
D. Identify hydrant locations and provide- water
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433 -0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665
availability /analysis for pipe size if system is
dead - ended.
E. Show grades of proposed street and at interface
with 65th Avenue South. Proposed street grade
shall not exceed 15 %. Identify locations of curb
cut /driveways along with proposed driveway grades
(maximum 15 %). Parking pads shall not exceed 5%
in any direction.
F. Provide plans and profiles for utilities including
proposed and existing water, sewer and storm
drainage lines and mains, respectively. Show
service stubs for all utilities to include
materials, sizes and grades. (2% minimum for
sanitary side sewers.)
G. Identify proposed ownership of wetlands.
H
Development was to. address possibility of combined
access between Lots 1 & 2 and 9 & 10 in accordance
with previous discussions.
Page 4, Item 1.d - The expanded Geotechnical /Hydrological Report does
not address the extremely high moisture content (i.e., TP -6 and TP -8,
with moisture contents of 64.1% and 168.7 %, respectively). PW
comments on 2/21/90 question whether adequate mitigations have been
provided for the construction phase and final development product in
accordance with the Geotechnical Engineers Report of May 16, 1989.
Page 4, Item 1.e - Two foot existing and proposed contours need to be
shown on the site plan, including building site finished contours.
Any retaining structures shall be shown and. all lowest floor
elevations shall be provided in order to adequately respond to this
question. It does not appear that excavation associated with
structures has been included in the 3,000 cubic yard total.
Page 5, Item 3.a.1) - Add the two wetlands on this property which are
identified as tracts A and B. Also, identify that this flow goes into
I- 405 /Gilliam Creek /Green River.
Page 6, Item 3 - Proposed contours need to demonstrate that fill and
dredged material not be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands.
Page 6, Item 6 - Runoff from new street will flow through
biofiltration into wetland.
Page 7, Item b.1) - Because of high moisture content, this item needs
to be address to accommodate construction of the tuildings and
roadway.
Page 7, Item c.1) - This is incorrect. A portion of the runoff will
be routed into the City system, while the other portion will flow
through the biofiltration to replenish the wetlands.
Page 8, Item 2 - Biofiltration, oil /water separator should reduce or
eliminate any materials from entering ground or surface waters from
street runoff.
Page 8, d - Add: biofiltration and oil /water separators to
reduce /eliminate pollutants and preserve water quality.
Page 11, b, 2) - Will meet City Noise Ordinance.
Page 14, 12,a - Identify Tukwila Park on 65th Avenue South and also
trail on the west side of the development.
Page 14, 12,c - In past environmental Public Works requested
coordination with Recreation Department to complete discussions for
opportunities for trail connection from 65th to trail to 62nd Avenue
South. Question: Has that coordination occurred?
Page 16, b - Change to one dead -end street.
Page 16, 15,b - Develop public street and utilities corridor for
turnover as public to the City as part of this subdivision.
xc: Don Williams
Development File: Alpine Estates
Read File
Attachment (1)
PF /amc:11:alpine
March 2, 1992
Alpine Estates sequence of events for subdivision the activity
dates will begin with the most current documents.
1/3/92 letter from applicant stating to revised the following
1. subdivision
2. sepa
3. addendum geotech report
4. site plan
5. preliminary plat map
6. preliminary utility map
7. submit rezone application
8. rezone site plan
12/13/91 received revised geotech report.
12/12/91 letter to applicant indicating the following information
is necessary for completion of all applications.
12/3/91 received letter from applicant indicating which procedure
they are planning to take.
12/2/91 letter to the applicant summarizing our meeting on
11/25/91.
11/8/91 letter to applicant summarizing our meeting on 10/29/91.
11/1/91 received letter from applicant indicating they which to
apply for a PRD as a recommendation from staff.
10/15/91 comments from P.W. based on a letter submitted by Mitch
Legel of Baima & Holmberg in September 19, 1991. This letter
requested a "commitment of acceptance" from the P.W. on the take
over of the proposed open space & tracts A /B. As a conclusion the
following were P.W. response.
1. P.W. suggested the applicant either propose or not
propose the turnover of Tracts A & B; City then will
determine whether to accept Tracts A & B. Applicant
shall provide rationale for acceptance with request for
turnover as part of the proposal.
2. public drainage system includes detention and quality
treatment facilities which control flows into wetlands.
However, the City taking on maintenance of Tracts A & B
is an extra cost and manpower requirement to the City.
City Staff recommends, based on your proposal -only the
City Council can determine at the time of request in the
PRD whether to accept Tracts A& B. Acceptance of Tracts
A & B is under City Council authority.
10/4/91 memo from P.W. on PRD process/ scope of work needed for
completion.
9/19/91 received letter from applicant requesting a "Commitment of
Acceptance" from P.W. on Tracts A & B.
9/19/91 phone conversation w /Mitch of Baima & Holmberg on time time
frame for complete submittal for PRD application.
9/17/91 meeting for complete sepa submittal
9/13/91 memo from meeting describing which direction this project
was heading.
9/11/91 sent letter to applicant requesting them to decide which
direction this project is headed and if they wish to withdrawal
their applicant since they missed the 6/27/91 deadline.
7/30/91 discussed w /Mitch of Baima & Holmberg on Tract A survey
staking that was done on 1/9/91.
6/27/91 mailed applicant letter wish them clarify which direction
the project was heading.
8/23/91 reviewed wetland delineation plan submitted by applicant.
This plan is inaccurate and additional information has been
requested.
7/3/91 faxed wetland delineation plan comments to Dan Lourie.
6/23/91 faxed all written comments from inter - department to Dan
Lourie.
5/10/91 had a meeting to discuss PRD vs SUB
5/9/91 received a memo from P.W. on revised wetland survey.
2/12/91 Vernon Umetus of DCD have a telephone conversation w /Jerry
Adams of the Audobon Society.
2/11/91 mailed letter to applicant following our meeting 1/29/91.
1/23/91 Dan Lourie called to reschedule the meeting. The meeting
was changed to 1/29/91.
1/22/91 no show for the scheduled meeting at 2:45 pm.
1/5/91 received letter from Shupe of Baima & Holmberg expressing
thanks for staff rescheduling the meeting. Also indicating that .
the wetland study will be submitted by 2/28/91.
1/4/91 faxed Shupe of Baima & Holmberg a summary of Jones and
Strokes wetland delineation plan.
12/7/90 mailed applicant letter summarizing our meeting on 12/5/90.
6/8/90 mailed a letter to Gerry Adams of the Audubon Society
indicating we received his written comments on the sepa appeal.
5/21/90 mailed applicant letter summarizing our meeting on 5/18/90.
4/30/90 received a written response from City Attorney, Laura
Anderson on the adjacent property using the subject property access
point. (Property Rights)
4/23/90 received comments from D.O.E. on SEPA determination.
4/21/90 received letter from Dan Lourie for the placement of
trailer on subject property w /out having the primary use existing
(dwelling). .:
4/18/90 faxed public notice that the public hearing has been
rescheduled.
4/4/90 received letter from Al White property owner of subject
property, requesting the City to review the issue of "Property
Rights"
4/20/90 received appeal letter from Maple Tree residents opposing
the subdivision /sepa application.
4/20/90 received appeal letter from Seattle Audubon Society.
4/11/90 memo from P.W. from resubmittal.
4/11/90 MDNS issued
4/4/90 received revised submittals.
11/27/89 requested a letter from applicant on the intent of this
application.
A. BACKGROUND
Contr,No.
Epic File No.
Fee -4.- 9.78,8 Receipt No.
/2Z'S ,02
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST fl 1 40
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Alpine Estates Subdivision
2. Name of applicant: Lourie Contracting
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
P.O. Box 69283. Seattle WA 98168 -9283 206 - 241 -4837
4. Date checklist prepared: June 12. 1989 (Revised 12- 20 -91)
5.. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Late Summer 1992
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. _
6/3/89 IES Assoc. wetlands evaluation & impacts analysis and 2/2/90
IES Assoc. wetlands mitigation plan; 11/30/89 Dept of army letter
OYB -4- 013259. Wetlands report by Logan & Jones.
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.
Fill and Grade permit - City of Tukwila: Nation wide permit
(Army Corps of Engineers) Building permits: Utilities /Street use /Access permits
-2-
^n n. n'7
JAN 1 5 1992
CITY OF TUKW L A
PLANNING DEPT.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Metro, DOE
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.
10 lot subdivision 5.7 acres for residential home sites.
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.
65th Avenue South & South 152nd Street Tukwila Washington
13. Does the proposal lie within an.area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
•
Yes
T(1 BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANII
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
Steep slopes
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 53%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Silty sand
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.
There will be 3000 cubic yards of excavation
required for roadway construction.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Yes, however a temporary erosion and sedimentation
control plan will be prepared to minimize erosion.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
25%
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• - 411 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
TESC plan will be prepared
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Dust and exhaust from automobiles and tractors
during construction. Exhaust from automobiles
and possible wood smoke from future homes.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
Automobile exhaust from apartment complex and
roadways.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
None
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
A small stream runs north -south along the western
side of the site.
• • • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
YPs - sitp p1a,.s included
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.
N/A
4) Will ..the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or .diversions? Give general
description, _.purpose, and approximate. quan-
tities, if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge.
No
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or .will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
None
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe.
Storm water from roadway - Homes and driveways
will be collected and sent into the City storm
system.
• IIIEvaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe.
No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
Storm detention will be provided to control
Beak runoff rate from site.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
XX deciduous tree: . •er: mao , aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir cedar, pine, other
XX shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
The site will be cleared for home construction
The wetland area will be enhanced per Logan &
Jones mitigation plan.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other _
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
Lawns and flower beds will_b2 planted
around home sites.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbirds other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
None
•
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity and natural gas are available to
the site. Individual home owners could use so ar
or wood heat.
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:
Homes will be constructed to conform current
energy codes
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe.
No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. •
N/A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
I) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic from busy roadways and apartments.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
Noise from construction during daylight hours
and from homes during all hours. Construction equipment
will meet Federal and State noise level standards.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
None
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Site is undeveloped. Adjacent sites are
apartment complexes and residential homes.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
No
c. Describe any structures on the site.
None
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site?
R -1 -12.0
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Low density w /special density consideration
9.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site?
N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Yes, the west side of the site has been
designated as wetlands
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
10 Homesites
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
.project displace?
None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any:
None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Project conforms to existing and
comprehensive plan zoning.
illEvaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing?
10 Middle income homesites
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing.
None
c. Proposed measures
impacts, if any:
None
reduce or control housing
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?
35'
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
The site will be landscaped after
construction.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Glare from windows of homes during daylight
hours. Light from homes during evening hou3-S.
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?
Light and glare from adjacent apt and homes.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Noy e
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
Fort Dentpark and Green River are
1/4 mile east
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the.project or applicant, if any:
None
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use. Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next'to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: None
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 road will connect to 65th Avenue South
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop?
No. One lock
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
Add 15 places. None
• _ • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not -
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
One street running through project site to serve homes
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
100 trips. Peak volumes will—occur during
normal peak traffic times.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
None
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.
Yes. All public services will be increased
to serve 10 more homesites.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
None
• -- • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. lities currently a -1.ab1ei -.at —the cite:
electrisi ? natural ga5! eater, refuse service,_,
ep one, sanitary sewer), septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Water, sewer, storm, electric, gas, cable TV,
and phone. services will be extended to serve
the property.
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 mace its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. •
TO.BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise?
Additional storm runoff would occur due to
additional impervious area. An increase in
emissions could occur if woodstoves are used.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
Storm detention will be provided to control
storm runoff. Woodstoves would be constructed
to meet current emission standards.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
Small animals on site would leave. Exisiting
trees would be cleared.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
For home construction Both wetland areas
will remain.
III- • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural resources?
10 new homes would use energy for heat
and lieht.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural recourses are:
Homes would be constructed to meet current energy
code requirements.
4. Hoy. .would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat; historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands?
Permit has been obtained from the Army Corps
of Engineers (OYB -4- 013259) To fill small
wetland, however, this will not be done.
On site wetlands will remian.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans?
N/A
• Ill = . Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area:
N./ A
How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan?
• N/A
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities?
10 new homes would put increase in demand
for all public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are:
None
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment.
N/A
III _ • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: •
BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN4
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal?
To provide 10 new homes for middle to upper
middle income families.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives?
New homes will be constructed in a differnt locale.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:
This site is preferred. All utilities and public
services are available and the site is near two
freeways.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan?
No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
January 3, 1992 54-001
Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila WA 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
Dear Darren:
We are essentially complete with the revised
subdivision/rezone application for Alpine Estates and are
awaiting a check in the amount of S700.00 from Dan Lourie so
that the plans can be resubmitted to the City.
We will be submitting the following documents:
1. Revised Subdivision Application
2. Revised Environmental Checklist
3. Addendum Letter to Geotechnical Report
4. Revised Subdivision Site Plan
5. Revised Preliminary Plat Map
6. Revised Preliminary Utility Map
7. Rezone Application
8. Rezone Site Plan
9. Check for S700.00
Thank you for your patience
Very truly yours,
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
W. Shupe Holmbe , PE PLS
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392-0250
Geo f� Engine
rs MEN
0
[DECi39i 1
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
P.O. Box 69283
Seattle, Washington 98168
Attention: Mr. Dan Lourie
December 13, 1991
Review Comments
Revised Plat Configuration
Proposed Alpine Estates
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 1559- 003 -R07
Geotechnical,
Geoenvironmental and
Geologic Services
This letter presents our review comments regarding the geotechnical
aspects of the proposed plat configuration for the proposed Alpine Estates
development in Tukwila, Washington. We reviewed the drawing titled "Alpine
Estates, South 153rd Place - Utilities - Plan /Profile" and dated July 3,
1991 with Revision 1 dated July 30.,1991.
We reviewed the proposed plat configuration with respect to the
steepness and height of the planned cuts and fills. In our opinion, the
proposed configuration has been prepared in substantial compliance with the
recommendations presented in our report dated April 24, 1989.
We note that the roadway cut may encounter bedrock in places. The
integrity of this bedrock should be evaluated by our firm during
construction. It may be feasible to increase the planned slope of the
excavation within the rock.
The present configuration of the plat appears to avoid any construction
on the soft soils in wetland Tracts 'A' and 'B'. The new alignment of the
road is located to the north of Tract 'B', and it ends east of Tract 'A'.
This requires a substantial amount of fill between approximately
stations 1 +50 and 5 +00.
We recommend that all fill placed on existing slopes greater than 6H:1V
(horizontal to vertical) be properly keyed into the native medium dense to
dense silty sand or bedrock. This can be accomplished by cutting 4- to
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861 -6000
Fax (206) 861 -6050
Printed an recycled; paper.
•
Geo killEngineers
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
December 13, 1991
Page 2
8- foot -wide horizontal benches into the existing slope and placing and
compacting lifts of fill on these benches. Fill placed on slopes flatter
than 6H:1V need not be benched into the slope. Prior to placing fill on the
slope, we recommend that all sod, vegetation and surficial topsoil be
removed from the slope surface. The fill should be placed as structural
fill according to the recommendations in our April 24, 1989 report.
As stated in that report, we recommend that the earthwork for this site
be completed during dry weather. The site soils contain significant amounts
of fine material (passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) and are easily disturbed
and will be nearly impossible to compact when wet.
We recommend that our firm provide monitoring services during the
earthwork portion of the . construction to observe and evaluate subgrade and
fill performance, and to determine if our recommendations are correctly
interpreted in the field.
We trust that this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions
or need additional information, please call.
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
DEA:WRC:cs
Two copies submitted
Douglas E. Argo
PP/``
rr))oj ect Engineer
William R. Clevenger
Associate
Printed an recycled paper.
• ".
a7.1tUrngi''Lla11 701
CSDT SOILS 11.1. -(01-07•PC7.
NERE7 LOCA01,1 AM C.111
70 SINSWEtra H071, 014011ES
. nre
LF '70 al
I ■ I
. .
• OA
• •
Sala.
SO. 153RD PLACE
0:11410111 1017DI5N. r
SCAM NOME I' 4/S
*CRT.
1•101E, -00010701 PERU. 000,10/105 81 P.AUSED 1-0-01
PEDVALOPIED VEDA. a0U/E(.11(11-1ECT 8) PLA00*:11 7.01.11!
-ORANGE 17.001110 P1.PCED 107 007L0110I WOW/A.,
TELL1718 110041100 PLACED PT 0.0301 (AE.'
-0*1.11 POWS NEMO 001L1110 MANY (TRACT 0)
REPRESENT ELAGUN. 100050010
`6c1-1-5013
.00
.00
1.0
0,00
tt.A. rPoP
tu., 3,.1196
IPPROWL
ADO NOID VIS TOIOULA
DATE
07-03-11
Ele
68-001
ISEPPIED ST
Balms & Holmberg Inc.
ENGINEERS a 1000111010
gm a. aura Sm. swot wimp,. 14••=2/011 *00 OM) - 030
DOOM
00 MEN SY CHOSCED
M.04/41. PS.
*00
LOURIE CONTRACTING INC.
6731 tIVC 3.11‘r
PM=
ALPINE ESTATES
21*0000*07
SO. 153R0 PL — URUTIES — PLAN/PRORLE
SFR
1
-
MI ST
P. LLE
1.
-1_
P..
. 1..78
-
1.
100
ISO
I. STA
. CUP
-7A
VC
•••
T-
\-
110
7.
C,
I/II
Mill
1100 21 e
•-•--_
■-.....-
!
J
7
Ise
100
• ...1111
6-
t.'
t7
.=
1.
•
PIP
Al
!a' -
.......-
IP_Talk,.
.
.... p
01.
,
NW
NI
\
\
-
--2-.
1.
- _ 15E52
200LP
S•
P
tr-
80,132E0
as
—
• 1
.
lE•„/L1.0
1
1 •
83. /
.11apo
!IV
1.08 MI
r
:PS..*
• 112
MP
. 10E0 OUT
.00
.00
1.0
0,00
tt.A. rPoP
tu., 3,.1196
IPPROWL
ADO NOID VIS TOIOULA
DATE
07-03-11
Ele
68-001
ISEPPIED ST
Balms & Holmberg Inc.
ENGINEERS a 1000111010
gm a. aura Sm. swot wimp,. 14••=2/011 *00 OM) - 030
DOOM
00 MEN SY CHOSCED
M.04/41. PS.
*00
LOURIE CONTRACTING INC.
6731 tIVC 3.11‘r
PM=
ALPINE ESTATES
21*0000*07
SO. 153R0 PL — URUTIES — PLAN/PRORLE
SFR
1
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
December 12, 1991
Baima & Holmberg
Shupe Holmberg
1505 N.W. Gilman Blvd
Suite 7
Issquah, Wa. 98027
RE.: ALPINE ESTATES SUBDIVISION /REZONE
Dear Shupe:
PHONE # (206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
This letter is in response to the direction Alpine Estates will
take. Based on the information you have provided, the following
revisions and new applications are required.
1. Revise existing subdivision application
2. Under the Subdivision Application the setback
requirements cannot be reduced.
3. Revise existing SEPA Checklist
4. Revise existing Soils Report
5. Revise Geo- Technical Report
6. Submit revised wetland buffer areas
7. Submit a Rezone Application
8. Confirm with Public Works on Tract "B" used as
detention pond for strom drainage.
If all this information is complete and submitted by December 20,
1991, the City can schedule the Planning Commission public hearing
for Thrusday, February 27, 1992. We will have the rezone and
proposed subdivision public hearings the same evening. Should you
have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 431-
3670.
k You
Darren i son
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
P. Fraser, Senior Engineer
M. Kenyon, City Attorney
D. Lourie, Property Purchaser
A. White, Property Owner
D. Williams, Park & Recreation Director
B -. ima & Hclmber nc.
E . G I N E E R S & SURVEYORS
1606 N.W. GILLIAN BLVD., SUITE 7 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 (209) 992 --0260
l'AX (208) 3913086
FROM: -1‘11t/c/pe,/ t+D UenitYx
DOCUMENT /SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):
FAX Nn: 4 - B (a
LUNIR
DEC - 81991
Cf7 r C* (UKWILA
p.__ ANNING DEPT.
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
December 3, 1991
Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
Dear Darren:
DEC - 5 1991
CITY OF TUKVVILA
PLANNING DEPT.
54 -001
It is the owners intent to proceed with the development of
Alpine Estates as a single family subdivision. Concurrent
with the application will be a rezone application so that
the lots can be developed to R -1 7,200 standards even though
the density will not exceed the current R -1 12,000
standards. Following is a summary of the design guidelines
as we understand them:
1) Lots will be developed to R -1 7,200 standards.
2) Twenty -five foot wetland buffers will be provided
around the wetlands in Tracts "A" and "B ".
3) Tract "B" will be utilized for storm detention.
4) Reduced front building setbacks will be requested
for lots 2, 3 and 4 (variance).
The site plan, environmental checklist, geo- technical report
and wetlands study will be revised and submitted to your
office along with a rezone application by December 11, 1991.
Please call me at 392 -0250 if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Very truly yours,
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
J
W. Shupe Holmberg, PE PLS
WSH:sls
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392 -0250
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
December 2, 1991
Baima & Holmberg
Shupe Holmberg
1505 NW Gilman Blvd
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
PHONE M (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RE: ALPINE ESTATES SUBDIVISION /REZONE & PRD APPLICATION
Dear Shupe:
This letter is a summary of our last ;meeting (November 25, 1991)
concerning the direction for Alpine Estates.
We met with Dan Lourie, purchaser of the property, and a
representative of Baima & Holmberg Engineering Firm, to resolve
outstanding issues with regards to the subdivision /rezone versus
the PRD Application for Alpine Estates. Dan Lourie mentioned a
decision regarding his the two options will be decided by Friday,
December 6, 1991.
I explained the consequences for either transaction. The
subdivision with the rezone will still be vested with less
flexibility on the road design and setback requirements.
Under the PRD you will lose all vesting rights and the project will
need to comply with the SAO Standards. Under the PRD, City Council
will make the final determination as to whether the essential road.
The flexibility in the setbacks and road design may apply to the
project subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Vat
• •
I hope this clears any concerns you may have regarding either
process. Remember either process will take approximately the same
amount of time because both application will require a public
hearing by the Planning Commission and City Council. The quicker
you make a decision regarding these two options and revise your
existing applications and submit the new applications will
determine when your project can go before the Planning Commission.
Thank You,
Jack Pace
Senior Planner
cc: D. Wilson, Assistant Planner,
M. Kenyon, City Attorney
P. Fraser, City Engineer
D. Lourie, Property Purchaser
A. White, Property Owner
D. Williams, Parks & Recreation Director
CITAF TUKWILP, - PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
FAX TRANSMITTAL
FAX NUMBER: (206) 431 -3665
TO: 6/
c5- /.s
DATE:
/e0/
TITLE:
FROM:
,t% 4
Ze/4
COMPANY:
a/9/)-44z i4,z7 ,d, ���
TITLE:
1S
3
i-°6
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT:
FAX NO. CALLED:
1-59/- .365:5-
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'1-1'ED,
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET:
SENT BY
(INITIALS):nry.
SUBJECT:
)Crig
COMMENTS /MESSAGE:
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -0179
01/21;
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
November 8, 1991
Baima & Holmberg
Shupe Holmberg
1505 NW Gilman Blvd
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
PHONE # (206) 433 -1800
RE: Alpine Estates Subdivision /PRD Application
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
This letter is a summary of our last meeting October 29, 1991
concerning the direction for Alpine Estates.
We met with Dan Lourie purchaser of the property and Shupe Holmberg
of Baima & Holmberg Engineering Firm to resolve outstanding issues
with regards to the subdivision versus the PRD Application for
Alpine Estates. You concurred on Friday, November 1, 1991, that
you will submit a new PRD (Planned Residential Development)
Application. The staff has explained to the applicant that a PRD
Application would terminate all vesting rights from the S.A.O.
(Sensitive Areas Ordinance), however, you may still continue with
the subdivision application. The applicant implied they clearly
understood this process for a PRD Application.
The second key element is the applicant agreed to revised the
existing SEPA Checklist to reflect both wetlands, update soils
report, change the road design, address the steep slopes, and
dedication of tracts A & B possibly to the City. Remember, the
City Council will make the final decision to either accept /deny
both Tracts.
Under the S.A.O. standards, Tract B wetland is rated as Type 2 and
has a 50 -foot buffer requirement. The current site plan uses a
reduced 25 -feet buffer along the north portion of Tract B.
PAGE TWO ALPINE ESTATES
The S.A.O. specifies that approved buffer width will not be greater
than a 50 percent reduction and will not be granted on slope areas
of 15 percent or greater gradient. A reduced wetland buffer on a
steep slope area is not consistent with the S.A.O. standards. Jeff
Jones of Logan & Jones, your wetland biologist was informed several
times about staff concerns for the reduction of the wetland buffer
under the subdivision application exempted from the SAO standards.
The 25 -foot wetland buffer was reviewed under the vested
subdivision application. Again a reduced buffer around the steep
slope portion of Tract B is not recommended or consistent with the
S.A.O. This buffer area needs to be increased to 50 feet in the
PRD process.
The third key element is the hydrology report indicating how the
wetland hydrology is preserved and include analysis of interaction
of public drainage system to the wetland. The water from the
proposed public drainage system shall be completely treated prior
to entering the wetland. The wetland CAN NOT be used as a
detention facility for balancing increased runoff due to the
private or public drainage.
The fourth key element pertains to reducing the grade as much as
possible for the proposed road configuration. Also, it was
identified for lots 1,2,9 and combined driveways accesses could be
proposed as long as combined access easements were included on the
proposed PRD Application. The proposed street (South 153rd Place
road alignment) shall include the following:
1. Improve the site distance
2. Optimin road and access /grades
3. Create least disruption to the hillside
4. Each lot shall achieve access at or under 15% grade
5. The cul -de -sac may be moved further to the east
6. Configuration and access for lots 5,6,7 and 8 need
to be identified on the site plan.
7. Insert sidewalks on the north side of the
development and lots 8, 9 and 10.
The fifth key element concerns the loop water system. The Public
Works Department is recommending that this system be inserted into
the development. Again, this is not a requirement.
The sixth key element concerns the trail connection to the existing
62nd Avenue South trail. You may propose an easement for the trail
location and proposed that the Parks & Recreation Department
install the trail.
PAGE THREE ALPINE ESTATES
The seventh key element is the timeliness which we agreed upon.
Schedule: The schedule for final submit is listed below;
November 13, 1991 complete PRD Application submittal
November 21, 1991 DRC meeting
January 03, 1992 SEPA Determination
January 23, 1992 Planning Commission Public Hearing
February 1992 City Council Public Hearing
March /April 1992 Final PRD /Plat submittal
April 1992 Final approvals
Remember, the PRD Application shall comply to the S.A.O. standards
or continue with the vested subdivision application. Failure to
submit a complete application by Wednesday, November 13, 1991 shall
result in withdrawal of your application and all vesting rights
terminated.
Should you have additional questions regarding the above matters,
please contact me at 431 -3670.
Thank You
Darren ^i son
Assistant Planner
cc: R. Beeler, DCD Director
M. Kenyon, City Attorney
P. Fraser, City Engineer
D. Lourie, Property Purchaser
A. White, Property Owner
D. Williams, Park & Recreation Director
1-91 PR I 12 :0 5 E I M A & H O L M BE R G INC. P_ 0 1
•
•
Balms & Holmberg Inc.
NGINEERS & SURVEYORS
f
1505 N.R. GLMAN BLVD., SUITE 7 ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 99027 (200) 992 --0250
FAX j. (208) 391 -9056
TO:
AT1N:
DATE:
li
'Tv kWilad
WA. 4A.. L I)
10/91
FROM: 'tob'Y"] 0(51e-45
DOCUMENT /SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): _ Z
FAX Ns: 431
—Man)}
NOV 0119,91
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
BAIMA & HOLMBERG 11.
November 1, 1991
Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Alpine
Dear Darren:
VgA
NO V 0410 54 -001
E
CITY
OF 1uNviti,.P■
DEPT
PLANNIN G
As a follow up to our meeting on Tuesday, October 29, this
letter is to confirm the intent to proceed with the Alpine
Estates project as a PRD. As discussed at the meeting, the
PRD application and engineering plans will be submitted to
you no later than November 13, 1991.
The decision to go PRD instead of subdivision is 'based in
part on the PRD site plan which has been submitted to the
City by Logan & Jones. This site plan maintains a 50 ft.
buffer from the wetlands where possible, but uses a reduced
buffer along S. 153rd Place. This plan has been reviewed by
the Tukwila wetlands biologist and it is our understanding
that the buffering shown is acceptable under the mew SAO. We
are proceeding with the engineering plans, utilizing the
referenced PRD site plan.
Please call me at 392 -0250 if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Very truly yours,
BAIMA & HOLMB,,RG, INC.
W. Shupe Holmberg, PE PLS
cc: Dan Lourie
WSH:sls
NOV 04 1991
�b! 1 OP
PLLiat\I 'YNC r E'PT
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 • ISSAQUAH
• WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392 -0250
Y..-0E- TUKWILA
RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RouTiNctfORIVI_
PERMIT NO.:
JECT
RESS
E TRANSMITTED )o /'J5)'
FF COORDINATOR
YYG�-
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY Jc9---,%g) )44
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
ase review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below.
Indicate: crucial concerns by checking the box. next to the line(s) on which, that, concert is .noted.
Refer to Sept. 19, 1991 letter by Mitch Legel
Question 1: Public Works suggests the applicant either propose or not
propose the turnover of Tracts A & B; City then will determine
whether to accept Tracts A & B. Applicant to provide rationale for
acceptance with request for turnover as part of the proposal.
Public drainage system includes detention and quality treatment
facilities which control flows into wetlands. However, the City
taking on maintenance of Tracts A & B is an extra cost and manpower
requirement to the City. City Staff recommends, based on your
proposal - only the City Council can determine at the time of request
in the PRD whether to accept Tracts A & B. Acceptance of Tracts A &
B is under City Council authority.
- Items 2 & 3 can not be fully addressed until the development ,.
addresses the needed information requested in PRF October 4, 1991
Memo to Darren (copy was faxed to applicant 10/16/91). Specifically,
in Item No. 3 Public Works has requested in the past an equivalent to
sub - divisions code R/W (40 LF - width + 80 diameter for cul -de -sac) +
10' utility easement) - PRF.'. hasn't received adequate justification
for eliminating these standards to date with the exception of that
right -of -way . immediately fronting Tract B:',Wetland.
- Item # 4 is acceptable to public Works.
PF /amc:9:alpine _ _ _
DRC` reviewNrequested� i Plan submittal requested` fl'Plan
a prove.67
.an check date: 1 '9 / E(q f Comments prepared by../
- - -�1� --
MoalaD
•
CITY .OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUtiWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
TO:
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: October 4, 1991
Darren Wilson
PHONE # (206) 933.1800 Gary L. VanDasen, AIaynr
1-003 \\I-1 [-R •
OCT 0 41991
M E M O R A N D U M
SUBJECT: Alpine Estates P.R.D.
CITY OF T UKWILA.
PLANNING DEPT.
Per our recent meeting with Alpine Estates representatives, several
issues need resolution prior to approval of the preliminary P.R.D.
submittal. We are looking to Alpine Estates to provide that input
prior to Public Works final comments /approval. Included in this
resubmittal shall be the following:
1. A hydrology report indicating how wetland hydrology is preserved
and include analysis of interaction of public drainage system to
wetland. The water from the proposed public drainage system
shall be completely treated, prior to entering wetland. The
wetland CAN NOT be used as a detention facility for balancing
increased runoff due to private or public drainage.
The Scope of Hydrological Analysis to Include:
A. Public roadway drainage.
B. Private roof /foundation.
The Goals to be Met by Study:
A. Clean /treat water before discharge into wetlands.
B. Preserve original flow rates discharging into wetlands
for peak events and low flows.
2. To assure the P.R.D. is viable, lowest floor elevations along
with inverts /slopes or sewer, water and storm side services
serving all 10 lots to be identified on the P.R.D. plan. A
minimum of 2% grade for sanitary side sewers is required. Side
drains need to be connected into the public system prior to
discharge into wetlands.
3. Ron Cameron requested the developer review reducing the grade as
much as possible for the proposed road configuration. The
developer's representatives said they would do so. Also, it was
identified for lots 1, 2 9, and 10 combined driveways accesses
• •
could be proposed as long as combined access easements were also
identified on the proposed P.R.D. This needs to be worked out
with regards to the initial submittal. Goals of South 153rd P1.
road alignment: A) Improved site distance, B) Optimin road and
access, grades and, C) Least disruption to hillside.
4. Identify on P.R.D. plan, proposed grade for each access to assure
each lot can achieve access at or under maximum 15% grade.
Grades to public street and private driveways to be established
and approved as part of preliminary P.R.D. In a recent meeting
with the developer it was indicated the cul -de -sac may be moved
further to the east and put askew to provide for a better roadway
configuration and still afford reasonable access to lots 5, 6, 7,
and 8. This final configuration needs to be identified on
preliminary plat or P.R.D. plan for approval.
5. The City has, throughout the process with Alpine Estates,
requested a looped system by this development connecting the 8"
watermain in 62nd Avenue to the 8" watermain in 65th. Public
Works staff recommends this loop system be part of final
plat /P.R.D., but recognizes potential disruption to wetlands.
6. Trail required to link park to 65th Avenue South trail system.
7. Identify on the P.R.D. plan what tracts are proposed for
dedication to the City as part of P.R.D. /plat process,
(i.e. wetlands /open space and associated buffers).
Public Works Input: The public drainage system flowing
into biofiltration system for wetlands implies public
maintenance involvement for the well being of wetlands.
It is noted for Tract A, the wetland receives a combination of
upstream public and private drainage.
I hope these comments will be helpful to the developer and look
forward to the addressing of these comments so we may proceed with
the approval process.
1-1) 40 + 1 b T trri 1.
Rau nro tn.wv / (L/ w 5 iLrN 0/ (Jr iL /S p.3 L /J Wts-s _
G�3
t
PF /amc:8:Alpine
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
September 19, 1991 54 -001
City of Tukwila
Attn: Darren Wilson
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
Darren:
Once we have a "Commitment of Acceptance" from Ron Cameron
and /or Phil Frazer we'll be able to give you a realistic
time frame for submittal of the P.R.D. At this time, 4 to 6
weeks would probably be a safe estimate for submittal
following receipt of the "Commitment of Acceptance ".
Thank you, •
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
Mitch L ge
cc: Dan Lourie, Lourie Contracting Inc.
ML:sls
tae 111"/7fe
- /3.SZ
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027
AIMA & HOLMBERG 1
September 19, 1991 54 -001.
City of Tukwila
Attn: Ron Cameron /Phil Frazer.
.6300 Sontltcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: "Commitment of Acceptance" per request
ditr.•ittg meeting (9-18-91) Alpine Estates
Dear. Ron:
Please review the enclosed Roadway and Utilities Plan for
acceptance of the following conditions under P.R.D.
guidelines.
1) Will the City of Tukwila accept dedication of
Tract. A and Tract 8?
2) Alignment of Roadway, both horizontal and vertical as
shown. Sight stopping distance per K.C.R.S. is
defined as: Subaccess street 150' and minor
access as 125'. Our plan shows. 158' for
stopping sight distance.
3) Right- -of -Way width 32 feet, cul -de -sac radius 33 feet
Seep . attached.
4) Storm detention in Tract B.
Please contract myself or Shupe Holmberg at 392 -0250.
Thank you,
BAIMA &, HOLMBERG, INC.
Mitch Legel
cc: Dan .Lourie, Lourie Contracting Inc.
Darren Wilson, City of Tukwila
ML: s1.s
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE ti7 • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392 -0250
Se +LS 5c t-av, -OvIc4 tip
so r- Tv\ e ► t'e t) ; e,,L) q
?'° Tuk.w�l
NOTE: - ORIGINAL WETLAND BOUNDARY (TRACT B) FLAGGED 1-,9 -.91
REEVALUATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (TRACT B) FLAGGED. 7 -2'
- ORANGE FLAGGING PLACED BY WETLAND BIOLOGIST
YELLOW FLAGGING PLACED BY SURVEY CREW
-ANGLE POINTS ALONG WETLAND BOUNDARY (TRACT B
REPRESENT FLAGGING LOCATIONS
164
1130
14d
RAV
iii
v,:
CC
a .
lJ
ICO
10
150'
VC
ICD
N'j
LO
CO.
(1
0:
1••••••_
VC
• 164
PV STA
PV ELEV
= 1 +50
= 161.53
P'A STA _
PV ELEV =
c
h
0 +45
145.78
160
0
0
m
FROM CB 3
TO g10-S *ALE
205 LF 8'/ -SS Q 0.4%
4 12"0
0 1.0%
•
• .
' TYPE 1:
:GRATE
INV in 149'2°
2.0
156
152
148
0
w
144.
•
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: 9 / /9 / f/
AKIN TUE WEDt;
FRI SAT SUN
TIME: .36
A
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference L'1 Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing
Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT: id90,,/a 5�
SUMMARY: /kiGc...ed v ZC) �J ' L L�•� j46
iW/ /yeas .0,7 iii )o‘o.r-G q mks. l ASY9.te
ctme 2 aoz, /d 4 '. i 1 �a� 9
Are /lee-dad ig4 C /e4
/4/5L 'l /J ".4// 7 L A ,e..) /0/l,47G
aka5 )64 -vie.").6 e.-7P,/ 7 /ydrne/iai' ,e9efe?‹::::9
c9-- 3 C / % , - s 9 4 deers. - 1 a .
/ia' /d /I4 M Aod L G)',/ ,1 / /rcc)
9464. A- Web& 60,1zi *Le
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: / /3�9,
7N E (sAWED -THU
T SUN
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— Olncoming 0Outgoing
Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you:
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT:r9(9//f) ? - S 2/ ,1
SUMMARY: jec( c 'seussC,a i /G l2GG' "ieeseQ
7/eic i. ��?5v � i.� 9 j �%�`r7
pAo
ae) /40,4?.(
5i f % i 4see..rset:)i
� c6'. . /i,47 /?
,f) 72,e /4i/lth s , e a j,��•s/>i / ms's ,4
/le `ff/
Signature ;,g
Title: , /'/
Date /�/9
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
September 11, 1991
Lourie Contracting Inc.
Dan Lourie
5575 South 152nd Avenue # 95
Tukwila, Wa. 98188
PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RE: ALPINE ESTATES 89 -1 -SUB; EPIC -23 -89
Dear Mr. Lourie:
The City
project.
take:
1.
2.
3.
has made many efforts to assist you in completing this
Mr. Lourie need to clarify which direction you wish to
Revise the existing Subdivision application or
Submit a PRD (Planned Residential Development)
application. or
Terminate application
We have reviewed the revisions to your SEPA Checklist. Staff is
concerned with Tract B wetland boundary. As agreed upon with Jeff
Jones, the north boundary of Tract B needs to be adjusted to follow
the topographic line elevation of 146- feet. The north boundary
line shall be adjusted to the distance of 25 feet per attachment .
Under the PRD process the roadway may be moved to accommodate the
buffer of 25 feet. This request is necessary for completion of the
SEPA determination. There are some unresolved issues from Public
Works, you will need to contact them directly. The City has made
many efforts to assist you in completing this project.
As requested in our June 27, 1991 letter, you needed to submit
revised plans for the subdivision or provide new drawings for the
PRD by July 31, 1991. This deadline has passed with no indication
which direction you wish to take.
To date we have not received a revised subdivision plans or new
site plan for the PRD application. Failure to submit a complete
packet by Thursday, October 2, 1991 shall result in withdrawal of
your application and all vesting rights terminated.
n • •
PAGE TWO
ALPINE ESTATES
89 -1 -SUB & EPIC -23 -89
Should you have any additional questions regarding this matter,
please contact me at 431 -3670.
Thank You
Darren Wilson
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
Shupe Holmberg, Project Engineer of Record
Al White, Property Owner
P. Fraser, Senior Engineer
ATTACHMENT
•
•
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
1505 NW Gilman Blvd. #7
ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027
(206) 392•0250
JOB
SHEET NO , OF'
•
CALCULATED BY — DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
d
514-34-4-44
24-
41-",1 6,11
: 1
1 0 ,/t, if E - - elf 0,'3 ri c__,If-7
/ C. iy/L.. pe4%. =
' ' !
V
4 - /-b 'S la zir y cii
: • , • ,
;'‘ • - ; r €
C
:"(4-. e 3.3( cif
4 •
I - -
vert
71 /
Iva/ t(4tie 62‘( fa.4' '
,.•
..........
, I ,
• 1
, _• , - , _ i _ i ,_ _ . •
. ! ,
4 1/4: sr-f-v ir Al el tPiii/A-4c---r 41,.0 1 ni,•1/4-:,±<, .4,1 ve (c, 44.
• - -- - - -
v e e,/ ir-keer Vviih-,0.-2 ,t ;A/ al`el
i- •
Kb. v .i-x.- e. ,-7/
- . --, 4 e - 7corTI
1
, I I
$
... [J,
• •
•
51991
r •
Co
PRODUCT 205-1 AIE= Inc , Wok Masi 01471. To 0■00 PRONE TOLL FREE 140-2254300
1 PL
TT
•
7/24/91
JULY 24,1991
B i ama . & Holmberg '
ALPINE ESTATES;::
HYDROGRAPH No. 1
Peak runoff:
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN
RUNOFF RUNOFF
(min) (cfs) (min) (cfs)
DETAIL HYDRO'GRAPH SUMMARY
0.1476 cfs
TIME DESIGN
. RUNOFF
(min) ' (cfs):.
Tota1''V
TIME • DESIGN
RUNOFF,
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
370
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500-
510
520
530
540
550
560
570
580.
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
0.0003
0.0009
0.0019
0.0038
0.0067
0.0114
0.0197
0:0322
0.0490
0.0698
0.0922
0.1126
0.1284
0.1394
0.1456
0.1476
0.1458
0.1412
0.1359
0.1313
0.1276
0.1248
0.1227
0.1214
0.1208
0.1204
0.1200
0.1195
0.1185.
0.1174
0.1162
0.1151
0.1141
0.1134
0.1129
0 .1128
810 :0.1119 ' 1210
•820 ' 0.1106 ' ' 1220
x830 0.1090 ,.1230,
x840. 0.1072 1240'
850 0.1055 1250
860 0.1040' .1260 "
870 0.1026 - ' 1270
880. 0.1016 1280
890 0.1009. .1290
900 0.1004 1300.
910 0.1000 • 1310-
920 0.0996 / 1320
,.930 0.0990, 1330
940 0.0983 1340
950 0.0974 1350
960 0.0964 1360
970 0.0955 1370
980 0.0947 . 1380
990 0.0941 1390.
1000 0.0936 1400
1010 0.0933 .1410
1020 0.0930 .1420'
1030 0.0927 1430.
1040 0.0922 1440
1050 0.0913 1450
1060 0.0901 1460
1070 0.0885 1470
1080 0.0869 1480
1090 0.0853 1490
1100 0.0838. '1500:-
1110 ' 0.0824 1510
1120 ' 0.0813 1520
1130 0.0805 1530`'.
1140
1150
1160
1170
DESIGN
'RUNOFF
(cf0)
0. :0791 :` 4600
' 0 0792 , 16201!
0.0793.1630
(Y.:0794
0:0796 '1650
0:.0798 ' 1660
0:0800' 1670
0:0802::`1680
0 :0804 169
'0.0081
0.0065
X0.0052
0.0042
0..0033
0.0027
0 .002-1
0 :001.7
0'.0013
0:0806, 17004' : :. 0.0011
p 080.0. 1710: 0.0008
�_:kb
Q.0811 , 1720 .'0.0006
04813`# 1136'` • 0.0005
0.0815 1740``;'`" ;0.0004
0.0817 1750:._'`0.0003
0.0820 17601. 0.0002
0.0822`° 4770, 0.0001
0.0824 1180 °i
0.0826 _ ' 1790 ' 0'
0.0829 4800
0.0831 1810;
0.0833 .'' 1826;
0:0835 1830!
0.0837'' 1840
0,0839 1'850
0.0837:.;:; 1860
0.0825:: 1870.. ,
0.0801
0:0758 1890;;-
0.0695 ;,;1900;:
0.0534Y.,,:,1926
0.0451: 1930
0.0800 1540 0.0372', 1940:
0.0795 0 0301 '`1t 1.950
0.0793 1560 0.0241.'• 1960
0.0141 1570 0.0192 1970'
page
ac-
390 790 0.1128 1190 0.0790 1590 0.0125 1990,• .
400 800 0.112• 1200 0.0790 1600:x'.0.0100 '2000''
7!24!'91 Biama,&,1Holliben
ALPINE .ESTATES
JULY 24,1991
HYDROGRAPH No. 2
Peak runoff: . 1.3251 cfs Tota.
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TIME.:; DESIGN; TIME"DESIGN
RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF '' RUNOFF
(min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) . (Min') (cfs)` ,` (min} (cfs)::. (min pl ;(cfs)
DETAIL HYDROGRAPH ,SUMMARY.`
10 410.
20 420
30 430
40 440
50 450
60 460
70 470
80 480
90 490
100 500
110 510
120 520
130 530
140 540
150 550
160 560
170 570
180 580
190 0.0029 590
200 . 0.0087 600
210 0.0143. 610
220 0.0237 620
230 0.0307 630
240 0.0374 640
250 0.0438 650
260 0.0499 660
270 0.0558 670
280 0.0727 680
290 0.0801 690
300 0.0871 700
310 0.0938 710
320 0.1003 120
330 0.1064 730
340 0.1307 740
350 0.1382 750
360 0.1651 760
0.2537
0.2639
0.3702
0.3862
0.7730
1.3251
0.6937
0.4731
0.3575
0.3621
0.3665
0.2428
0.2445
0.2462
0.2479
0.2495
0.2510
0.2525
0.2540
0.2554
0.2568
0.2582
0.2595
0.2132
0.2141
0.2149
0.2157
0.2165
0.2172
0.2180
0.2187
0.2194
0.2201
0.2208
0.2215
A 17SR
810. :0.1118 1210- 931t6 1610.
820 0.1782 1220.. 0:1317•. 1620
'830 0.1785 1230 . 318 ..'.16
0.1 30
,840 0.1789, •1240..:.0.;1319; 1640,=
'850.. 0.1793. 1250' ' 01320 '• 1650'
860 0.1796. 1260 ,0.1321-:": 1660"°
810 0.1800 1270 0.1322.. 1670-s<,'
880 '..0.1582 1280„ 0'.1324 .
890 0.1584.. '1290 0.1325 :1690»
:900 . 0.1587.:: 1300 ; • L1-326 170
910 0.1589: 1310 : 0,1327 1710,
920 0.1592 1320. 0.1328 1720
930 0.1594 1330 0.1329. 1730
940 0.1597 1340 0.1330 1140'
950 . 0.1599 . 1350- 0.1331 • 1750 :.
960 .0.1601. 1360 0.1332: , 1760 '
970 0.1604 1370 0.1333• '1770.
980 0.1606. 1380 0.1334• , : 1780.:*
990 0.1608 1390 .0.1335. •1790 '
1000 0.1288 1400 0.1336 1800 '•
1010 0.1290 1410 • 0..1337'
1020 0.1291 1420 0 ;1338 1820
1030 0.1293 1430 01339'• • . ! 1830
1040 0.1294 1440' 1840
1050 0.1295 1450
1060 0.1297 1460 . ' 1860 '.
1070 0.1298 1470
1080 0.1299 1480: 18801-
1090 0.1301 1490
1100 0.1302 1500 1900
1110 0.1303 1510 1910.
1120 0.1305 1520 1920
1130 0.1306 1530 1930;
1140 0.1307 1540 1940;0
1150 0.1308 1550' ' 1950
1160 0 .1110 1560 1960
380 0.1585
390 0.1647
400 0.2427
.7/2:4/91
780 0.1766 1180
790 0.1771190
800 0.1774 1200
JULY 24,1991
0.1312 1580 ' 1980
0.1313. 1590 1990
0.1314, 1600' 2000
:Biarna & Aairriber'9,
ALPINE ESTATE'S:
DETAIL
HYDROGRAPH No. 3
HYDRO6RAO'H.;;,SOMMARY.'
- ," - •
Peak runoff : 0.3796 cfs:
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN • TIME DESIGN:
RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF
(min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) (min) (cfs)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
360
0.0002
0.0006
0.0013
0.06/7
410
420
430,
440
450
460
470
480.-
490
500
510
520
530
540.
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
0.0220
0.0286
0.0361
0.0448
0.0552
0.0678
0.0841
0.1084
0.1416
0.1835
0.2334
0.2843
0.3273
0.3574
0.3744
0.3796
0.3748
0.3617
0.3426
0.3233
0.3067
0.2930
0.2820
0.2730
0.2663
0.2615
0.2516
0.2541
0.2504
0.2463
0.2421
0.2379
0.2339
0.2305
0.2216
0 22c1
810
820
830
840
850
860
.870
880
890
900
910
920
930
940
950
960
970
980
990
1000
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1100
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
0.2179
0.2147
0.2107
0.2066
0.2026
0.1990
0.1958
0.1932
0.1914-
0.1900
0.1887
0.1875
0.1860
0.1841
0.1820
0.1799
0.1778
0.1759
0.1144
0.1731
0.1722
0.1714
0.1705
0.1693
0.1674
0.1648
0.1618
0.1586
0.1554
0.1524
0.1498
0.1476
0.1459
0.1447
0.1437
0.1430
TotaVoi
TIME DESIGN --TIME*,DESIGN
RUNOFF
(cfs) * )
-gzt,
1210 0.1418 1610
1220 0.1418 ....1620,4,0.0113
1230 0.1419 1630 -,fei.j.l).0091
1240 1, 01420 1640,00073
1250 0.1421 ....1650*.0058
1260 0.1423 1660'40.0046
1270 0.1425 1670: '&1'6.0031
1280 0.1427 1680 4;-4.0029
1290. :0.1429 ' 1690'71q0.0023
1300 0.i432'' 10.0019
1310 0.1434 1710'0.0015
1320 0.1436 1720 '0.0011
1330 ' 0.1439 1730
1340 0-.1441. 17401.,ko.0007
1350 0.1444 1750 4.0005
1360 0.1446 1760
1370 0.1449 1770 ;', 0.0003
1380 0.1452. '
1390 0.1454 1790
1400 0.1457 1800
1410 0.1459 1810'
1420 .0.1462 1820.•;:::::'''
1430 0.1464 1830
1440 0.1467 1840
1450 0.1469 1850
1460 0.1464
1470 0.1442 1870
1480 0.1399 1880
1490 0.1323 1890'
1500 0.1212 1900'.--*..
1510 0.1077 1910
1520 ;0.0932 1920:
1530 0.0786 . 1930,
1540 0..0649, '::".^1940"-i.";
1550 0:0525 19.50'
1560 0.0419 1960
pa,ge.
•,*--; •
-29 ac-ft
,* •
•
380 0.0077 780 0.2228 1180 0.1422 1580;';` 0.0270 .1980'
390 0.0116 790 0.221 1190 0.1420 1590 0.0217 1990E
400 0.0164 800 0.2202 1200 0.1418_ 1600 0.0175. 2000;
7/2.4/91
JULY 24,1991
HYDROGRAPH No. 4
Peak runoff : 2.2751 .cfs„.. Total,; Vol
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN: :TIME DESIGN, : TIME'VIESI6N
RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF `' RUNOFF ' ';'$'RUNOFF
(min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) ( in') ,h- 1:(cfs)
Bi,am Hol`mb r9.
ALPINE= EST'AT:ES
DETAIL HYDROGRAPH .SUMMARY.
10 410 0.4768 810 0.2793 1210, 0.2023 ..1610
20 420 0.4893 820 0.2797 ' 1220 0.:2024`._,
30 430 0.6762 830 0.2800 1230 0.2025' ' 1630
40 440 0.6951 840 0.2804 1240. 0:2026 . 1640'.
50 450 1.3633 .850 0.2807 1250 0.2027 '; 1650-'.
60 460 2.2751 860 0.2810 .1260 0:2029:•:, 1660
70 470. 1.1721 870 0.2814 1270 0.2030
80 480 0.7927 880 0.2471 1280 • 0.2031 1680,:;'...
90 490 0.5958 ' 890 0.2473 1290 0.2031 • 1690;:x;:
100 500 0.6006 900 0.2476 . 1300 0.2032 1700
110 510 0.6051 910 0.2478 1310. 0.2033 ., 1710
120. 520 0.3997 920 0.2480 1320 11;2034` 1720 -ti -`
130 530 0.4014 930 0.2483 1330 0.2035. 1730,"
140 0.0033 540 0.4032 940 0.2485 1340 0.2036 • 1740:.„
150 0.0118 550 0.4049 950 0.2487 1350 0.2037 1750:4.,:
160 0.0251 560 .0.4065 960 0.2490 1360 0.2038'' 1760.~
170 0.0361 570. 0.4081 . 970 .0.2492. 1370' 0.2039 .1770,
180 0.0465 580 0.4096 980 0.2494 1380 0 :2040.'' 1780:
190 0:0563 590 0.4111 990 0.2496 1390 0.2041 ' 1790
200 0.0657 600 0.4126 1000 0.1999 1400 0.2042: 1800
210 0.0745 610 .0.4140 . 1010 0.2000 1410 0.2043 1810
220 0.0979 620 0.4153 1020 0.2001 1420 0.2043 1810. ^::
230 0.1087 630 0.4166 1030 0.2002 1430 0.2044 1830
240 0.1188 640 0.3418 1040 0.2003 1440 1840'
250 0.1285 650 0.3426 1050 0.2005 .1450 1850 .
260 0.1376 660 0.3434 1060 0.2006 1460 1860'
270 0.1462 670 0.3442 1070 0.2007 1470 1870
280 0.1819 680 0.3450 1080 0.2008 1480 1880
290 0.1924 690 0.3457 1090 0.2010 1490 1890 ,
300 0.2023 700 0.3465 1100 0.2011 1500 1900
310 0.2117 710 0.3472 1110 0.2012 1510, . , 1910.'
320 0.2205 720 0.3479 1120 0.2013 1520
330 0.2288 730 0.3486 1130 0.2014 1530
340 0.2752 740 0.3492 1140 0.2016 1540 • 1940;;
350 0.2851 750 0.3499 1150 0.2017 1550' , 1950x1
',r,n n )Qae 7f,0 n -)»c i IAn n 90ia ICAO I9F.n
HYDROGRAPH NO. 7
Peak runoff : 0.6872 cfs '', T
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TINE DESIGN' TIME
RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF
(sin) (cfs) (Nis) (cfs) (Ain) (cfs) (sin
z. .,..,.,zzzz2#itmsx.-4,0;..xxxximtsgviiigioxg**..utsietototwat
10 410 0.0892 810 0.3431 1210 0.2138 161
20 420 0.1025 820 0,3381 1220 0.2136 1620
30 430 0.1169 830 0.3312 1230 0.2136
40 440 0.1329 , 840 0.3241 1240. O.
50 450 0.1517 850 0.3172 1250 .;,. 0.
60 460 0.1743 ; 860 0,3110,':, 1260 ti
70 470 0.2035 870 0.3056 ;':, 1270 0.21
80 480 0.2463 880 0.3011 1280 0.2142'
90 490 0.3045 890 0.2977 1290 0.2144 161047 .00
100 SOO 0.3772 900 0.2951 1300 0.2146 17017 ,A 0.0027
110 510 0.4626 910 0.2928 1310 0.2149 1710 ,-,x-.0.0022
120 520 0.5482 920 0.2904 1320 0.2151 1720 0.0017
130 530 0.6180 930 0.2876 1330 0,2153 3
140 540 0.6637 140 0.2844 1340 0.2156 174 0
150 550 0.6860 950 0.2808 1350 0.2158
160 560 0.6872 960 0.2712 1360 0.2161
170 570 0.6714 970 0.2737 1370 0244 1
180 580 0.6416 9$0 0.2705 1380 0.21 2
190 590 0.6020 990 0.2678 1390 0.2143 '
200 600 0.5632 1000 0.2655 1400 042172,,
210 610 0.5300 1010 0.2638 1410 0.2174
220 620 0.5023 1020 0.2624 1420 0.2177
230 630 0.4799 1030 0.2668 1430 0.210
240 640 0.4613 1040 0.2586 1440 0.2182 iei
250 650 0.4469 1050 0.2555 1450 0.2184,,
260 660 0.4360 1060 0.2514 1460 0.2175 1
270 0.0002 670 0.4270 1070 0.2465 1470 0.2142 1870
280 0.0005 680 0.4189 1080 0.2414 1480 0.2077 1880
290 0.0013 690 0.4109 1090 0.2363 1490 0.1163
300 0.0028 700 0.4023 1100 0.2316 1500 0.1799 1
310 0.0052 710 0.3937 1110 0.2274 1510 0.1598 19
320 0.0081 720 0.3854 1120 0.2239 1520 0.1382 1
330 0.0135 730 0.3776 1130 0.2212 1530 0.1166 1930
340 0.0195 740 0.3708 1140 0.2192 1540 0.0962 1940; ,
350 0.0266 750 0.3649 1150 0.2176 1550 0.0779 , 1950
111A A Aii 4 1446 el AA", 40Art
5
= =
380 0.0541
390 0.0650
400 0.0768
780
790
800
7/24/91 ,
JULY 24,1991
0.3542
0.3511
0.3483
DETAIL HYDROGRAPH, SUMMARY
HYDROGRAPH No. 8
Peak k 'runoff 3.3463 cfs ' ' TotaL Vol
TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TIME DESIGN TINE -DESIGN
-
RUNOFF RUNOFF 'RUNOFF . RUNOFF. , -44RUNOFF
(min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) (min) (cfs) (min) (t6) (tields)
10 410
20 420
30 430
40 440
50 450
60 460
70 470
80 480.
90 490
100 500
110 0.0084 510
120 0.0233 520
130 0.0374 530'
140 0.0506 540.
150 0.0630 550
160 0.0915 560
170 0.1072 570
180 0.1218 580
190 0.1355 590
200 0.1483 600
210 0.1603 610
220 0.2017 620
230 0.2160 630
240 0.2293 640
250 0.2418 650
260 0.2534 660
270 0.2643 670
280 0.3230 680
290 0.3360 690
300 0.3481 700
310 0.3595 710
320 0.3700 720
330 0.3799 730
340 0.4520 740
350 0.4635 750
10 A 041 70
0.7380 810
0.7516 820
1.0299 830
1.0501 840
2.0360 • 850
3.3463 '860
1.7082 . 870
1.1499, 880,
0.8616 , 890
0.8662 ' 960
0.8707 910
0.5741 920
0.5757 ,930
0.5773 940'
0.5790 950
0.5805 960
0.5820 970
0.5835 980
0.5849 990
0.5863 1000
0.5876 1010
0.5889 1020
0.5901 1030
0.4837 1040
0.4844 1050
0.4852 1060
0.4859 1070
0.4866 1080
0.4873 1090
0.4880 1100
0.4887 1110
0.4893 1120
0.4899 1130
0.4905 1140
0.4911 1150
n 1pol
0.3909
0.3913
0.3916
0.3919'
0.3922
0.3925
0.3928
0.3448
-0.3450
0.3452
0.3455
0.3457
0.3459
0.3461
0.3463
0.3465
0.3467
0.3469
.0.3471
0.2778
0.2779
0.2780
0.2781
0.2782
0.2784
0.2785
0.2786
0.2787
0.2788
0.2789
0.2790
0.2791
0.2792
0.2793
0.2794
(1 )745
1210 0:2800 1610
1220 0.2801 1620: •
1230 0.2802 163041'-'
1240 0.2803, ' 1640,
380 0.4936 780 0.3899 1180 0.2797 1580
390 0.5023 790 0.3901190 0.2798 1590
400 0.7231 800 0.3906 1200 0.2799 1600
/
41, Biama & Holmberg
BASIN SUMMARY
•
BASIN ID: 100d NAME: 100yr developed
•CS HEIMOLJOLOGY
TOTAL AREA 3.10 Acres BASEFLOWS:. 0.0o cfs
RAINFALL TYPE: USER1 PERVIOUS AREA
PRECIPITATION: 3.90 inches AREA..: 1.60 Acres
[IME 10.00 min CN.... .
TIME OF CONC .... . 3.17 min IMPERVIOUS AREA
A8S'IkACT1ON COEFh: u.20 AREA. 1 u A'cres
CN....: 96.0
ToR..;ah Channel L: 94.00 [c:21.00 s0.0100
icReach - Shallow L: 160.00 ks:11.00 3:0.0100
PEAK RATE: 3.35 cfs VOL: 0.78 Ac-ft TIME: 4-0:min
BASIN ID: 100u
SCS MEIHODOLOGY
10 )AL AREA
RAINFALL TYPE....:
PREC1P1TA1 ION....:
TIME INTERVAL. TiME OF CONc
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
NAME: 100yr undeveloped
2.80 Acres
USER1
3.90 inches
10.00 min
115.99 min
0.20
BASEFLOWS: 0.uu cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 2.uo Acres
CN....: 81.00
IMPERVIOUS ARE-
AREA.,: Acres
CN....: 98.00
TcReach - Sheet . L: 150.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 2.00 s:j300
TcReach - Sheet L: 17000 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 2.00 s:o.0100
PEAK RATE: 0.69 cfs VOL: 0.48 Ac-ft. TIME:
(3A5IN ID: 10d NAME: 10yr developed
sCS METHODOLOGY
COTAL AREA 8.10 Acres BASEFLOWS: cfs
RAINFALL TYPE: USER1 PERVIOUS AREA
PkECIP1TATION: 2.90 inches AREA..: 1.60 Acres
1 IME INTERVAL: 10.00 min CN....: 86.0
LIME OF CONC. 3.17 min . IMPERVIOUS AREA
ABS1RACT1ON COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 1.!...o Acres
CN....: 98.uo
TcReach - Channel. L: 94.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0100
ickeach - Shallow L: 160.00 ks:11.00 s:0.0100
PLAK RATE: 2.26 cis VOL. 0.53 Ac-fL, TIME: .; .0.min
page 1
110 Dlama & Holmberg
BASIN SUMMARY
BASIN ID: 10u NAME: 10yr undeveloped
METHODOLOGY
FOTAL AREA 2.80 Acres BASEFLOWS:. cfs
RAINFALL AYPE; USER1 PERVIOUS AREA
PRECIPITATION: 2.90 inches AREA.:: 2o0 Aces
TIME iNTERVAI 10.00 min CN....:_ 81 0u
FINE OF CUNC 11S.99 min IMPERVIOUS AREA
•
AbSIRACilON WEFT: 0.20 AREA..: 0.u. Acres
CN....:
IcRe,ach - Sh6,ctl, L: 150.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 2.00 s:o36,00
IcReach - Sheet L: 110.00 ns:0.6000 p2yr: 2.00 3:0.000
PEAK RATE: 0.38 cfs VOL: 0.29 Ac-ft TIME:
'BASIN ID: 25d
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA
RAINFALL TYPE:
PREcIPITAi1oN:
ILHE
LIME OF CON(
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
NAME: 2Syr developed
3.10-Acres
USER1
3.40 .inches
10.00 min
3.17 min
0.20
BASEFLOWS: 0») cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 1.,_() Acres
CN....:
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA... 1.,/ Acies
CM....: 98.,
icReach - Channel L: 94.00 kc:21_00 s:0.0100
fckeach - Shallow L: 160.00 ks:11.00 s:0.0100
PEAK kArE: 2.6i c_176 VOL: 0.63 Ac7ft, fiME:
BASIN ID: 2Su
SC'S METHODOLOGY
fOTAL AREA : 2.80 Acres
RAINFALL TYPE: USER1
PRECIPLIATION: 3.40 inches
TIME INTERVAL: . 10.00 min
TIME OF CONC 115.99 min
ABSTRACTION COEFF:. 0.20
NAME: 2Syr undeveloped
BASEFLOWS: 0.o0 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA.
AREA..:
CM....: 81.o0'
IMPERVIOUS ARE-
AREA..: 0,(J0 Acres
CN....: 98.o0,
n
AcReach - Sheet L; 1,50.00 ns:0.6000 p2yr: 2.00 s:_3600
ft.:Reach - SheaL L: ns:0.6000 p2yr: 2.00 s:o,01.00
PEAK RAIL.: U.!.:;J cis Vol: 0.36 Ac-ft TIME: min
page
..//21/..)1
.SIN Ld
CS METHODOLOGY
IOIAL AREA 5.10 Acres
RAINFALL TYPE: USER1
PRECIPITATION: 2.00 inches
*LIME IMERVAL: 10.00 min
TIME OF CoN 3.17 min .
ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20
Blame & Holmberg 1
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: 2yr developed
BASEFLOWS: 9.o0 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
-AREA..: .1.-9 Acres
86.o0 '
IMPERVIOUS AREA •
AREA..: 1.9 Acres
98.o0
ickeaeh - Channel L: 94.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0100
- 160.00 ks:11.00 s:0.0100
PEAK RA E: 1.33 cfs VOL: 0.32 Ac-ft. TIME:
page 3
BA3IN ID'. 2u
SCS METNuOuLOGY
OT AL AkEA
RAINFALL TYPE:
IIME
TIME OF CONC
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
NAME: 2yr undeveloped
;60.min
2.00 Acres BASEFLOWS:
USER' PERVIOUS AREA
.:
2.00 in AREA.
ches Acres
10.00 min CN....: 81kj0.
115.99 min IMPERVIOUS ARE,-i
0.20 AREA..: 9.o0 Acres.
-.CN....: 98.u0
hLReach - Sheet L: 150.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 2.00 .z.;:.3600
ick.- sheet. L: 170.00 ns:0.8000 p2yr: 2.00 sH).0100
PEAK RATE: 0.15 cfs VOL: '0.14 Ac-ft TIME: '79 min
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
•
LETTER OF
TRANSMITTAL
�hC .
ADDRESS 55:75 ca t/ /VALlyQ ,
Akke/./06,
ATTENTIO J9Q%'✓t. L bb /
TO 1�� i 'e- C.o n /!^qc /Il�.��}-
DATE ?1
7.5-
REGARDING ,2,;t,2_, /G1�, E7 45--
pi/e_//3phd.
WE AR SENDING YOU THE FOLLOWING
Attached [l Under separate cover
COPIES DESCRIPTION
o1^,"i
COMMENTS fi/fr; L tkt /-
Crrnrilke/1\-/-
a SM° rov-
AK_ 1 ,ill ANV < Cl vI g l _LQs
SIGNED
(23 /P4.LTRANS)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
(1 For approval
i Fo review and comment
For your use and information
Q As requested
Q Other
u_ e()a
/ a
, /7 1/ce X.14
A cry, e,et, _ C d /(
4hs-
rITY OF TUKWILA
'EPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ROIDTIR(a FORM
EPIC:
'ROJECT ALPINE ESTATES
►DDRESS 65th Ave. S. & S. 153rd P1. (Proposed)
)ATE TRANSMITTED 5 -15 -91
;TAFF COORDINATOR Jack Pace
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Darren Wilson
The attached :.environmental checklist was received regarding this project.' Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official` regarding the threshold determi nation ,Tho'
environmental review filo 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 :.belpw. y;
ITEM COMMENT
1. Delineation of wetLand boundary an the wPGtprn wetland
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. (Letter report - 1/2/91).
was perf rmei by
�r r
They used Federal Manual Methodology (vegetation, soils, hydrology). The
proposed 50' buffer is appropriate.
2. Eastern Wetland has inaccurate flagginr(black 'arid orang c tripprl) Thpre
is no documented delineation of this wetland by a professional wetland con-
sultant. No flagging was observed on this site in December, 1990 per
Jones & Stokes Assoc. letter report. Logan & Jones Assoc., Inc.,letter dated
March 29, 1991,indicates the wetland was flagged and surveyed by Baima & Holmber,
Inc. - professional engineers and land surveyors. This wetland's boundary
needs to be delineated by a wetland professional using the Federal Manual
Methodology. There appears to be some off -site wetland drainage that will affec
the reported wetland size of 0.7 acres. Proposed roadway design accessing the
site along the.north portion of this wetland can be evaluated /and impacts
assessed when accurate wetland boundary is delineated and mapped.
Date: 57/5/7/ Comments prepared by: ,
OV'4,8f
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
1
//9e,o/ e6p0k>i
-12//ezel/A, 9syse
•
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: 6 / S�TESUN
U it
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference
elephone —
Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you:
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT:
A/<
A.
Incoming 0 Outgoing
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
1-04 Cl Ad0Oi'l,e_< jcS.001
Telephone No. 1
-e I/Kt ch.L,014yt A,Q_c15
Signature:
Title: % Eivi h/v^777::
./0/
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONNIIIITAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
EPIC:
PROJECT ALPINE ESTATES
: Parlour
ADDRESS 65th Ave. S. & S. 153rd Pl. (Proposed)
DATE TRANSMITTED 5 -15 -91
STAFF COORDINATOR Jack Pace
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Darren Wilson
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review; an
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination.;'1'te
environmental review file Is available in the Planning Department through the, above stab;.
coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commis.*n,.:•'
Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below.
ITEM
COMMENT
1. DeJineation of wetland hnundary nn the western wetland
Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. Letter re
III
t - 1 2 9
was
performed by
They used Federal Manual Methodology :(vegetation, soils, hydrology). The
proposed 50' buffer is appropriate.
2. Eastern Wetland has inaccurate fkaggging(black and orange striped) There
is no documented delineation of this wetland by a professional wetland con-
sultant. No flagging was observed on this site in December, 1990 per
Jones & Stokes Assoc. letter report. Logan & Jones Assoc., Inc.,letter dated
March 29, 1991,indicates the wetland was flagged and surveyed by Baima & Holmber€
Inc. - professional engineers and land surveyors. This wetland's boundary
needs to be delineated by a wetland professional using the Federal Manual
Methodology. There appears to be some off -site wetland drainage that will affect
the reported wetland size of 0.7 acres. Proposed roadway design accessing the
site along the north portion of this wetland can be evaluated and impacts
assessed when accurate wetland boundary is delineated and mapped.
Date: 5/0/ Comments prepared by:
?A.i4 4k. 6v it-ok/A. 01#4./
09„4/8,
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
TO: Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: 5/9/91
SUBJECT: Alpine Estates - Revised Wetland Survey -
Environmental
PHONE # (206) 4331800 Gary L. banDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
For Public Works to review the environmental for the revised
Wetland Survey in terms of a defined proposal relative to ac-
cess, utilities and determination of what is proposed public
and private - -a revised site plan indicating, the revised
wetland along with buffer area, etc. for the proposed 13 unit
development needs to clearly define the proposed subdivision
relative to this revised wetland /buffer information. In-
cluded in this plan will be the following:
1. Profile of proposed public street
2. Reconfigured lots for 13 units relative to new wetland
and buffer boundaries.
3. Complete description of public drainage system including
hydraulic analysis of proposed discharges into wetlands
4. Identification of proposed public right- of- ways and
easements proposed to provide for:
A. Proposed public street and utility easement
B. Proposed public and private easements for drainage
to, through and from wetlands
C. Proposed wetlands for either public or overall
development transfer.
D. Proposed trail right- of- way or easements for
projected trail linking 62nd Ave. S. to existing trail
just west of the property.
E. Right- of- way for any other set aside lands to be
donated to the City as a result of this subdivision.
Also a discussion as to who will operate and maintain:
1. Drainage systems tributary to wetlands. (What demand
on public services needs be identified)
2. Wetlands
3. Intertie drainage system between wetlands.
Finally, a comparison of new plan identifying access and
utilities for reconfigures roadway /utilties due to revised
wetlands survey in terms of City criteria needs be provided
to show comparison to what has been submitted and commented
on before. Included in this review are the following:
1. For public roadway: Is 15% max grade criteria met?
What are final vertical curve
data?
2. Storm Drainage:
Wide of roadway? Sidewalks?
R/W & Utility Easement
dimensions?
Private accesses: For redefined
lots, identify each access that
will provide driveway that does
not exceed 15% grade.
Gravity system slopes and dis-
charge to? Any to wetlands?
Wetland criteria? How is
water cleaned up prior to
discharge into wetlands?
What private properties discharge
into public system, or directly
into wetlands. How will they
be regulated?
3. Sanitary Sewer: Data to show all properties go into
sanitary sewer system with 2% min
side sewer connections for 13 re-
configured lots.
4. Water: Loop system - Describe any relocation of water
mains /looped system through
wetlands /buffer areas.
5. Trail easements: Where? How tie into existing trail
and public streets
6. If proposing turnover of wetlands to provide rationale why
public rather than private sector services would benefit
from impact of the responsibilities of caretaker for
these wetlands.
PF /amc:9:wetland
ENVIRONNIWITAL REVIEW
ROUTING FORM
:ITV OF TUKWILA
EPAATMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
81111"d0 ng .Ptannln�
ROJECT g1pi4'e 3
DDRESS 5-1=-*? Ave,
�5a.
ATE TRANSMITTED g/0/.V9/
TAFF COORDINATOR )9 /
Par*IRc
•
RESPONSE REQUESTED SY 5/
//
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
ix fir. %x o..t ,i ! <'< >tP rxM '�. r ,».: ° t ,Lu
Get > > �f'� �a`, "k'y� p
v
RLched envk onmental icheckiist..vwas raceived regarding this protect. Tease review ar
comment beiow to;advis® the tesponslbte.official regarding the. threshold'�detetmination.,11,�
. enyirommntat.review file is:ava lable.in the Planning Department through the'above" tai
.coordujator. : ;. :Comma, nts regarding-the project you wish: carried: to the Planning'Commissfon
Board :A.: of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment. sectiori,below.
ITEM
u
COMMENT
V7 Z`/%) /4 /S40)'7 ,erl. d ,
•
)ate: 41- )11-'7/ Comments prepared by: ,
0110141811
:ITY OF TUKWILA
EPARTMENT OP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONM °PA.L REVIEW
iOUTI�Ca FORM
v,.�v� ��h \� �� ��' Vii•
auijdina:Planninya
Pub Wks'
EPIC: -3-6'
ft . vs
ROJECT , /P/ille 6:51120&--C
DDRESS
,ATE TRANSMITTED y/a*
TAFF COORDINATOR 17jgte) &2'i j,
^. cs�,c'sdi,vy
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 5
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
hs 40ched .enWonmental checklist was;received regardieg'this projecttt; Tease review'
omment.bolovv to advise the responsible. official° regardingothe Rthreshold"detetminatiot '..
::enyfronmental.review: file..is .available in the Planning: Department: through the>ebove taf
Coordinator.:: :Comments regarding.the project you Wish` carried to the P lanntng'Commissro.
Board of Adjustment and City Council :should be submitted lithe conin ent secUbn bet w
•
ITEM
COMMENT
MAY 01 1991
CITY OF I ulkvvILA
p�ANNING DEPT.
)ate: y 00-9/ Comments prepared by: ,
04114/8,
Logan & Jones.
Associates, Inc.
•
Ml@RWIEM
APR 0 4 1991
PLANNING DEPT.
Addendum to Alpine Estates
Wetland Mitigation Plan
March 29, 1991
Wetland Identification and Delineation
Wetland Consultants
G510SouthcenterB|vd, Suite 3A
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 244-3602 Fax (206) 242-4209
Wetlands were identified and delineated by IES Associates.
Their methods and procedures appear consistent with the
Federal Manual for Identifing.and Delineating Wetlands.
Logan and Jones Associates, Inc. concurs with iES Associates
assessment and delineation of wetland on the site. Wetlands
herpa[tpr re[ered to as Wetland Aand B have been flagged
and surveyed by Biama & Holmberg, Inc., Professional
Engineers and Land Surveyors. Survey flags consecutively
numbered are present on the site showing the wetland
bmund'xi,`.' L'','/ie C,n\ra(Aing, Inc. is willing L. make
adjustments to wetland boundaries if the City of Tukwila
Biologist finds minor discrepencies.
Wetland and Buffer Proposal
Lourie Loot,acting Inc. proposes to amend the prior wetland
assessment and site plan so that wetland and wetland buffers
will not be impacted by proposed develo'ment. The proposed
changes to the IES Associates Wetland Mitigation Plan,
affect sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. These sections
all address certain aspects of mitigation that no longer
apply because all wetlands will be set aside and left in
their natural condition. Enhancement planting and followup
monitoring will not be required under this addendum.
Logan & Jones Associates, Inc. recognizes the unique
geologic nature of these wetlands and therefore proposes
fifty foot wetland buffers, except immediately below S.
153rd Place. The buffer below S. 153rd Place will have and
average slope distance of thirty five feet and will not be
• ]om than twenty five feet. A larder buffer along the road
would make development north of the road unfeasible.
Typically wetlands less than one acre with two or fewer
habitat classes only are required to have twenty five foot
buffers. Wetlands A and B are separated by a ridge and
independent of each other. The area of each wetland is less
than one ,Are. And, not more than two habitat classes,
i.rc..L ond sJ,/kkb/s.rub, uN,nar L. he present on the sito.
• •
page 2
Road construction will disturb the buffer along S. 153rd
Place. To minimize the impact, filter fabric will be
installed along the toe of the road bank. And, Perrenial
Ryegrass will be broadcast and raked on downslope roadbanks.
The road buffer is presently Himalayan Blackberry. It is
expected that after road construction these blackberries
will quickly take over disturbed road banks. Blackberries
provide a relatively good barrier against intrusion by
people.
Logan & Jones Associates, Inc. believes that the proposed
buffers will adequately protect the character and functional
values described by IES Associates.
Submitted by:_______________________-
Jeffery S. Jones
Wetland Biologist
TELEPHONE MEMO
RE: eP 8? ; 4e' �Slff�C r 50ED /Kisrc,a,c.,
PERSON CONTACTED: t/ ivonr auer- r
PERSON CALLING:ekR Y 4150Ea1S) AuDogoA4 Sa c lg- r Y"
DATE: c9-42,/?
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Rz Z?
J-4,-. CAJc .
aLa
04.e- -6- .
4-) TA , ceWra 4 ce -
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
February 11, 1991
Shupe Holmberg
Baima & Holmberg Inc.
1505 NW Gilman Blvd.
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
PHONE # (206) 433.1800
Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RE: ALPINE ESTATES 89 -1 -SUB, EPIC -23 -89
Dear Mr. Holmberg:
This letter is a follow -up to our meeting on Tuesday, January 29,
1991. As you recall, there are two areas of concern. The first
being your Environmental Checklist either to continue with the
proposed Subdivision or submit a new application for a PRD (Planned
Residential Development).
The SEPA review shall identify the locations where the soils
testing occurred and the results. You indicated that a change in
Biologist may happen. In this event, your new Biologist must stake
Tract C wetland boundaries and provide a recommendation on the
wetland buffer zones for both the wetlands identify on the site. We
will review the revisions and make a determination on the materials
submitted.
The second concern deals with the revisions to either your
Subdivision Application or a PRD (Planned Residential Development).
I understand you might discontinue the Subdivision Application and
proceed with the PRD Application. If a PRD Application is
submitted, you are vested from the S.A.O. (Sensitive Area
Ordinance). Again, Rick Beeler explained the PRD Review process and
what needs to be done for completion of this project. Please refer
to the requirements from the December 7, 1990 letter with the
exception of the last item (access issue with adjacent property
owner).
I hope this clears up any questions regarding completion of this
project. Should you have any additional questions pertaining to
this matter, please contact our office at 431 -3670.
Thank You
061LI)
Darren Wilson
Assistant Planner
cc: R. Beeler, DCD Director
D. Lourie, Property Purchaser
•
CONVERSATION RECORD
MON TUE) THU A.M.
FRI SAT SUN P.M.
❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing
DATE: J 1 23 / 9/
TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference
TIME:
Name of p n(s) contacted or in contact with you:
4t71) -Glx.� <e,
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
SUBJECT: k / /,fie
SUMMARY: 441/‘, /l/d/ l,6- rese/
- AO/A. .5 dede Z7,4v ,0160,,,,0`4z1 /t-',970,7 %le
/9r.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: / . / fy /e/
TYPE: El Visit ❑ Conference
MON TU WED THU g b�
FR SAT SUN Pj�j
❑ Telephone - 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing
Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with you:
Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Telephone No.:
Location of Visit/Conference:
■
SUBJECT: 404041€
SUMMARY: No_ 54,) ��/ /� - //�`�'P��j �}9
1 z /, „9 - 1-1,0y' - ,.&S_* e i-i'e,►�,0 - - - --
i .202. e
Signaturea
CONVERSATION RECORD
DATE: / / ZZ / 9/
WED THU
SAT SUN
TIME( 9.∎
TYPE: ❑ Visit IE conference ❑ Telephone — Olncoming OOutgoing
Name of p rson (s) contacted or in contact with you:
Organization office, dept., bureau, etc.)
Location of Visit/Conference:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Telephone No.:
SUBJECT: / �Sr ks,
SUMMARY: Gee /did 4 Sc'a Q- r(i�J2Irvrlirs : l U?L
Tif7Iluder 22, /9c Obi° /r«as d/.1 - - - � .*—Ce
Signature) / J
Title:
Date:
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
January 5, 1991
Mr. Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
89 -1. Sub
Dear Darren:
54 -001
Thank you for meeting with Michelle and me and Dan 'Lourie on
Tuesday, January 29th. Rick Beeler made an excellent
presentation at the meeting and I think all parties have a
clear picture of where we are in the review process and what
needs to be done at this point in time.
Pursuant to our meeting, I met with Jeff Jones of Logan and
Jones in the afternoon on January 29th. I discussed the
project with Jeff and will provide base maps and site plan
for his use in assessing the wetlands on the site. Jeff
informed me that he would be able to complete his study and
report by February 15th assuming he gets authorization to
proceed reasonably soon. Jeff and Dan were to meet on site
on February 5th to discuss scope of services and fees.
Assuming that we get the wetlands study by February, 15, we
will be able to submit revised site plans and engineering
plans to you by February 28th.
Thank you for your continued cooperation on this project.
Hopefully we will be able to build some homes on the site
this year.
Very truly yours,
BAIMA & HOLMBERG, INC.
W. Shupe Hdlmberg, PE PLS
WSH:bb
•
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 • ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392 -0250
cm Ql' '1'UliW1Lf1 - PUBLIU WORKS
F�X TItANAIITTAis
FAX NUMBER: (2 o6) 431- 3665
TO:
TITLE:
94//0 �9.‘
COMPANY:
DATE:
10e-
DATE:
Z
DEPARTMENT:
FROM •
TITLE:
41.59 /9.)172n1
FAX NO.
.3/ —J7255
SUBJECT:
•
DEPARTMENT:
nN•4waiN
TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED,
INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET;
SENT BY
(INITIALS) :
444437
/
COMME 5 / MESSAGE:
•
IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT
CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL:
awA"v i:+ woco-awu�uaerw. a3,: o. aw. mvw..w.:a»w>.waaawauw mt v:► xam..: S::> »:3.yw>r.:»wkiGwixoewrKwAew► 4‘.waaaKw•ew::xerY.:ra
WKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwil& WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800
03/24
{
• •
-myoramig
JAN 0 3 1991
ciTy
JONES & STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 2820 NORTHUP WAY, SUITE 100 / BELLEVUE, WA 98004
January 2, 1991
Mr. Darren Wilson
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
206/822 -1077
FAX 206/822 -1079
SUBJECT: Wetland Delineation - Alpine Estates, Tukwila, King County, Washington
Dear Darren:
This letter summarizes the findings of Jones & Stokes Associates field evaluation of
wetlands located on the above site. The evaluation was conducted at the request of the city
on December 31, 1990. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the accuracy of
previous wetland delineations and to determine the presence of a possible connection
between two wetlands located on the site.
The wetland evaluation was conducted using the United Federal Methodology, which
requires examination of three wetland parameters. The three parameters include soils,
hydrology, and vegetation. Hydric (wetland) soils are defined as those soils which are
saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic
conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (wetland) vegetation.
Hydrophytic plants are those plants which grow in water or in a substrate that is at least
periodically saturated. Areas possessing wetland hydrology are inundated either
permanently or periodically, or the soil is saturated to the surface at some time during the
growing season. In order for an area to be considered wetland, a positive indicator for all
three of these parameters must be present.
The site was evaluated by conducting a walking assessment as noted above, assessing
vegetation species and vigor, soil conditions using a 5 -foot hand auger, and visual
observation of hydrologic conditions. The location of previously hung wetland flagging was
checked, and in those areas where Jones & Stokes Associates biologists determined the
wetland edge to be in a different location than the original flagging, two black and orange
C
4
Mr. Darren Wilson
January 2, 1991
Page 2
p
C1
JAN 0 1991.
",,
••
•
striped flags were hung. No new flagging was hung in areas where we concurred with the
original flagging.
The site contains two wetland areas similar in size. The first wetland encountered
is located in the central southern portion of the property. No wetland flags or other
evidence of wetland delineation was found at this wetland. As our scope of work included
only assessing the accuracy of previously placed flagging, no assessment could be made. The
entire southern and western edge of this wetland was, however, walked to locate any
possible connection to the wetland located along the western border of the site. No such
connection was found.
The second wetland is located in the extreme western portion of the site and is
associated with a small creek which flows through the center of the wetland. The perimeter
of the wetland appeared to have been flagged by two different biologists. One set of flags
consists of blue and white flags numbered consecutively with "WL" and the flag number.
The other set of flagging consists of orange and white flags with no writing.
With the exception of a small area at the south end of the wetland, the orange and
white flags accurately depict the wetland edge. The blue and white flags, however, were
less accurate. The northern half of the west and east sides of the wetland, as well as the
north end of the wetland extend beyond the blue and white flags by 10 to 30 feet. The
areas not included by the flagging are clearly wetland and are nearly identical to those areas
flagged as wetland. Jones & Stokes Associates flagged the outer edge of the wetland.
The eastern edge of this wetland was assessed to locate any possible connection to
the wetland in the center of the site. No connection was found. A small lobe of the
western wetland extends about 50 feet to the east in the southern portion of the site, but
does not connect with the central wetland. This lobe is likely the subject of previous debate
over any connection between the two main wetlands.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(idh,14)t-
�h�
Robert A. Denman
Project Manager
RAD:lr
ENVIRONIUNTAL REVIEW ,.
ROUMG FOR
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building 0 Planning Ill Pub Wks
PROJECT lepag E� *S
ADDRESS As- LK )4/6,
DATE TRANSMITTED /2/4�y�
EPIC:
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY .0//02)
STAFF COORDINATORR 4,!!z) DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project.:. Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The
environmentai 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
Air, Ze< y Care,c�r s
.. :� zifs�
may.
WhaS
6471! lave_ 4_ 68-Phi- 1 aw 1 Corr olc.
Date: o�ov/ /yd
1
Comments prepared by: ,
OF TUKWILA
ARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT s TIC:
Q: 8uilding Planning I Pub• Alks: IXIFire Li Police 0 ParkslR0c r�v<
PROJECT d/p�,j/, ..54,4eweje.r., are
ADDRESS As- 4( Atig. 6 .
DATE TRANSMITTED /24, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY .2412
STAFF COORDINATOR R ,eezt) /L3o,y7 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review. and
;comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination..
environmental review the is available in the Planning Department through the above stall
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,.
P2 - #8 Add: 6/3/89 IES Assoc. - Wetlands evaluation and
impacts analysis and February 2, 1990 IES Assoc. -
Wetlands mitigation plan and 11/30/89 Department of
Army letter - OYB -4- 013259.
P3 - #10
P4- B,1,.d
,;r P4 -B,1,f
Al P5 -8,1,b
Grade and Fill Permits, nation wide permit
(Ref. to CORPS) Building Permits; Utilities/
Street Use /Access Permits.
An expanded Geotechnical /Hydrological Report is
needed to confirm this determination and provide
soils borings over each building and deepest, portion
of proposed public road /public utilities. (Storm and
Sanitary)
With such steep slopes, erosion is a definite
possibility in silty sand as a_result of clearing
and construction activities for this proposa
Disagree with answer - identify measures that will
be traken to Cnn rol erosion per your grading and
erosion control plan OFT-61-5)
P6- #3,a,(3 &4) Answers do not appear to be consistant with P.1
of 2/20/90 IES Wetland Mitigation Plan C and P.4 & 5
of 5 of plans identifting substantial cut and fill
quantities.
P8 - #2) Pgs.l & 2 -top paragraph 2/20/90 IES wetlands
mitigation plan differs with answer.
P11 - #b,2) Identify maximum level of construction noise in
decibles.
r .� I, Ir O � •. I
RUT' FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPIC:
Building Planning } Pub Wks IX Fire Li Police Li Parks /Rec:
PROJECT fitipa, 65910105
ADDRESS dt.s-1g► 0,196. 6 .
DATE TRANSMITTED /Z_4 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY .0//0
STAFF COOR D INATOR cilveieezej 4/efiL _ _ 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.
P2 - #8 Add: 6/3/89 IES Assoc. - Wetland's evaluation and
impacts analysis and February 2, 1990 IES Assoc. -
Wetlands mitigation plan and 11/30/89 Department of
Army letter - OYB -4- 013259.
P3 - #10 Grade and Fill Permits, nation wide permit
(Ref. to CORPS) Building Permits; Utilities/
Street Use /Access Permits.
P4 -B,1,d An expanded Geotechnical /Hydrological Report is
needed to confirm this determination and provide
soils borings over each building and deepest portion
of proposed public road /public utilities. (Storm and
Sanitary)
P4 -B,1,f With such steep slopes, erosion is a definite
possibility in silty sand as a result of clearing
and construction activities for this proposal
P5 -B,1,b Disagree with answer - identify measures that will
be traken to control erosion per your grading and
erosion control plan ( #3 of 5)
P6- #3,a,(3 &4) Answers do not appear to be consistant with P.1
of 2/20/90 IES Wetland Mitigation Plan C and P.4 & 5
of 5 of plans identifting substantial cut and fill
quantities.
P8 - #2) Pgs.1 & 2 -top paragraph 2/20/90 IES wetlands
mitigation plan differs with answer.
P11 - #b,2) Identify maximum level of construction noise in
decibles.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
December 7, 1990
Shupe Holmberg
Baima & Holmberg Inc.
1505 NW Gilman Blvd.
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
PHONE # (206) 433 -1800
RE: ALPINE ESTATES 89 -1 -SUB, EPIC -23 -89
Dear Shupe:
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
This letter is a follow -up to our meeting on Wednesday, December
5, 1990. As you recall, there are two areas of concern. The first
being your Environment Checklist and the revisions to your
Subdivision /PRD (Planned Residential Development) applications.
In discussion with staff and the direction by our City Council,
the wetland buffer shall be 50 -feet. The site plan shall identify
the locations where the soils testing occurred. We shall have a
projected work schedule on when this information will be
provided. Once the required facts have been submitted, I will
then have the City's Consultant confirm whether the wetlands are
connected based on the information submitted and their
observation.
The second concern deals with the revisions to the Subdivision
application and the submittal for the PRD. Both application shall
have the following:
* Cross sections of the road.
* Address all storm drainage issues
* Survey the boundary of the wetland with stalks on the site
and site plan.
* Identify the buildable lots under the PRD process.
* Show elevations of each lot (North, South, East and West).
* Address the open space issues which portions will, be proposed
to the City.
* Identify the access /buildable area for lot 13.
Resolve the access issue with the adjacent property owner to
the South. This concern shall be concluded before we begin
processing the revised SEPA.
Again I will contact you once our Consultant has determined the
status of the wetland. In the event our Consultant needs
additional time to complete the written document, I will contact
you and give the approximate date for closure.
Should you have any questions regarding these issues, please
contact me at 431 -3670.
Thank You
Darren Wilson
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
M. Kenyon, City Attorney
D. Lourie, Developer
•
lizz )4(
Lr gr
0. p) 1$ (..tloa 1v'5 a, ecn1.4-
Itli/Atk a 0/� o*- &-ek i s - Wu, 1-O* -t€5 {eel
41 SGli j:5/ ry\
A w u- De-P e-btian/ le 0.eM )s
-3�GCe 55 t 55 Lod'
D i k gar 4
o C l cJ I — 1\10 44,D \a•
N o S u c,44 -1 wm
N�(P -u L
73#14,
2'ee 6"
Aleut
'1°11►!I1l1
CITY OF TUKWILA
LAND ikE PERMIT
ROUTING FORM
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO.:
T4:
Building
❑ Planrning
X Pub Wks
Z ire .'
❑ Police .
Parksi.Rec
PROJECTi9ipp - E.� (p,)
ADDRESS ,4 • 50.
DATE TRANSMITTED ,/lo f� /' �r RESPONSE REQUESTED BY a®ju /y /0."
STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below.
Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the'line(s) on which that concern is noted,
4-- -a& P/ic,t -,77` i S de-G✓ciec? 7D re5e-shnwzi - f d 2
fn 57// Rev/ o72/y/
n
�y�� a�r�% �gx ,pie A‘-111 G Al-de
n
n
n
u
❑ DRC review requested
Plan check date:
Plan submittal requested (l Plan approved
Comments prepared by:
09/08/89
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT /9/,gp (p,q)
ADDRESS . /We. sue,
LAND ISE PERMIT
ROUTING FORM
PERMIT NO.:
DATE TRANSMITTED /lo �� //' /990 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY AOjej4y ,,f.502)
STAFF COORDINATOR D/42,eieez, j, ,2 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
Please review the attached projects plans and respond with appropriate comments in the space below.
Indicate crucial concerns by checking the box next to the lines) on which that concern is noted.
rGvi.. )9s s4 s
/ohe stwi` /Os deevQk—ci re5ce. b4w zi
$7/9P 4?23/
n
n
❑
n
u
❑
❑ DRC review requested kPlan sum bmm ttal requested Plan approved
Plan check date: l " Comments prepared by:�._.,G /_.
09/08/89
J2lf'L
3-57s- S 1E02 -4 ?s
`T"v/<<.,) LOA- fig /gam
Janice L.S. Soloff
PLANNER
�epaitment Planning &
Comm nity evelopment
JUL 12 �y(�a • 12 Fifth Avenue
ifltl�n , Was ington 98033
(206).8 8 -125
CITY 01- i u1(r-M83-129°
PLANNING DEPT.
Th
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
May 21, 1990
Shupe Holmberg
Baima & Holmberg Inc.
1505 NW Gilman Blvd.
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
PHONE # (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
RE: SEPA DETERMINATION FOR ALPINE ESTATE
Dear Mr. Shupe:
This letter is a follow -up to our meeting on Friday, May 18,
1990. As I mentioned in the meeting, your client has (4) four
areas of concern:
1) Create a buffer zone of 25 -feet.
2) Define the impacts of the urban development between
wetlands.
3) Create 1 to 1 quantity replacement for the wetland.
4) Divide the current storm water drainage system in half:
a) into 65th Avenue South existing storm drainage.
b) have the remaining portions drain into its natural
pattern.
Again Friday, May 25, 1990, is the deadline to notify our office
on the decision /direction that your client is headed. We cannot
schedule a Public Hearing until all the SEPA issues have been
resolved. Should you have any questions regarding these issues,
please contact me at 431 -3682.
Thank You
gi-4&rk.-)
Darren Wilson
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
L. Anderson, City Attorney
D. Lourie, Purchaser
A. White, Property Owner
• •
Attachment "Bn
CITY OF KIRKLAND
123 FIFTH AVENUE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033-6189 (206) 828 -1257
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Interested Parties
From: Joseph W. Tovar, Responsible Offic
Date: May 10, 1990
Subject: WETLAND IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
Development proposals submitted to the City for grading, building,
or zoning permits sometimes require an analysis of impacts to wet-
lands in order to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) or Kirkland Zoning Code. If a "regulated wetland" is thought
to exist on or near the subject property, the City requires a wet-
land analysis pursuant to Zoning Code Chapter 90. Even if a
"regulated wetland" does not exist, a "wetland" analysis may be re-
quired as part of a SEPA review. Please read Chapter 90 of the
Zoning Code for further clarification. The following are applicable
definitions:
Wetland - Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegeta-
tion typically adapted for life in saturated soils conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Regulated Wetland - A wetland that serves one or more of the follow-
ing: serves significant biological functions; serves significant
drainage and sedimentation functions; shields other areas from wave
action, erosion, or storm damage; serves as valuable storage area
for storm and flood waters; is a prime natural recharge area; serves
significant water purification functions. Although a site specific
wetland may not meet the criteria described above, it will be con-
sidered a regulated wetland if it is functionally related to another
wetland that meets the criteria.
To assist applicants in the preparation of the required analyses,
the City has established a set of guidelines described below. The
goals of these guidelines are:
Memorandum to Interes410 Parties
May 10, 1990
Page 2
1. To allow a thorough and complete review of potential impacts to
wetlands from proposed development.
2. To insure that review and mitigation of all proposals occurs in
a consistent and environmentally sound manner.
The guidelines listed below are intended to cover a wide variety of
situations and do not include any special requirements that may
apply to a specific proposal. To be sure that a specific wetland
analysis contains the proper information, please review these guide-
lines and the proposal with the project planner.
WETLAND IMPACT ANALYSIS GUIDELINES
I. Wetland Consultant
A. A report prepared by the City of Kirkland's wetland con-
sultant is required if an initial site inspection by the
City indicates that a "regulated" wetland, as defined in
the Zoning Code, may exist on a site.
B. The consultant shall'establ.ish the scope of work, product,
or fee schedule and completion date. The applicant, City,
and consultant will sign a three -party contract agreeing
to the terms set forth. The City will require the appli-
cant to deposit sufficient funds to cover the cost of
preparing the report. The Planning Department will direct
and supervise the consultant's work.
C. The consultant shall have no involvement with the proposed
project other than for the purpose of wetland and environ-
mental analysis under the direction of the City.
D. If the applicant submits a wetland report without utiliz-
ing the above outlined process, the City will require that
the report be reviewed by the City's wetland consultant,
and a fee will be assessed for the review.
E. The consultant may contact the applicant for the purposes
of data collection and /or clarification of information.
F. The Planning Department will direct and supervise the
consultant's work. Direct contact between the applicant
and consultant regarding the study is to occur only with
prior approval of the City and for cause. This condition
is intended to create both the reality and appearance of
fairness.
II. Reauired Information
A. All wetland, reports shall include the following
information:
Memorandum to Interes• Parties
May 10, 1990
Page 3
1.
•
An overview of the methodology used to conduct the
study. Data sheets are to be included as an
appendix.
2. A description of the wetland (including a map identi-
fying the edge of the wetland and plant communities),
wetland classification (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water
Habitats in the U.S. ") description of the surrounding
area, including the drainage system entering and
leaving the wetland; and confirm the use of the
revised federal method used to delineate the wetland
edge (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland
Delineation, 1989, Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands).
3. History of the wetland. (Has it been modified by
man ?)
4. Function of the wetland. (Biological,
cation through filtration of sediments
storm water detention, ground water
shielding.)
5. A list of observed plant and wildlife
both scientific and common names, and
of their relative abundance.
water purifi-
and nutrients,
exchange, and
species using
a description
6. A list of potential plant or animal species based on
signs or other observations (e.g., nesting, denning,
breeding).
7. An assessment of the potential impact of proposed de-
velopment on the wetland, including loss of habitat,
changes in diversity or quantity of species, impact
to water quality, increases in human intrusion,
changes in volume of water entering the wetland, and
impacts on associated wetlands or downstream sensi-
tive areas.
8. Open space, recreation, or education values.
9. Recommended SEPA mitigation measures, if any, given
the development proposal.
In addition, the edge of the wetland shall be located and
marked in the field. The method of flagging shall be
defined. A vegetation map shall be submitted indicating
the location of vegetative type. A survey map shall be
submitted showing the limits of the wetland. The legal
description and map must be stamped by a licensed
surveyor.
Memorandum to Intere4 Parties
May 10, 1990
Page 4
•
B. If a consultant is hired to review a wetland report, the
report of that consultant shall evaluate the wetland line
identified in the first report and a mapping of any pro-
posed corrections. The contract for the reviewing consul-
tant may also contain a contingency for additional field
work and documentation in the event there are differences.
Mitigation Measures
If there is a wetland on or near the subject property, the
following measures are typically required to be incorporated
into the project. These may be imposed as. SEPA conditions or
as development permit conditions.
A. All Uses
1. Locate all structures, parking areas, or other im-
provements away from the edge of the wetland (Zoning
Code Chapter 90 requires a 50 -foot undisturbed
buffer).
2. Submit to the City for recording with the King County
Records and Elections Division a signed and notarized
dedication of development rights and an air space or
a greenbelt easement to the City to insure the
protection of the wetland and buffer areas.
3. Pretreatment of storm water required prior to dis-
charge into wetland. Discharge storm drainage
through grass -lined swales and oil /water separators
prior to release into the wetland. Where possible,
discharge away from the wetland is strongly encour-
aged. Parking areas, driveways, and structures
should be located at least five feet from grass lined
swales. This buffer area must contain dense land-
scaping, using native wetland vegetation, or a berm
or retaining wall.
4. Erect a three to four- foot -high permanent fence or
berm between the upland edge of all wetland buffers
and the developed portion of the site, subject to
approval by the Planning Department. The berm should
be designed to maintain adequate water flows into the
wetland. Installation of the fence or berm must be
done by hand to prevent machinery from entering the
wetland or its buffer.
5. Erect public information signs describing the func-
tion and values of wetlands at the upland edge of the
buffer. The design and placement of the signs shall
be consistent with city standards and subject to
Planning Department approval.
�
Memorandum to Interesed Parties
May 10, 1990
Page 5
6. Submit to the City for recording with the King County
Records and Elections Division a signed and notarized
covenant indemnifying the City from any loss includ-
ing claims made therefore arising out of maintenance,
flooding, damming, or enlargement of the wetland
existing on the property.
7. Stage all construction from the upland area and
statement of such on all construction and grading
plans.
8. Install a construction phase chain link fence and
silt screen along the upland edge of the buffer to be
inspected by the Planning Department prior to grading
or building.
9. Revegetate any soil or vegetation disturbance within
the buffer with hydroseed and /or other supplemental
wetland native vegetation approved by the Planning
Department. Certain plants cannot be used: Reed
Cannary, Purpleloo Strife, Russian Olive.
10. Prohibit use of chemicals and fertilizers within all
wetland buffers, or where no buffers are required,
their use will be limited to an area not closer than
fifty feet to the wetland edge.
11. Prepare and distribute information brochures for all
tenants or home purchasers which outline the function
and values of a wetland and sensitivity to distur-
bance subject to approval by the Planning Department.
B. Residential Uses
1. Prohibit or restrict the keeping of outdoor pets on
site.
2. Submit copies of tenant - signed leases which state
rules regarding pets and car wash areas. Prepare and
distribute a brochure explaining the ecological
rationale for these rules.
3. Designate car washing areas which drain into the
sanitary sewer system.
IV. Mitigation Plan
If any wetland loss results from a development action, a miti-
gation plan must be submitted which contains the following
elements:
1. Delineation of the wetland area to be lost.
2. Mitigation goals that compensate for the loss.
Memorandum to Interesili Parties
May 10, 1990
Page 6
3. Specific mitigation plans including, but not limited
to: pond construction and earth moving, revegeta-
tion, and substrate plans.
4. Criteria for success (e.g. survival rate, establish-
ment of permanent sampling points).
5. Require regular monitoring, including annual field
visit to ensure mitigation is progressing.
6. Have a bond - enforced contingency plan held to ensure
compliance in the event that the mitigation is
unsuccessful.
7. Include a buffer to protect the newly- created wetland.
V. Timing of Mitigation
All mitigations must be identified as
mitted as part of a building or grading
completed prior to occupancy; or if
related, completed prior to issuance of
gating measures are ongoing, they
perpetuity.
VI. Other Agencies Involvement
soon as possible, sub -
permit application, and
they are construction
the permits. If miti-
must be followed in
.A. The Washington State Departments of Wildlife or. Fisheries
may require a Hydraulic Project Approval Permit if the
wetland is connected/affects a fish bearing stream.
B. The City may at any time during the review process consult
with a state resource agency for technical assistance.
(Departments of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Ecology, all of
whom are agencies with either jurisdiction or environ-
mental expertise.)
PL \WTLDANAL /JLB:cm
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
. Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000
�r
APR 241990
April 23, 1990
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
ur , Y
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination
of nonsignificance for the Alpine Estates Subdivision pro-
posed by Lourie Contracting (EPIC- 23 -89). We reviewed the
environmental checklist and have the following comments.
The wetland report does not clearly indicate the amount of
wetland area that will be lost or the amount that will be
created. Ecology recommends using the following acreage re-
placement ratios in determining minimum compensation for un-
avoidable losses:
2.0:1.0 for Forested Wetlands
1.5:1.0 for Scrub Shrub Wetlands
1.25:1.0 for Emergent Wetlands
These ratios are to be used for calculating the area of
wetlands to be created. The area should be doubled for en-
hancement of existing wetlands.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bill Leonard of
the Wetlands Program at (206) 438 -7161.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. itchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:
cc: Bill Leonard
April 20, 1990
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
•
_13i %IM1111
APR 20 1990
CITY Ur. 'iUi.vvlLA
PLANNING DEPT.
RE: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF ALPINE ESTATES, SEPA APPEAL;
FILE EPIC -23 -89
Dear Ms. Anderson,
We, the residents of the adjacent property to the proposed Alpine
Estates, feel that this project will have a significant,negative .
impact on our local environment. There are two specific areas of
concern: the WILDLIFE supported by the wetlands; the additional
NOISE / of thencroaching freeways.
e reports submitted, thusfar, by Lourie Contracting fall short of
noting the wildlife that is enjoyed by the residents throughout the
seasons of the year. The area in question, supports many species
of birds which were not addressed in the SEPA checklist. Red -tail
hawks, an owl, doves, ducks, migrating geese, pairing woodpeckers,
and an eagle have been scene in this parcel of land. Raccoons and
gray squirrels are also inhabitants. The ducks and geese are winter
visitors. Songbirds were the only listed animal on the SEPA
report.
Many wet soil plants were overlooked by the report as well; the
skunk cabbage is prolific. Tr i 1 i um, bleeding heart, salmon berries,
and other foliage that flourish in a wooded area exist.
The other concern involves the fact that a natural sound barrier
exists between the freeways and our homes. I n the winter, when the
broadleaf trees are barren, the noise from 1 -405 and 1 -5 increases.
During spring and summer the deciduous trees act as a buffer. The
city of Tukwila is inundated with additional noise from air traffic
as well. Any means to prevent further pollution would seem
reasonable.
We feel that the impacts proposed by this development are
significant. We feel that the developer has not addressed these
issues adequately.
•
WE DISAGREE WITH THE CITY'S "DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE ".
WE FORMALLY APPEAL THE CITY'S DECISION. - "
SINCERELY,
Stephen and Cheryl Wheeler
Bonnie Wong
Bruce and Beth Paquette
Matt and Annie Cavanaugh
Dale and Lena Marvin
Steve Ghorley and Pat Soroe
csc�tIic
Audubon
Qoci�rtp
Washington Nonprofit Corporation 0/190
619 Joshua Green Building • Seattle, WA 98101 • 206!622 -6;95
April 20, 1990
Maxine Anderson, City Clerk.
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 981885
NEW ADDRESS:
Seattle Audubon Society
8028 35th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 523 -4483
EMEIIWIER
20MB 1.91
CITY OF TU WILA
CITY CLEt'tK,___
RE: Proposed subdivision of Alpine Estates, SEPA Appeal. File No. EPIC -23 -89
Dear Ms. Anderson,
The Seattle Audubon Society is comprised of over 4,500 members and is incorporated as "a non-
profit organization under the laws of the State of Washington. The Society is dedicated to the
protection, preservation, and enjoyment of wildlife, plants and their supporting habitats, and to
the wise use of natural resources. We are concerned about environmental issues throughout King
County including the City of Tukwila.
Our conservation committee has reviewed the City's Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance
(MDNS) (dated April 10,1990) for the proposed subdivision with respect to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (WAC 197 -11).
The Seattle Audubon Society concludes that at a minimum the following elements of the natural
environment will suffer a significant and adverse impact:
1. Earth; WAC 197 -11 -444 a.
The project may significantly accelerate -erosio nzpUmn� M nr_ operty.
2. Water; WAC 197.11 -444 c.
The mitigation proposed by the applicant does not adequately compensate for the
loss of naturaLretenton and detention and water quality treatment provided by
the wetland.
.
•
3. Plants and Animals; WAC 197 -11 -444 d.
No method or field data was presented in the developer's mitigation plan (dated
April 3, 19-9-01 indicatinthat the wetlands on the property were property identified
and delineated. There appears to be no evidence in the SEPA record indicating
verification of the wetland boundary.
The mitigation plan prepared by the developer inadequately inventories the existing
wildlife use of the site.
The mitigation plan proposed by the developer does not include sufficient
infornire that either the quantity of wetland area or the quality of
wetland habitat would be replaced at a 1:1 "no net Loss" ratio.
Our review concludes that the project proposes a significant and adverse impact to the
environment and that the solutions proposed by the applicant do not fully mitigate these impacts.
Therefore, the Seattle Audubon Society formally appeals the current Determination of Non -
Significance.
Sincerely,
Gerry Adams,
Vice President
WAC 197 -11 -970
-MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal Preliminary plat approval of a 13 lot subdivision for 5.76
acre parcel zoned R -1. -12.0 (Single Family Residential) Alpine Estates
Proponent BaiMa & Holmberg, Inc. (Dan Lourie, Lourie Contracting)
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Located at approximately
65th Avenue S. and 153rd St., Lot 19 Interurban Addition. Sec. 23, .Twn. 23, Rng. 4
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -23 -89
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement
(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after
review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the
lead agency. This information is available to the public on request.
0 There is no comment period for this DNS
[J This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
April 26, 1990 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official
Position /Title
Address
Date
Rick Beeler
Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwi
(P,6
Signature
Phone 433 -1846
8
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON SIGNIFICANCE
Alpine Estates Subdivision
DATE: April 11, 19 9 0
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval of 13 -lot subdivision on 5.76
acre parcel zoned R -1 -12.0 (Single Family Residential)
LOCATION: 65th Avenue South and 153rd Street, lot 19 of Interurban
Addition. Section 23, Township 23, Range 4E.
APPLICANT: Baima & Holmberg Inc.
FILE REFERENCE: EPIC- 23 -89, 89 -1 -Sub
THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION: This is a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
The environmental analysis consisted of review of the following
documents in the environmental record:
Wetland mitigation report (April 3, 19 9 0 )
Revised soils report (April 3, 19 9 0 )
Traffic study(June 19 8 9 )
Revised Environmental Checklist (April 3, 1990)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BACKGROUND
Since the application was submitted before the sensitive areas
moratorium was adopted; this application is "vested ". Development
review is based upon regulations in effect prior to November 17, 1989.
There has been extensive research on the wetland issue for this
project. Staff has requested an indepth study by IES Associates on
filling one of the two wetlands located on the site.
Alpine Estates Page 2
MDNS EPIC -23 -89
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The proposal involves preliminary plat approval for a 13 -lot
subdivision on 5.76 acres. The parcel is zoned for R -1 -12.0 single -
family residential. Each 12,000 square foot lot will have driveways with
less than 15% grade. There are two wetlands located on the site, Tract
"A" will be preserved and the other will be filled with structural fiLL
There is a cul -de -sac named South 153rd Place that meets the
subdivision code requirements. The sight and stopping distance at the
intersection of 65th Avenue South meet Public Works requirements. The
applicant has created two open space tracts "A and. B ", tract "A"
consists of 52,917 square feet with a wetland area and water course
will be preserved, while tract "B" will be 23,736 square feet of steep
wooded area. Both tracts will remain undeveloped. There is a 20 -foot
trail easement between lots 5 and 6 that will connect into the 62nd
Avenue traiL
To accomplish the proposal the following actions will be required,
preliminary plat approval from the Planning Commission and City Council
and compliance to the recommendation set forth by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
DESIGN FEATURES
The subdivision complies with the subdivision standards set forth by
the code.
PERMITS REQUIRED
* Grading permit
* Individual building permits for each building
* Utility /Street permits
* Hauling permits
* Army Corps permit (Nation Wide Permit OYB -4- 013259)
* Access permit
•
ALPINE ESTATES
MDNS EPIC- 23 -89, 89 -1 -SUB
CHECKLIST ITEMS
Page 3
The applicant's proposed changes to mitigate impacts organized by the
environmental elements.
A. SOILS
1. Based upon the revised soils report, dated April 3, 1990, prepared
by Geotech Consultants, Inc., the applicant will do the following:
A. A temporary erosion control plan be part of the submittal to
mitigate all potential erosion problems associated with the
constructions.
B. Construction of this development will be restricted to dry season
construction only. A schedule shall be provided outlying the dry
season construction.
B. MITIGATED WETLAND PLAN
The mitigated wetland plan is designed to expand the existing stream
corridor. This stream should increase the total wetland acres for the
entire site. The proposed enhancement should offset impacts created by
filling the isolated wetland bowl located east of the stream corridor.
As quoted by IES Associates, "the mitigation plan will not
quantitatively replace the wetlands at a rate of 1:1. There will be some
increase due to grading and increased water duration within the stream
corridor. This, plus the increase in biological diversity, with no loss
functional values, increases the qualitative values of the site at
greater than a 1:1 value ".
2. Based upon the wetland mitigation plan dated April 3, 1990, prepared
by IES Associates, the applicant will do the following:
A. Provide an annual narrative reports for five years describing the
type of plants and natural habitate reproduction patterns. In the
event this plan is not satisfactory to the City a modified report
and wetland plan shall be resubmitted.
B. The mitigated tract "A" area will be graded at the same time as
the grading of the remainder of the site and concurrent with the
filling of the wetland identified on the property.
ALPINE ESTATES Page 4
MDNS, EPIC- 23 -89, 89 -1 -SUB
C. Provide a photo log during March or April showing the annual
progress from the first year until the completion of the project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is
appropriate since the environmental review impact have been mitigated
for this proposal.
Staff's response to the Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance
are the following:
1. Provide a wetland restoration plan with the quantitative being 1:1
ratio and the qualitative ratio be 1:1 or better.
2. Provide a grading plan that will reflect the portion of the filled
development.
3. Provide indentification of any resloping of the hillside in tract "B ",
including revegetation (via of your landscape architect). In order
to bring this hillside to its stable angle of repose.
4. Identify the wall in tract "B" to be constructed as reinforced
concrete structural wall designed to retain the hillside.
SOILS
1. Identify where all side drains, side sewers are connected to the
public mains with slopes and inverts.
2. Provide connection into storm drain system for footing and roof
drains for all structures.
3. All sanitary side sewers be placed at 2% grade minimum (including
residual settlement requirements).
4. The applicant needs to address the extremely high moisture content
(ie: TP -6 and TP -8 with moisture contents of 64.1% and 168.7%
respectively). Provide adequate mitigation measures for the storm,
street, water and sewer systems in the proposed public roadway.
ALPINE ESTATES Page 5
MDNS, EPIC- 23 -89, 89 -1 -SUB
5. Identify on the revised grading plan any resloping of the hillside in
tract "B ", including revegetation (via of your . soils engineer
landscape architect). In order to bring this hillside to its stable
angle of repose.
6. To mitigate adverse impacts to water quality from siltation
impacts, temporary siltation control measures shall be reviewed
and approved prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit.
7. To mitigate adverse water quality impacts to the storm water
system from sedimentation, tire cleaning provisions shall be made
and any existing catch basins where mud is likely to collect shall
be protected by filter fabric.
PLANTS /AESTHETICS
1. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall
submit to the Community Development Department for review and
approval a Landscape Plan. The tree replacement ratio shall be 2:1.
PUBLIC FACITILIES
1. Relocate the storm drainage from the front of each lot, to under
the roadway section.
2. The contractor shall provide certification that all diesel, gasoline,
and air- powered equipment is properly muffled or silenced per the
Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) section 8.22.
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -0179
Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jack /rPace /Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: April 11, 1990
APR 111990
CITY OF TUK'W L
PLANNING DEPT. _....
RE: Alpine Estates Sub - Division Resubmittal - Public
Works Comments
Environmental resubmittal received 04/04/90, the applicant needs
to address the following:
1. Page 3 - # 10 Add the appropriate governmental approvals as
perscribed in Public Works original comments including: Grade
and Fill Permits, Nation Wide Permit (Ref. CORPS), Building
Permits; Utilities /Street Use /Access Permits.
2. Page 4 - B, 1,d - The expanded Geotechnical /Hydrological
Report does not address the extremely high moisture content (ie:
TP -6 and TP -8 with moisture contents of 64.1% and 168.7%
respectively). Per 2/21/90 comments from Public Works, we
question whether adequate mitigations have been provided for the
construction phase and final product for the proposed public
storm, street, water and sewer systems per the Geotechnical
Engineers Report of May 16, 1989.
3. Page 5 - #3a 1) - Add: Two wetlands, (1) wetland in the
center of the property and (1) wetland identified on the
westerly quarter of the property (identified as Tract A). Also
identify that this goes into the State I- 405 /Gilliam Creek and
Green River.
4. Page 6 - #4) - Provide response.
5. Page 6 - #3) - Per Planning Department, address mitigations
for filling in wetlands (wetlands enhancement ?)
• •
6. Page 11 - b -2) This answer is not responsive to original
request in 2/21/90 in terms of quantifying the decibels and
does not identify compliance with local noise ordinance for
mitigation.
7. Page 14 - #12,a- Recreation - Does not identify (per Public
Works comments of 2/21/90) public park just northeast of the
development on 65th Avenue South.
8. Page 14 - #12,c - Identify measure to provide recreational
opportunities for trail connection from 65th to trail on 62nd
Avenue South. Question: Is the wetland in Tract A going to be
donated for additional recreational opportunities for the City
and is Tract B going to be donated to the City for additional
recreational activities?
Land Use Questions - Subdivision - Public Works has the
following comments per the resubmittal:
1. Per comments of the 2/22/90 sub - division comments by Public
Works, the following still needs to be provided:
A. Vertical curve onto 65th Avenue South.
B. Minimum stopping site distance (30 MPH) calculation.
2. The typical section provided on Sheet 3 of 6 does not show
the typical 10 ft. utility easement beyond the right -of -way.
Also the pavement and sidewalk typical section does not comply
with the City's minimum standards. Requested is your
geotechnical consultant's and civil consultant's review of this
section to meet City's minimum standards and /or higher standards
if required for the Soils Report dated May 16, 1989 as amended
April 3, 1990 (Geo engineers). Of Specific concern is the high
moisture content in the soil and assurances of adequate removal
of all peat and unsuitable materials in the roadway section.
3. Your soils engineer report needs to identify whether
dewatering will be necessary as part of roadway construction
activities or utility construction activities for proposed
public roadway utility infrastructure.
4. On Page 4 of 6 in rockery detail, identify maximum slopes -
comment on 2/22/90 does not appearto have been addressed to
date; maximum slope behind rockeries - (2) horizontal: (1)
vertical show on plan. Requested is your geotechnical engineer
review the slopes behind the proposed public rockery to
determine whether a structural wall should be placed here
instead of a non - structural rockery considering that the slopes
are greater than 2 to 1 and /or whether the hill should be
• •
tapered back to provide for the 2 to 1 slope.
5. Proposed storm drains including detention facilities shall
be reinforced concrete.
6. Per comments of 2/22/90, City's Sewer, Water and Street
Development Standards shall be identified to apply to this
construction.
7. Relocate the proposed public storm drain under the roadway
section.
8. The development has not been responsive to the 2/22/90
comment; identify all side drains, side sewers connected to
public mains with slopes and inverts. It is impossible to tell
whether the soils engineer report requirements, which requires
tight line and connection to a storm drain system for footing
and roof drains for all structures, along with the City
requirement that all sanitary side sewers be placed at 2% grade
minimum (including residual settlement requirements) - - - can
be met.
9. City of Tukwila standards for water lines require that 3/4"
service be provided along with 3/4" water meters. Please change
on plans.
10. Provide street lighting plan.
11. Identify franchise utilities in proposed utility corridor
(including gas, power, cable T.V. and telephone).
xc: Ron cameron
Ross Heller
Development File: Alpine Estates
PF /amc:1:Alpine
City Of Tu 1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
6300 Souti center Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -0179
Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jack Pace /Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: April 10, 1990
RE: Alpine Estates Sub - Division Resubmittal - Public
Works Comments
Environmental resubmittal received 04/04/90, the aqpplicant
needs to address the following:
1. Page 3 - # 10 Add the appropriate governmental approvals as
perscribed in Public Works original comments including: Grade
and Fill Permits, Nation Wide Permit (Ref. CORPS), Building
Permits; Utilities /Street Use /Access Permits.
2. Page 4 - B, l,d - The expanded Geotechnical /Hydrological
Report does not address the extremely high moisture content (ie:
TP -6 and TP -8 with moisture contents of 64.1% and 168.7%
respectively). Per 2/21/90 comments from Public Works, we
question whether adequate mitigations have been provided for the
construction phase and final product for the proposed public
storm, street, water and sewer systems per the Geotechnical
Engineers Report of May 16, 1989.
3. Page 5 - #3a 1) - Add: Two wetlands, (1) wetland in the
center of the property and (1) wetland identified on the
westerly quarter of the property (identified as Tract A). Also
identify that this goes into the State I- 405 /Gilliam Creek and
Green River.
4. Page 6 - #4) - Provide response.
5. Page 6 - #3) - Per Planning Department, address mitigations
for filling in wetlands (wetlands enhancement ?)
• •
6. Page 11 - b -2) This answer is not responsive to original
request in 2/21/90 in terms of quantifying the decibels and
does not identify compliance with local noise ordinance for
mitigation.
7. Page 14 - #12,a- Recreation - Does not identify (per Public
Works comments of 2/21/90) public park just northeast of the
development on 65th Avenue South.
8. Page 14 - #12,c - Identify measure to provide recreational
opportunities for trail connection from 65th to trail on 62nd
Avenue South. Question: Is the wetland in Tract A going to be
donated for additional recreational opportunities for the City
and is Tract B going to be donated to the City for additional
recreational activities?
Land Use Questions - Subdivision - Public Works has the
following comments per the resubmittal:
1. Per comments of the 2/22/90 sub - division comments by Public
Works, the following still needs to be provided:
A. Vertical curve onto 65th Avenue South.
B. Minimum stopping site distance (30 MPH) calculation.
2. The typical section provided on Sheet 3 of 6 does not show
the typical 10 ft. utility easement beyond the right -of -way.
Also the pavement and sidewalk typical section does not comply
with the City's minimum standards. Requested is your
geotechnical consultant's and civil consultant's review of this
section to meet City's minimum standards and /or higher standards
if required for the Soils Report dated May 16, 1989 as amended
April 3, 1990 (Geo engineers). Of Specific concern is the high
moisture content in the soil and assurances of adequate removal
of all peat and unsuitable materials in the roadway section.
3. Your soils engineer report needs to identify whether
dewatering will be necessary as part of roadway construction
activities or utility construction activities for proposed
public roadway utility infrastructure.
4. On Page 4 of 6 in rockery detail, identify maximum slopes -
comment on 2/22/90 does not appearto have been addressed to
date; maximum slope behind rockeries - (2) horizontal: (1)
vertical show on plan. Requested is your geotechnical engineer
review the slopes behind the proposed public rockery to
determine whether a structural wall should be placed here
instead of a non - structural rockery considering that the slopes
are greater than 2 to 1 and /or whether the hill should be
tapered back to provide for the 2 to 1 slope.
5. Proposed storm drains including detention facilities shall
be reinforced concrete.
6. Per comments of 2/22/90, City's Sewer, Water and Street
Development Standards shall be identified to apply to this
construction.
7. Relocate the proposed public storm drain under the roadway
section.
8. The development has not been responsive to the 2/22/90
comment; identify all side drains, side sewers connected to
public mains with slopes and inverts. It is impossible to tell
whether the soils engineer report requirements, which requires
tight line and connection to a storm drain system for footing
and roof drains for all structures, along with the City
requirement that all sanitary side sewers be placed at 2% grade
minimum (including residual settlement requirements) - - - can
be met.
9. City of Tukwila standards for water lines require that 3/4"
service be provided along with 3/4" water meters. Please change
on plans.
10. Provide street lighting plan.
11. Identify franchise utilities in proposed utility corridor
(including gas, power, cable T.V. and telephone.
xc: Ron cameron
Ross Heller
Development File: Alpine Estates
PF /amc:1:Alpine
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ROUTING FOme:M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building fl Planning
EPIC:
Pub Wks Al Fire E Police E Parks/Rec
PROJECT ,4/p,'41E
ADDRESS 71'4 Ar.e. .50tiY-Fri
DATE TRANSMITTED -Wye, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 0070
STAFF COORDINATOR ,,e,e671) le.1/56/)V DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The
environmental review file Is available in the Planning 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
Ak5e- /52-4a. ic-2/2472
.12,542,0.
.1.1.Aot
Date: Comments prepared by: ,
09114/89
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ROWING F RM
ary OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPIC:
TO El Building fl Planning • Pub Wks X Fire 1 1 Police Parks/Re
PROJECT /42/p/Ve .541€5
ADDRESS 7116 Mte.
DATE TRANSMITTED 0.44e,
STAFF COORDINATOR /7"ze6-7e) /19/,_Sei7)
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY A/f:00
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The
environmental review file is available in the Planning 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
/45e- /5242. ee)
re3A920,
Date: 471/16/2V,
Comments prepared by: ,
09114/89
Cont., No.
Epic File No.
Fee 1100.00 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: ALPINE ESTATES
2. Name of applicant: Lourie Contracting
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
8575 S.._152 # #95 Seattle, Washington 98188 (206) 241 -4837
4. Date checklist prepared: June 12, 1989 (Revised April 14, 1990)
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Late 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. _
6/3/89 IES ASSOC WETLANDS EVALUATION & IMPACTS ANALYSIS AND 2/2/90 IES ASSOC
WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN; 11/30/89 DEPT OF APMY LETTEP. - OYB -4- 013259
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.
Fill and Grade Permit -City of Tuktvil''a; NATION WIDE PERMIT (ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS)
BUTLDING PERMITS: UTILITIES /STREET USE /ACCESS PERMITS
-2-
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
APR 0 M 1999
PERMIT CENTER
• 1
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
N/A
11. Give brief; complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use
and the site of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi.
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no .
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
13 LOT SUBDIVISION 5.7 ACRES FOR REIDENTIAL HOME SITES,.
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.
65TH AVENUE SOUTJL6 SOUTH 152ND STREET THRWTT.A WASHINGTON
13. Does the Proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
NO
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA•
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
40 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1. Earth
a. General description, Of the Site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
STEEP SLOPES
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 53 X
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural. soils,
Specify them and note any prime farmland.
SILTY SAND
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, _
THERE WILL BE 5000 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND 17,500
CUBIC YARDS OF FILL ON THE SITE TO MAKE THE STTV
MORE SUITABLE FOR HOMESi
f.. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction; or use? If so, generally describe.
YES, HOWEVER A TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATTON
CONTROL PLAN WILL BE PREPARED TO MINIMIZE EROSTON.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for -
example, asphalt or buildings)?
25%
•
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
4 TESC Plan has been Prepared
2. Air
a: What types of emissions to the air would, result from
the proposal (i.e:, dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
DUST AND EXHAUST FROM AUTOMOBILES AND TRACTORS
DURING CONSFUGTION. EXHAUST FROM AUTOMORTLFS AND
POSSIBLE WOOD SMOKE FROM FUTURE HOMES.
b. Are.there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe:
AIITOMORTLE F.XHAIIST FRnM APARTMENT cnmpuS ANTI
ROADWAYS:
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
NONE
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and Seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds; wetland4)t If yes, describe type and
provide names: If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into:
A SMALL STREAM RUNS NORTH_S.QILTALALONG THE.
WESTERN SIDE OF THE SITE
• � Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within, 200 .feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans:
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. VERY LITTLE FILL
WILL OCCUR WITHIN WESTERLY WETLAND AREA. CENTRAL
WETLANDS WILL BE DREDGED AND FILLED. APPROX. 3500
CU YD WILL BE DREDGED AND HAULED OFFSITE FROM THIS
AREA
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan:
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.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
ditchared to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
NO
2) Describe waste material* that will be discharged
into the ground from Septic tanks or other sour -
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, . containing the following
che+aicalS::.: agricultural; etc:) Describe the
general site of the System, the number of such
system(, the number df houses to be Served (if
app(iCab1E), or the number •animals or humans
the system(S) Are expected to serve:
NONE
c. Water Runoff (including storni water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include _quantities, if known): Where will
this water flowt Will thi3 water flow into
other water4t If id, describe. .
STORM WATER. FROM ROADWAY - HOME'S AAD DRIVEWAY$ .
WILL BE COLLECTED AND SENT INTO hHE CITY STORM
SYSTEM4..
r Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could watt! materials enter ground or Surface
waterst if toe generally destribe:
No:..
d. Proposed nieasureS to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any!
STORM DETENTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO CONTROL
PEAR RUNOFF RATE FROM SITE
4. plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site!
xx dec iduouS tree! r :4`�:� aspen, other
xx evergreen tree! QD;1� pine, other
xx shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
— wet SOH plants! cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants! water lily, eelgrast, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b: What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
THE SItE WILL BE CLEARED FOR HONE CONSfi ^.UCTTOlk
_.TAE WETLAND AT A WTT.T. k FAHPNCE1) .PFD .ES,. MTTr� _ e N
PLAN
c. list threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site
NONE
•
d. Proposed landscaping;
meaSUres td preserve
site, if any:
LAWNS & FL o
eiteni
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
use of native plants, or other
or enhance vegetation on the
ROME
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the Site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle,
other:
mamnial5: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered Species known to
bexonEor Hear the sites
c. Is the Site part of a migration route? If so,
explain:
Ito
d. Proposed Mle *Silres to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
moll?
•
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, !Mot) will be used to meet the
completed project'! energy needst describe whether
it will be .tiled for heating, manUfatturing; etc.
LLECT1UcITY AND NATURAL GAS ARE .AVAILABLE TO THE
.SITE. INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNERS COULD USE SOLAR
OR WOOD HEAT,
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
lmpact5, if any:
HOMES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO CURRENT
ENERGY CODES,
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any
including exposure
and explosion, spit
occur as a resul
describe.
NO
environmental health hazards,
to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
1, or hatardous waste, that could
t of this proposal? If so,
1) Describe speclat emergency services that might
be required:
N/A
2) Proposed nleaSUres to reduce or control environ-
mental health hatards, if any
N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
•
1) Whit types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation; other)?
TRAFFIC FROM BUSY ROADWAYS AND APARTMENT
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.
NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION DURING DAYLIGHT KQjIFS
AND FROM HOMES DURING ALL HOURS. CONSTRUCTION
EQUIPMENT WILL MEET FEDERAL AND STATE NOISE
LEVEL STANDARDS
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
NONE
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
SITE IS UNDEVELOPED. ADJACENT SITES ARE_APARWENT
COMPLEXES_AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES_
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
NONE
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NO
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? R -1 -12.0
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designaat on
of the site? LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH_SPFC,IAL-
DENSITY CONSIDERATION
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
YES. THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE HAS BEEN
DESIGNATED AS WETLANDS.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project?
13 HOMESITES
Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? NONE
J.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: NONE
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: PROJECT CONFORMS TO EXISTING AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - Income
hoUSing? 13 MIDDLE INCOME HOMESITES
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any :NONE
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
35'
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed?
NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: THE SITE WILL BE 1.ANDRrAPFn
AFTER CONSTRUCTION,
• Ili Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light And 91sr41
a. What type Of light or glare will the proposal
prodUce? What time of day would It mainly occur?
GLARE FROM WINDOWS OF HOMES DURING DAYLIGHT HRS:
LIGHT FROM HOMES DURING EVENING HRS.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hatard or interfere with views? No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? LIGHT A„ND GLARE FROM ADJ.
APT: AND HOMESt
d. Proposed Measures td reduce or control light and
glare Impacts; if any: NONE
12. Recreation
a. What designed And informal recreational oppor-
tunities Are in the 'Mediate vicinityt
_
!OUT DENTPi.EK AND rREEN RIVER ARE 1/4 MILE EAST
A TRAIL WILL BE PROVIDED TO CONNECT TO EXISTING
TRAIL SYSTOM IN 62nd AVENUE S.
b. Would the propd5ed project displace any existing.
recreational usest if so, describe:_ED
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicants if any :NONE
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Nistoric'end Cultural pretervation
a. Are there any placa or objectt listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
register! known to be on Or next to the site? If
so, generally describe: No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: NONE
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
ROAD WILL CONNECT TO.. 65th AVENUE S.
b. Is the site currently Served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit ttopt NO ONE BLOCK.
c. How many parking !paces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? IT WILL
ADD 18 PLACES. NONE
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate Whether public or private): ONE STREET
?.UNNING THROUGH PROJECT STIE TO SERVE HOt1ES
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe: No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur:
130 TRIPS. PEAK VOLUMES WILL OCCUR JMIRTN(: NnPMAL
PEAK TRAFFIC TIMES.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
NONE
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:
YES. ALL PUBLIC SERVICES WILL RR TNCPF.ASFD TO-SHAVE
13 MORE HOMESITES.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
NONE
16. Utilities
A4 Cirle� t llitie ent1
C
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b1e at the site:
dlfuse sere icd;j
septic sys emt other.
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 'Mediate vicinity which might be needed.
WATER, SEWER, STORM; ELECTRIC, GAS, CABLE TV AND
PHONE SERVICES WILL BE EXTENDED To SERVR TRF PROPPRTjq
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on thed to make its decision.
1�
Signature: 4111,11 14•114-
4/4
Date Submitted: 3 �i 4 1( 90 /90 (Re v(6/63 6w )
PLEASE CONTINUE t0 THE NEXT PAGE.
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA411
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these qu estlons are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the. list of the elements of
the environment:
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? ADDITIONAL STORM RUNOFF WOULD OCCUR DUE TO.
ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA. AN INCREASE IN EMISSIONS
COULD OCCUR IF WOODSTOVES ARE USED.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
STORM DETENTION WILL BE PROYIDED TO CONTROT, STORM RUNOFF.
WOODSTOVES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET CURRENT EMISSION
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life?
SMAT.T. ANIMALS ON STTR WOULD LEAVE_ ENTSTTNC TIMER •
WOULD BE CLEARED.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are:
FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION. THE WETLAND AREA AROUND THE
STREAM:WILL REMAIN.
• . Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or
natural •esources? 13 NEW HOMES WOULD USE ENERGY FOR
HEAT AND LIGHT:
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are: HOMES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO
MEET CURRENT ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands? A SMALL WETLAND (LESS THAN 1 ACRE) ON THE
SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE WILL BE FILLED. PERMIT
HAS BEEN OBTAINED FORM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGTNEERS
( OYB -4- 013259)
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
• or reduce impacts are:
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage .land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? N/A
Ill . Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed Measures to Avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impact! Brea! Hi
How does the proposal conform to the tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan? NA
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public Services and utilities? , 13
NEW HOMES WOULD PUT INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR ALL PIIRT,T(
SERVICES ANS UTILITIES.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: NONE
7. Identify, if possible, Whether the proposal may conflict
with local, State, or federal laws or requirements for
the protection of the environment. NA
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Lend Us! Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the► Plan? NO
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are
40 BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation,provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? TO PROVIDE
13 NEW HOMES FOR MIDDLE TO UPPER MIDDLE INCOME FAMTT,TES.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? NEW HOMES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TN A DTFFF.RENT
LOCALE.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: THIS SITE TS PRFVFRRED_
ALL UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES APR. AVATTARLF ayD
THE SITE IS NEAR TWO FREEWAYS.
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
CamprehenSlve land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
BAIMA & HOLMBERG INC.
April 4, 1990
Darren Wilson
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Alpine Estates
Dear Darren:
JN 54 -001
APR 41990
LET \: OF UILvvii.A
PLANNING DEPT.
Thank you for meeting with us last week on Alpine Estates. As a
result of that meeting, we revised the environmental checklist,
the preliminary plat and engineering plans for the project.
Enclosed please find the following:
5 sets of revised environmental checklist
7 copies of revised preliminary plat
7 copies of revised engineering plans
Sht 1 Site Plan /Index
Sht 2 Utility and Street Light Plan
Sht.3 Profiles and Details
Sht 4 Grading and Erosion Control Plan
Sht 5 Cross Sections
Sht 6 House /Driveway Locations
2 copies of soils update review letter
Per the discussion at the meeting, we made the plans:
Site Plan /Index
* Added new drawing
Preliminary Plat
* Revised Lot 13
* Revised driveway access to Lots 3,4 & 5
* Revised trail location
* Added open space easements on Lots 6 thru 12
* Called for dedication of tracts A & B to City of
Tukwila
* Called for Lot 13 as non building until such time as
driveway issue is resolved
Utility Plan
* Added street lights
* Revised water line - used bends instead of deflecting
pipe
* Revised sewer layout, added side sewers
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 206/392 -0250
Darren Wilson
April 4, 1990
Page Two
* Revised storm plan, directed all storm drainage to
storm system 114 65th Avenue S.
* Added 10' utility easement to front of all lots for
power, phone, cable TV and gas
Profile and Details
* Revised sewer profile - maximum depth is 14 ft.
* Revised storm profile
* Revised road profile to meet SSD per AASHTO
standards
Grading and Erosion Control Plan
* Added note on seeding and mulching slopes
* Called out tree planting (2:1 compensation) on
Southern 30 ft of Lots 8 -12
Cross Sections
* Revised per new grades
* Added sections through house on Lot 2
House /Driveway Locations
* Added driveways to all houses
* Added curb, gutter & sidewalk to plan
Please note that we revised the entry grade to 65thlAvenue S. to
6% and designed the crest vertical curve inside the;developmenmt
to meet AASHTO specifications for stopping site distance for a 30
MPH design speed. This` necessitated a large "cut" at the entry
and we have gone back to the structural wall along ;a portion ,of
tract "B" so that tract "B" can remain natural.
The maximum sewer depth has been reduced to 14 ft. which is well
within the recommended depth limit for SDR 35 PVC pipe. We see
no need for special soil borings at this time for the sewer line.
We have noted that a representative of Geo Engineers is to be on
site during filling and grading operations to insure conformance
with the Soils Report.
Please note that the soils letter recommends that GEO Engineers
should provide monitoring services during earthwork. We have
required this in a note on the grading plan.
Darren Wilson
April 4, 1990
Page Three
I believe that you now have adequate information to'make a sepa
determination for the project. I would anticipate some revisions
to the engineering plans after public works review, but not
subtantial enough revisions to impact the project. , Again thank
you for working with us. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call me at 392 -0250.
Very truly yours,
BIAMA & HOLMBERG INC.
W. Shupe Holmberg, P.E.
Enclosures
cc: Dan Lourie
Geo
Engineers
April 3, 1990
Baima & Holmberg, Inc.
1505 Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite 7
Issaquah, Washington 98027
Attention: Mr. Shupe Holmberg
Review Comments
Grading Plan
Alpine Estates
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 1559- 002 -BO7
Consulting Geotechnical
Engineers and Geologists
This letter presents our review comments regarding the grading plan for
the proposed Alpine Estates development in Tukwila, Washington. We reviewed
the drawing titled "Alpine Estates, House /Driveway Locations" and dated
February 7, 1989.
We reviewed the grading plan with respect to the steepness of planned
cuts, the removal of the compressible soils, and the steepness of the
planned fill embankments. In our opinion, the grading plan has been
prepared in substantial compliance with the recommendations presented in our
report dated April 24, 1989.
As discussed in a telephone conversation between Mr. John Torrence of
Baima & Holmberg, Inc. and Mr. Doug Argo of GeoEngineers, Inc., we recommend
that a geotextile fabric be placed under the quarry spalls for the "rock
entrance." The subgrade under the quarry spalls will consist of medium
dense to dense silty sand. During wet weather, this material will pump
under heavy traffic. The fabric will minimize damage to the subgrade and
will reduce the possibility of contamination of the quarry spalls from
subgrade intrusion. If the integrity of the rock and the subgrade are
maintained, the quarry spalls may be incorporated into the road subgrade.
It may be appropriate to extend the fabric 25 to 50 feet west of the end of
the quarry spalls to protect the subgrade where the roadway fill is still
Geangineers, Inc.
2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105
Bellevue, WA 98005
'Iclephone (206) 746 -52(0
Fax. (206) 746 -5068
klfazk
r�17sa, ?•:rfxs R. l..t,.+7�' t}!!r� 5ati�+lt•,.sM+l���^�a 0 �c�l:r�} �a
Ge0 %0 Engi needs
Baima & Holmberg, Inc.
April 3, 1990
Page 2
relatively thin. The need for this extension of the fabric should be
determined in the field during construction. We recommend that Mirafi 600X
or equal be used under the quarry spalls.
As stated in our report dated April 24, 1989, we recommend that the
earthwork for this site be completed during dry weather. The site soils
contain significant amounts of fine material (passing the U.S. No. 200
Sieve) and are easily disturbed and will be nearly impossible to compact
when wet.
We recommend our firm provide monitoring services during the earthwork
portion of the construction to observe and evaluate subgrade and fill
performance, and to determine if our recommendations are correctly
interpreted in the field.
We trust that this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions
or need additional information, please call.
Yours very truly,
DEA:WRC:sd
Two copies submitted
cc: Lourie Contracting, Inc.
8575 South 152nd, #95
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Dan Lourie
. T',�.:ra�•�i.N .�Y+ s-L ;�. �f ��Y +S�'Ak7F'7
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Douglas E. Argo
Staff Engineer
` i2
William R. Clevenger
Associate
r �
Wetlands Mitigation Plan
of
Alpine Estates
for
Laurie Contracting Inc.
575 South 152nd Ave., #95
Tukwila, WA 98188
by
IES Associates
1514 Muirhead Avenue
Olympia, Washington 98502
April 3, 1990
MYGM
APR 0 4 1991
ciTY OF -T 61-6741-CA
PLANN►Nn JF!-r.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. Introduction 1
1
2. Existing Conditions
3. Wetland Values 1
3.1. Functional Values 1
3.1a. Proposed Functional Values 2
Figure 1 - Site Map 4
3.2. Biological Values 5
4. Mitigation Impacts Analysis 5
5. Description 6
5.1. Grading 6
5.2. Vegetation 8
5.2a. Planting Plan 9
6. Mitigation Goals .. 10
7. Procedures 11
8. Project Objectives 11
9. Monitoring 12
10. Products 14
Table 1 - Planting Plan 15
i
1. Introduction.
The enclosed wetland mitigation plan consists of the
expansion of the existing stream corridor to increase the
total wetland acres in this portion of the site, improve the
low flow stream channel and enhance the existing wetlands
within the corridor. The proposed enhancement will offset
impacts created by filling the isolated wetland bowl located
east of the stream corridor.
2. Existing Conditions.
The existing stream corridor consists of a channelized
low flow channel in an intermittently wetted area with a
vegetative component that is dominated at the upper elevations
by Himalayan blackberry and at the lower elevations by reed
canarygrass. The channel allows water to be directed through
the site as drainage with little opportunity to provide
functional or biological values to the area. Because of the
steepness of the slopes, the riparian -edge provides no wetland
values except at the toe where flood waters interact with the
banks.
The area being mitigated consists of an isolated bowl
that is created by the collection of runoff from the
surrounding slopes. The functional values of the existing
wetland are water retention, biofiltration, and ground water
recharge. Runoff from the steep slopes surrounding this
portion of the wetland collect in this basin and are retained.
During extensive heavy rain periods there is the potential for
water to overflow and expand the size of the retention area,
however, these events are infrequent enough and for short
enough periods, that they do not create wetland conditions.
3. Wetland Values.
3.1. Functional Values.
The area to be filled is a part of the development that
collects and retains surface water. In the process of
retaining the water, it eliminates the possibility of any
surface water contaminants or sediments from reaching any fish
1
bearing streams. The water is filtered as it percolates
through the ground until it interacts . with the ground water
table. By retaining the water, the wetland eliminates the
potential of the runoff from contributing to down stream
flooding.
However, because of the small size of the runoff basin
and the amounts of water this area contributes, the flood
desynchronization is really of little significance. Also,
because of the limited basin and amounts of runoff, the
amounts of contaminants and /or sediments is limited. This is
reflected in the conditions of the isolated wetland bowl.
During the summer this area goes dry. The vegetation, which
is dominated by reed canarygrass, buttercup and willow, is all
capable of adjusting to . these drying conditions. There is
little accumulation of sediments in the area to indicate that
it collects large or significant amounts of material from the
runoff.
3.1a. Proposed Functional Values.
The proposed wetland enhancement plan will include the
redirection of the water that is now trapped in the small
bowl, to the creek corridor. With the redirection there will
be an increase in water entering the creek in this area. This
may, at times of heavy runoff, increase the nutrient load from
yards and the sediment load from roads in the runoff that will
reach the creek corridor.
The mitigation plan has been designed to incorporate the
retention characteristics of the existing wetland bowl as
detention characteristics through the use of ponds, swales,
water diversions, and low dikes. Those waters that are now
retained .on site will be slowed to a point where the sediments
will settle prior to their entry into the low flow creek
channel. In addition, the ponds, meanders, and back -flow dike
will slow and settle sediments and contaminants through this
reach of stream. Under existing conditions, any materials in
the water through this reach continue on downstream. The
result will be a potential increase of non - settleable material
from existing runoff sources reaching the creek after varying
2
periods of detention, with no increase in settleable solids.
However, with proper oil -gas separators and sediment
collection chambers, much of the non - settleable material will
be trapped before it reaches the natural corridor along the
creek.
Waters collected from the development will be diverted
into streamside swales, and ponds which will be created with
the meandering of the creek channel. The ponds will be
located at the outside corners (Figure 1) of the meanders of
the stream. Each pond will have retention capabilities
because of the increased water depths. With retention will
come biofiltration, flood desynchronization and increased
ground water percolation. Because of the interaction with the
stream the ponds will not hold water for long periods of time
in the winter. The waters will be flushed through the system,
thus reducing the possibilities of stagnation. During summer
months the pond are expected to dry down and possibly go dry
in many summers. However, because of their close relationship
to the creek they will be recharged each time there is a
sufficient amount of rain to spill water out of the confines
of the low flow channel of the creek. At these times the
sediments that are typically in low volume short duration
.flood flashes will be collected and detained or possible even
retained in the pond units. As the waters drop below the level
of the pond bottoms the material in the slowed water will drop
out, allowing cleaner water than entered to exit.
3
3.2. Biological Values.
The wetland bowl, proposed to be filled with the
development, supports some wildlife species during winter
periods when there is standing water in the bowl. This is
intermittent and disappears as the area dries down in the
spring. During the dry periods, the shrubs provide some
habitat for smaly birds. In all probability, there is some
predator use of the area as almost all small intermittent
ponds support some frog and salamander use which provides a
ready prey base for predators.
The creek corridor acts as a forested .upland providing
habitat to a variety of small forest using passerine . birds and
mammals. There is likley to be some predator activity along
the low flow channel as long as there is water in the
streambed. Water attracts a variety of upland small mammals
and ground birds which become more .vulnerable in such
situations to predation.
With the increase in open water surface, the creation of
an emergent marsh component, and the wide shrub buffer
adjacent to the creek corridor, a series of edges will be
created. Edges in an ecosystem provide additional habitats
for a wide array of users. The ponds should attract the same
waterfowl that use open wetland pockets in the area, create
habitats for rails, and increase hunting areas for herons,
raccoon, and skunks. The increase in vegetative diversity
will create habitat for wrens, additional sparrows, and
thrushes.
4. Mitigation Impacts Analysis.
With the ponds, swales, and back -flow dikes, the proposed
stream modification /enhancement will create conditions to
duplicate the short term actions of the existing wetland bowl.
The mitigation,' will not however, prevent all collected
surface runoff that is now detained from reaching the creek.
Because of this, there could be the potential of some
materials that are now trapped to reach the creek. However,
5
with proper traps and sediment basins, much of these materials
should be stopped before they become a part of the natural
runoff system.
The ponds, swales, meandered channel, and back -flow dike
will increase the biofiltration and sediment removal from
upstream waters that now flow through the creek, and will
continue until changed off -site, to flow through this reach of
the creek unchanged. This should contribute to better
downstream conditions.
Water from runoff that does not reach the creek under
existing conditions will reach the creek under the proposed
mitigation plan. This has the positive aspect of adding
water, especially during summer rains, to a system that
frequently goes dry for periods. The negative aspect is the
potential for increased contamination in the creek. If
properly constructed and monitored, the .on-site systems built
in to the utilities, along with the swales, should
significantly reduce this potential. If the systems are not
designed and /or constructed and, maintained properly, there is
an increased potential for sediments that are now trapped to
reach the stream.
The mitigation plan will not quantitatively replace the
wetlands at a rate of 1:1. There will be some increase due to
grading and increased water duration within the stream
corridor. This, plus the increase in biological diversity,
with no loss to functional values, increases the qualitative
values of the site at greater than a 1 :1 value.
5. Description.
5.1 Grading.
The proposed mitigation plan includes the redirection of
the existing low flow channel to provide a meandered stream
with overflow capabilities to allow increased flooding of the
area surrounding the low flow channel. The existing channel
will be modified through the use of structures such as sandbag
gabions, anchored logs, stumps or boulders, and some grading.
6
The stream regrading will occur at the same time as the
creation of the ponds. All meanders and ponds will be .
excavated in the dry (i.e., whent he water is not in the area)
and seeded with an annual rye overseed to stabilize the banks
before the creek is diverted. The slope of the ponds will
vary, being 2:1 on the upstream side and 3:1 on the
downstream. This creates the flow through characteristic of
an in- stream pond that is created by water action. As water
flows in and out of the pond during high flow events, the
current will dig as it drops down the 2:1 slope then deposit
as it leaves via 'the 3:1 slope. This reduces the velocity of
water crossing the ponded areas during high flows. During low
flows, the water will spill from the low flow channel into the
ponds as the water level increases. The water will be
retained in the ponds for the duration of these higher flows
plus the time it takes for the water in the ponds to either
percolate during dry periods. The ponds are designed to have
a small berm that force the lowest flows to remain in the
creek bed. This creates a number of necessary conditions,
such as: (1) it reduces the spread of water during low flows
thus decreasing the potential to increase water temperatures,
(2) it allows the water level in the ponds to drop, thus
clearing the standing water of settleable solids and creating
the potential for settling of materials from creek waters
during low volume floods, and (3) it maintains a scoured low
flow channel for potential fish and /or amphibian use.
The intent of the plan is to allow scouring of a
meandered channel through the existing flat bottom portion of
the corridor while allowing overflow and back flooding into
the ponds and the flood corridor of the stream during high
water periods.
Back flooding will be created by the small dike along the
north side of the lower or southern end of the channel on the
site. With this dike, the flood waters will back over the
flood plain and flow around the dike into the low flow
channel. At higher flows, the water will overflow the small
dike. This is intended to reduce the potential for scouring
of the existing steep slopes and the proposed fill in the back
7
of the lots abutting this area. This also increases. the .
retention time on the site and reduces flow velocities
reaching downstream sections of the stream.
The diversion structures and channeling will create three
outside corners. As the water level raises in the stream,
water will overflow at these corners, thus flooding the entire
bottom with a current as opposed to back flooding throughout
the entire stream corridor. This will allow some siltation
and biofiltration without creating excessive sedimentation
build -ups in low spots in the system. The pond slope
configuration will allow sediments to move through the ponds
reducing the potential for these areas to become filled with
silt over the years. The sediment will collect at the bottom
dike expanding its width over a period of years. The
increased incidence of flooding of some of these areas may
allow more wet tolerant species such as bulrushes and cattail
to compete with the reed canary grass.
5.2 Vegetation.
In addition to the grading, the area will be revegetated
to create a more diverse plant community and to introduce
species that may compete with the existing invader plants.
Planting will be divided into three categories:
(1) Emergent wetland plants introduced into the areas
disturbed by the channel realignment and in the downstream
contours of.the ponds.
(2) Streambank shrubs to create low canopy cover next
to the stream, to anchor the low flow channel banks, and to
increase water deflection as it moves through the area.
(3) Slope vegetation to provide a physical and visual
buffer between the development and the low flow stream
corridor. The. slope vegetation will not necessarily be
wetland because of the elevation of the upper slope in
relation to water depths. This maintained area will not only
create a buffer, it will provide some tree /shrub vegetation to
offset the removal of trees . and shrubs from the upland
portions of the site with the development.
8
5.2a. Planting Plan.
1. Emergent wetland plants species to be planted are:
cattail, big -stem bulrush, slough sedge, and softrush.
The slough sedge will be planted in clusters next to
shaded or high canopy areas to create a shaded marsh
component. The bulrush and cattail will be planted at the
outside corners behind a row of willow that will be located on
the low channel bank and at the downstream ends of the ponds.
Both cattail and bulrush have the ability to expand and
compete with canarygrass. They also create excellent
biofiltration areas. The softrush will be planted at the
upper edge of the wetland at the toe of the slope.
Bulrush, cattail, and slough sedge will be planted on 18
inch centers in clusters of (minimum) 100 plants.
2. Stream bank shrubs will consist of a mix of Pipers
and heart -leaf willow. These willows are low growing, bushy
type plants that provide good bank stabilization. They are
somewhat open canopy shrubs that allow enough light to reach
the ground for understory plants to survive. This would allow
for more plant diversity that occurs with some other willow
species. Willow would be planted on 6 foot centers to allow
normal or maximized growth potential without competing for
space. When planted to closely plants tend to become leggy
and not provide maximum cover. This spread also limits the
stem density which effects the back flooding associated with
dense ground level growth.
Smaller (i.e., 3 - 4 foot) plants would be used to
enhance their initial survival. (Plants that are too small
frequently ,get covered by grasses and die for lack of
sunlight, larger plants have a higher initial mortality rate).
3. The slope revegetation will include a mixed
tree /shrub community with the shrubs consisting of both ground
and higher canopy species. Because of the rapid change in
elevation created by the slope, the shrub mix will include
some wetter tolerant species while the higher areas would be
9
•
planted with dryer tolerant species. The upper border. of. .
shrubs would include berry and fruit bearing species that
flower in the spring, provide fairly rapid growth, and create
small bird and mammal habitat while creating a physical and
visual buffer between the dwelling yards and the center core
of the wetland. Plants that will be used are:
Lower elevation:
Ninebark Physocarpus capitatus
Pipers willow Salix piperi
Heart -leaf willow Salix rigida
Peach -leaf willow Salix amygdaloides
Red - osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera
Oregon ash Fraxinus latifolia
Crabapple Pyrus fusca
Higher elevation:
Red - flowering currant Ribes sanguineum
Lewis mockorange Philadelphus lewisii
Pea -fruit rose Rosa pisocarpa
Twinberry Lonicera involucrata
Osoberry Osmaroriia cerasiformis
Plum Prunus americana
Chokecherry Prunus virginiana
Sour cherry Prunus cerasus
Black cottonwood Populus trichocarpa
Quaking aspen Populus tremuloides
Birch Betula papyrifera
Mid level:
Snowberry Symphoricarpos alba
Nootka rose Rosa nutkana
This band of vegetation would be planted on the slope
behind the residences as a mixed hedge. Planting would be 1 -2
gallon size planted on 2 foot centers.
The remainder of the plants will be planted on 6 -10 foot
centers, depending on the species. See Table 1.
6. Mitigation Goals.
The goals of the mitigation plan are: (1) to improve the
existing creek channel through the site, (2) provide equal or
better water purification and flood control values than occur
10
• •
under existing conditions, and (3) mitigate for the functional
and biological values lost with the filling of the small
isolated wetland bowl.
7. Procedures.
The mitigation area will be graded at the same time as
the grading of the remainder of the site and concurrent with
the filling of the wetland identified on the property.
However, if this occurs in the winter, the grading of the
stream channel will be deferred until summer low water. Once
the creek realignment is completed, the area will be planted
with emergent marsh and grass species to maximize the water
purification capabilities of the site once the area is paved
and developed. Depending on the time of year, the shrub and
tree cover planting may be postponed until the fall following
construction so plants can be planted during the dormant
season to maximize their survival. If some shrub or tree
planting is required during the summer months, a temporary
irrigation system will be put i'n place either through
intermittent shallow water flooding or through a peripheral
sprinkler system to provide maximum survival of the shrubs and
trees during the first growing season.
At the end of the construction season, in the fall of the
first year, the remainder of the shrubs and plants not planted
during the initial construction period would be planted during
the dormant season.
Monitoring would be initiated at the completion of the
construction and phase 1 of the planting, be it partial
planting or completion of the planting program.
Hay bales or other devices will be maintained during the
construction period. At the end of the construction grading,
the creek channel would be cleaned and planted. This would
eliminate or reduce the potential for sediment loading of the
ponds before the project is put on line.
8. Project Objectives.
The objectives are based on survival rates, plant spread,
groundcover, and percentage of vegetative cover at each of the
11
stratum. The objectives are set out year by year to give a
barometer of success or failure of the project. The goals
provide standards for the monitoring person /s to use in their
annual assessments:
(1) Achieve 80 percent survival of emergent marsh
plants during the first growing season.
(2) Achieve 85 percent groundcover of grass and
emergent marsh during the first growing season.
(3). Achieve an 80 percent survival of shrubs and 60
percent survival'of trees at the end of the first growing
season.
(4) Achieve a 50 - 60 percent bank and bottom cover by
emergent marsh plants by the end of the third growing season.
(5) Achieve a 50 percent canopy cover in shrub /tree
areas by the end of the third year.
(6) Have .definable evidence of reproduction or
expansion of planted plants either through re- seeding of
suckering by the end of the fourth year.
(7) At the end of year 5, have 80 percent survival of
plants that were alive at the end of year 3, definable
evidence of reproduction and have 95 percent groundcover
throughout that area that includes grassline swale and the
retention /detention pond.
9. Monitoring.
The monitoring program will be initiated at the
completion of the planting. At that time, a time -zero report
will be completed by the planter and the design biologist.
The time -zero report will identify problems in obtaining
materials, differences in sizes of materials than were
originally called .for, difference in spacing of materials than
were originally called for, replacement materials if
necessary, and any other conditions that varied from the
12
restoration plan. (If there is a major change in the
restoration plan, change orders will have to be agreed to by
the City of Tukwila . before proceeding.
Photo points will be established at time -zero. They will
reflect the grassline swale, the emergent marsh portion of the
retention /detention pond, and a cross section of the
shrub /scrub /tree border surrounding the pond. Through
evaluating three basic community types, a cross - section of the
success or failure of the site can be evaluated.
Annual reports will be supplied to Laurie Contracting
Inc. and the City of Tukwila at the end of growing seasons, 1
through 4. At the end of the third year, there will be a site
inspection and evaluation by the consultant and the City of
Tukwila to determine the status of the revegetation plan. If,
at the end at the third year, there is evidence that the
revegetation is not meeting pre- determined requirements, a
contingency plan will be designed by the Laurie Contracting
Inc., their consultants, and the City_of Tukwila.
Monitoring will be conducted in the spring of year 1
after the green -up (i.e., approximately May 15 after the
vegetation has started to grow but has not reached a height
where it would preclude an evaluation of secondary growth at
the base of the cattail and larger plant stock material). The
second monitoring will occur in the fall after the growth has
ended, approximately the first to the fifteenth of November.
A written report with the photo documentation will be provided
by December 15th of each monitoring year.
At the end of the third year, a progress report will be
completed which will summarize the first three years. This
report will be due no later that October 25th to allow field
meetings prior to winter weather and permanent inundation of
the wetland area.
At the end of the fifth year the final report will be
submitted by December 3 with the review and approval by the
City of Tukwila. At this time if the plan has been successful
and meets its goals, the enhancement plan would be considered
a success.
13
• •
10. Products.
The completion of the five year monitoring plan end
products which would be in -place the Laurie Contracting Inc.
and the City of Tukwila are:
(1) Wetlands Restoration Plan.
(2) Grading Plan.
(3) Five annual narrative reports.
(4) Third year progress reports.
(5) Project completion report.
(6) Photo log showing the annual progress. Photo log
will be in a three -ring binder format.
This constitutes the wetland mitigation plan by IES
Associates for Laurie Contracting Inc., Alpine Estates,
Tukwila, Washington.
14
•
Sincerely,
R.L. Van Wormer
Senior Biologist
IES Associates
Common Name
Trees:
Black cottonwood
Red alder
Crabapple
Birch
Quaking aspen.
Sour Cherry
Oregon ash
Shrubs:
Piper's willow
Heart -leaf willow
Peach -leaf willow
Red -osier dogwood
Nine bark
Snowberry
Table 1 - Planting Plan
Scientific Name
Populus trichocarpa
Alnus rubra
Pyrus.fusca
Betula papyrifera
Populus tremuloides
Prunus cerasus
Fraxinus latifolia
Salix piperi
Salix rigida
Salix amygdaloides
Cornus stalinifera
Physocarpus capitatus
Symphocarpus albus
Nootka rose .Rosa nutkana
Pea -fruit rose Rosa pisocarpa
Red - flowering currant Ribes sanguineum ,
Lewis mockorange Philadephus lewsii
Osoberry Osmoronia cerasiformis
Twinberry Lonicera involucrata
Plum Prunus americana
Marsh Plants:
Cattail
Big -stem bulrush
Softrush
Slough sedge
Typha
Scirpus acuta
Juncus effusius
Carex obnupta
Grasses (200 lbs. per acre):
Meadow foxtail
Redtop
Velvet grass
Alopercures geniculatus
Agrostis alba
Holcus lanatus
15
Spacing Size
20.
15
10
10
6
6
10
15'
10'
5'
15'
8'
10'
5'
Number
25
25
.15
15
20
15.
25
6 2 gal. 50
6 2 gal. 50
10 4' 25
6 2 gal. 160
8 2 gal. 35
2 i gal . 175
• 3 1 gal. 200
5 1 gal 85
4 2 gal. 135
6. 1 gal 85
4 1 gal 45
8 3 gal 15
10 5' 20
18"
18"
18"
18"
plant
plant
plug
plant
seed
seed
seed.
500
500
600
250
cti
"r
•
ski
March 26, 1990
Alpine Estates EPIC -23 -89
Mitigation Determination of Nonsignificance
SEPA Conditions:
11 • p, IL y, 1980 L,NE
SoPm
• S ef)fl nn1FL ,dk
� L 2(. NV)
2./ The ,applicant shall comply to the mitigated wetlands plan as
submitted.
3. The applicant has agreed on a revegetation plan see map. This
includes identification of non - buildable areas to assure proper
mitigation of steep slopes. phaeabote /4i11 4a € /7
4. Provide a trail access easement through the non - buildable lot.or
provide an alternative route.
5. Based upon the applicant's soils report, revised March 23,1990,
prepared by Geotech Engineering Services, the applicant will do
the following:
A.
The soils engineer of record, should be retained throughout the
construction phase /s as necessary. Also, shall be required to
review all individual lot site plans to assure conformance to the
requirements of the sons report as part of any individual site
plan approval process.
Per p. 4 of soils report, the construction of this development
needs to be restricted to dry season construction only. A
schedule shall be provided outlining dry season construction.
7
The fill in building and roadway areas be placed as structural
fill
D. Slope Cuts: all permenate slope cuts be no steeper than 2:1
(horizontal to vertical).
E. A temporary erosion control plan shall be part of the submittal to
mitigate all potential erosion problems associated with the
construction of this project including both public utility /roadways
and private unit construction.
F. South Central Low Area: please refer to either options provided
by soils engineer.
6 • Padre. 5 S Uw 4aQos 1 OY. corrise L
rPa � s 1-crtt - 3
4Isolve accgas iSs 4 .4
�. eechd4461
-Fba. soLekiw,,L„i
ENVIRON" TNTAL REVIEW
ROUT NG FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO; E Building 1 Planning Pub Wks
Police Parks /Rec
PROJECT 119./0,41,
ADDRESS -.26- Ate 5,
DATE TRANSMITTED .3%fb
Reri; -5e(?))
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR Nese8 � DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
.3./.4)/90
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The
environmental review file is available in the Planning 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
..2 /VeQ.d 71e, /72191
>e4
Date: 3 /,z. t& Comments prepared by: ,
02/14419
ENVIRON NTAL REVIEW
ROUTInG FORM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EPIC:
PROJECT xyfiy, �5
ADDRESS � j ,- 5
DATE TRANSMITTED Z /ZZ /00, RESPONSE REQUESTED BY z /���0-0
STAFF COORDINATOR "),� �z _reoiCJ DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED /
The attached environmental checklist was received regarding this project. Please review and
comment below to advise the responsible official regarding the threshold determination. The
environmental review file is available in the Planning 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
5040 )11 in, ___c—
/4, A? j
Date: 3/... ‘9-o Comments prepared by: ,
09114/89
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OP
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARM f
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX C -3.755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255
NOV 3 0 1989
W. Shupe Holmberg, P.E.
Baima & Holmberg, Incorporated
1505 Northwest Gilman Boulevard, Suite 7
• Issaquah, Washington 98027
Reference: OYB -4- 013259
Lourie Contracting,
Inc.
Dear. Mr. Holmberg:
Lourie Contracting, Incorporated applied for the above referenced
Department of the Army permit to place fill material into 0.6 acres of
wetlands at Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of the fill is to construct a
road and residential housing development. In a telephone conversation with
Mr. Jim Green of this office on November 16, 1989, you advised that the
small stream on the property has a flow of less than 5 cubic feet per second
(c.f.s.).
Department of the Army regulations dated November 13, 1986, authorize
certain activities under nationwide permits. Paragraph 330.5(a)(26) of
these regulations authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material into
nontidal rivers, streams, and their lakes and impoundments, including
adjacent wetlands, that are located above the headwaters (where the average
annual flow is less than 5 c.f.s.). Similar discharges are also allowed
into other nontidal waters of the United States that are not part of a
surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the
United States (i.e., isolated waters). The discharge area must be less than
1 acre.
Based on the information you have provided, the proposed work is
authorized by this nationwide permit. No individual Department of the Army
permit will be required, provided the enclosed nationwide permit conditions
are met (enclosure 1). Your application is returned herein (enclosure 2).
This jurisdictional determination and nationwide permit authorization should
be considered valid for only 2 years.
Nothing in this letter shall be construed as excusing you, your clientor
contractors from compliance with other Federal, State, and local statutes,
ordinances, and regulations which may pertain to this work. If you have any
questions concerning the requirements of nationwide permits, please contact
Mr. Jim Green, telephone (206 764 - 3495..
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Thomas F. Mueller
Chief, Processing Section
NATIONWIDE, PERMIT CONDITIONS
FOR SPECIFIC CATEGORIES OF ACTIVITIES
For purposes of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899, and
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the following special conditions must be
satisfied prior to any discharge of dredged or fill materials associated with
the activities performed under the authority of nationwide permits for specific
categories of discharges:
(1) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the
proximity of a public water supply intake;
(2) That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas
of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related
to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized . by a nationwide permit;
(3) That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely
modify the critical habitat of such species. In the case of Federal agencies,
it is the agencies' responsibility to comply with the requirements of the act;
(4) That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of
those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary
purpose of the fill is to impound water);
(5) That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of
suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts;
(6) That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained;
(7) That the activity shall not occur in a component of the National Wild
and Scenic River System nor in a "study river" designated by Congress for .
possible inclusion;
(8) That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation;
(9) That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which
the National Park Service has listed on, or determined eligible for listing
on, the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the
District Engineer;.
(10) That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair
reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights
and treaty fishing and .hunting rights;
•
(11) That in certain states, an individual state water quality certifica-
tion must be obtained or waived;
(12) That in certain states, an individual state coastal zone management
consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived;:
(13) That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have
been added by the. Division Engineer; and
(14) That the management practices listed in Section 330.6 of this part
shall be, followed to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition to the conditions specified above, the following management
practices should be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in the dis-
charge of dredged or fill material under nationwide permits in order to mini-
mize the adverse effects of these discharges on the aquatic environment.
Failure to comply with these practices may be cause for the District Engineer
to recommend or the Division Engineer to take discretionary authority to
regulate the activity on an individual or regional basis:
(1) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical
alternatives.
(2) Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided.
(3) Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic .
species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high
flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the
fill is to impound waters).
(4) If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on
the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of .water and /or'the .
restriction of its flow; shall be minimized.
(5) Discharge in wetlands areas shall be avoided.
(6) Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats.
(7) Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be
avoided.
(8) All temporary fills, shall be removed in their entirety.
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUti (VILA. WASHINGTON 9818
November 27, 1989
Shupe Holmberg
Baima & Holmberg Inc.
1505 NW Gilman Blvd.
Suite 7
Issaquah, Wa. 98027
''HONE # (206) 433.1600 Gary L. VanDasen, 4fayor
RE: ALPINE ESTATES SUBDIVISION 89 -1 -SUB AND EPIC -23 -89
Dear Mr. Shupe:
This letter is to confirm your intent to continue with the
subdivision for Alpine Estates. I have broken this process into
two areas of concerns.
1. SEPA
Please describe alternatives for filling the pond near the
center of the site,if the Crop of Engineers/ Wetland Biologist
recommends enhancing the stream corridor to compensate for the
loss of the wetland.
2. SUBDIVISION
Please provide us with . finish cross sections and grade elevations
for lots 1,2 and 3 in a conceptual grading plan.
Until these amendmentshave been submitted no furtherprogress will
notbe made. Please respond in ahelpful matter should you have any
questions.
Darren Wit on v
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
V. Umetsu, Associate Planner
AIMA & HOLMBERG INC :
/0/9404VIS 71' 5W
Pi /*Me) Pend
November 13, 1989 B mss See07
n 'n 546r77i d
Darren Wilson P r s /4r // it2P
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
54 -001
Tukwila, WA 98188 35164ae 122-6p5/%4
Re: Alpine Estates Subdivision
Dear Darren:
NOV 1 5 1989
ka-p-e-u4
Following our meeting on October 23, 1989, we met with the
owner /developer of the property and discussed development
alternatives for the site. After much discussion, it was decided
to proceed with the project as a conventional 14 lot subdivision.
Application has been made to the Corp of Engineers for filling of
the small unnamed wetlands near the center of the site. If you
need information from the Corp, please refer to the application
number OYB -4- 013259. The intent at this time is to leave the
stream corridor undisturbed. However, if the wetland biologist
recommends enhancing the stream corridor to compensate for the
loss of wetlands near the center of the site, then enhancement
will be provided.
At our meeting on October 23, 1989, you had recommended not
developing Lots 1, 2 and 3 due to steep slopes on these Lots. We
looked at this possibility, but believe that development on these
lots is possible without creating erosion or stability problems
on the site. The cross sections that we provided you show
potential building sites and elevations on the site. If you need
specific additional information on potential development of Lots
1, 2 and 3 please let me know and it will be provided to you.
Although development on Lots 1, 2 and 3 would be in conflict with
Tukwila's policy regarding development on steep slopes, it is
consistent with other developments in the area. These
developments presumably were done under the same steep slope
policies that are now in effect.
Please call me at 392 -0250 if you have any questions or need
additional information.
Very Truly Yours,
BAI & HOLI1BERG INC.
W. Shupe Holmbe`, P.E.
WSH /sr
1505 NW GILMAN BLVD • SUITE #7 ISSAQUAH • WASHINGTON • 98027 • 206/392 -0250
i►c G. p.l4t►s,c,1t .•i , I,r Army permi' ,ram i► euthoriicd by Section 10 of the River l-iurl»r Act of Iii a. Sr:11.. r tut oltlie
'C1l... , Weia; A:a a „.1 Srrtion 103 ot�Marine, Protection, Research end Sanctuarl t, The leas require po:mit• ..4hori Ind
dctivitiur In or eft v:41l,' navigable *Otto of the thitod States, the discharge of dredgr.. till materiel inw wawrs of sh:' United Ststos,
Gild Ilia tis►n., •:rt..1 :4n of 411104 materiel for the purpose of dumping It Into ocean waters. Informetirin provided. On tali ram cube
i.. -d. in evulHu ±L, O„ application fore permit, Information In We eppilcatba is mode a muter of Public record thrr.egh Issuance of
p►,t,lic notice. Piv °1.,.urs of the tnterrnstion requested is voluntary; however, the date requested era neces.ery In ordi r to comruuniaN
1.litl tl►e spplic�gt an,j (v cvdluato rho permit; opplic.►tion. It ncct;4ry infprrrtpt1Q11 4 not yroyidc4, the perwit 44016!i4n cannot be
prvc.►ued rl;,t fun s yc•rntit be iowe4, ' • In
One yet of origt,,sl .1raeings or good teproduciblii copies which ,how the location and chnracter of the proposed activi,rl.+!ict t n 4vai
alt.cilad 10 this at i■:■..�tion We sample drawings and instructional and be submitted W the District Engineer NOV, iti 7 198 .
Iti1 locatton or tie' r; Posed activity, An application that le not completed in full will be eeturned, • , .
1.,rrtiCATION NV'.i •'' t* Ito s1 0014^00 fry Coded 1. NAMsi,, 00110S`, ANQ TI13.11 00; MITNG11121G tOr
0•B• -4 -0k.3 -2.69
o NAME ANO A001:.. z. )f ♦11r14ANT.
■
A/C (206) 392 -6070 _.. fRNio.i osi -
• t,curis �ontt.:� cin� Xtac.. a,C12061...9?._.0�, ref.
/S�y/ %Sth %vt S'
Sctbtclftl WA X81$8 541e mentatAw0h0r1.. 0 .4:TihereAr0s0o^00 fnawsiviAt_ ....,....
W Shupe lioimber a Kt to my b&ANf 1
Tgi.ynOn• no. ownna •.. l;,yc1 1104 {pent in tee precessine At this Permit *PP1{wtion and Is 441:0•^. WPOA rp■et,
µ►ppiemantri information le suppart of the aPYtic/tlon, ,..
¢ OF APPLICANT OATH
300# 6 Uolcbers Inc.
1505.21W Gilman Blvd.., 5Wi,,4,..7,
lasaqob, WI`. 98027
'Telephone no. 4Y /Ina Imm o.* AgYrh •
,►<� i l (841104611) A;c 12061 Sr'>r,, 1110 3 Z . , 1910
_
.. (0irAI .40 040001.1 .∎1011.0i PRo ) IVITYY.
A: r■cT►VITY ;
GKC4Vt? td 9114 fill 611411.4 Ynnemed /unchssi tted yotland; (0,6 ors).
•
44, pwstoot
► asidg C4 Are lusted xo4dwaY 49110
't 4:xiola
'ro prgvido Ai►' Idiot $tC*: =or ei,>7g1 ,t$°'�y
4c. 0'iC►iARG` Q/ �j• !)4r Q QH'1.`c, Mr1T6AlAi. ”.
ccucuriul 041i. t'c; 416pese4 of off•»~it.e st PA (414ov0 0.8910 $4 st,ta' .
r�GFC)lM4345,NoS8.
{O►T►ON Of API* 0310 0090t.Ers
or ems• !.
IP• w'4Mt: 0i
:M$ .CP A04QlNIN0 PAt
Aye OWNERS, (,ESSEES, lTO.,wNOSS PAVE
/A Wetlt+ne ". '.e contr.• ned eat1rely w 1,1„A pi:6;p4rtY
ALSO Ap.IQ,N>y TNg VVA'i.rt.;,;•Y •
' {t
Y WNERS ACTIVITY /XISTSpR 16 PRQP05E0
4TER80SY AND ..r1t:AT10N ON WATER000„
i/I UtIA't.RtCd wetland*
••.••
OCATION ON LA-NO V►NER5 AC ,vT ITV EX18T6 OR lS PRQPOSEO
sOOMMLSS:
65th /'.venua South find Sovth. 152nd Street: .
•
tAC�T;1tAAD, N ^u ►>SR OTNP piSCA1P't.IV,li (.00ATL.:N
::OVN'; Y
LOCAL OOV•NNIN
is soy portion of s`•:
it fin;mrer le "Yap" t.l
*TAT; •
90160
ZIP COOS
)'Y q WITN 41,111ISQICTION OVER $1TB
i.t;41� y for whlph tuthoria.tlon Is sought now aompIKe?
• e , 4414114 month and Veer the ect,vlty vies completed, In4tcete
•
•
•
•••••■r••••
•
AYES 13NO
the existing work on the 4rtrwlrpr,.;
Ott ell euly +ovels of ce, ,iolcetIone end d+nlole received from other tsder&I, intestate, itet0 or loco) agencies for any structure., eor,etruc
dt'cha•tN+ or otl.er 0.11•,1la» dolorlLed In th1/ sppllooslon•
ItIeVINQ J Q dI.' 1 YPit 1.P114QVA4 IAMNTIPICATIQN NO, DATII OF APPI.IQATIQN PATS Qf. APPHOVAt,
NOIle ^.ecetvt:d :a
...,.
QATI QP OINIAI,
O. Application it he abs it.00 for a p ,rmtt or perrl►Ite CO authorize the activities de•crlbed herein. I certify diit I em twills. with thy;,; a'11.1 I contained IMd h,
this apviitatlon, 4,:14 Plat to the Dan of my knowledge end boiler such Information Is VIA, complete. and ecc4rste. 1 further car Il
n ctl I r 1 sm actin a the dui an of the e I •
evthorltr t0 v .�.•' :.;e tl+s proDOnd e V tl.e,pl p • Y euthoritW SWIM PP (cent, `
OATg
IONATURE OF
The applicativn n►.at be signed by the person who desire. to trndertohe the proposed activity (applicant) or itsntay C: :.,00 by o duly
oathorirtd 014,,t the statement jn Block d hoe been filled out and signed,
18 U.8.C. Sectk•tt 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the Jurisdiction of any department or ag «nc Pie United State +, .
knowingly and waifviIy falsifies, conceal,!; or covert Pp by any trick, &theme, of device a material fact or nukes any :e';!I, tictltlOw or
baudulent stairt,;•r..t1.Ot representations or makes or Wee any Wee writing or document knowing same to contain o'.:; t:,e fictitious or
fraudulent etate••,.•;t or entry, shell be tined not mote than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or built.
Un not te►td a t••,, :& t processing fee with this application, The appropriate tee will be aase:+eed when it permit 18 ,sit+••.+
TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORY
Wetland Location 62nd Avenue So. Wetland No. 10
Quad Name Des Moines
S 23 T 23N R 4E
Soil Type: Name and No. Mapped as Urban
Crew Members Date /Time
Sarah Cassatt September 5. 1989 / 10:00 a.m.
Betsy MacWhinney
I. Indicate FWS Wetland Classification
A. System Palustrine Subsystem
Water Regime(s)
1. Class Scrub Shrub Common Name
a. Subclass Dominance Types Cornus stolonifera
b. Subclass Dominance Types Salix sp.
c. Subclass Dominance Types
2. Class Emergent Marsh Common Name
a. Subclass Dominance Types Ranunculus repens
b. Subclass Dominance Types
c. Subclass Dominance Types
3. Class Forested Swamp Common Name
a. Subclass Dominance Types Salix sp.
b. Subclass Dominance Types
c. Subclass Dominance Types
Special Modifiers
1
II. Indicate and describe the types of activities observed within the wetland site.
A. Residential
B. Commercial
C. Industrial
D. Recreational
E. Transportation
F. Other Undisturbed
III. Indicate the different types of water bodies associated with the wetland (identify
on sketch).
A. Lake E. Stream
B. Reservoir F. Ditch
C. Pond G. Estuary
............. ....
............. ...
D. River I :;Creek
IV. Describe surrounding habitat /land uses, their % of the total surroundings, % of
edge, and distance from wetland edge.
L)
Habitat /Land Use
A. Water
B. Grass
C. Brush /Shrub
D. Woods
E. Agriculture
F. Residential
G. Commercial
H. Industrial
I. Recreational
J. Transport.
Corridor(s)
Approximate
% of Total % of Edge
Surroundings w /in 20'
within 1000 ft. of Wetland
50
50
Describe activities associates with land uses E -J above.
80
15
5
Single- family and multi - family residences on roads north and south of wetland.
Wetland is generally surrounded by upland deciduous forest. Tukwila trail travels
along west boundary.
2
V. Indicate the different types of land forms bordering or adjacent to the wetland site
(identify on sketch).
A. Cliff or Bluff
B Mountain(s) or Ridge
1, ,0 y,?rea
D. Valley
E. Canyon
F. Flat, Level Plain
G. Other
VI. Describe habitat features within the wetland.
A. Snags - more than 18" dia.
1. Less than 25' high
2. Greater than 25' high a few ±10' tall. 1.5' dbh
B. Snags - less than 18' dia
1. Less than 25' high
2. Greater than 25' high
C. Rock outcrops
D. Perches several big -leaf maple and alder trees around edge of scrub shrub
E. Logs - Floating Embedded
F. Beaver Muskrat Lodge
G. Artificial Structures
H. Canopy Cover dense shrubs - salmonberry. dogwood and willow
I. Other nice forested buffer
VII. Comments.
The wetland is located east of 62nd Avenue South where 62nd turns into a trail.
Shrub swamp is dominated by a combination of willow, salmonberry and red -osier
dogwood. The wetland occurs in a depression on a hillside and appears to be fed
by at least one small creek. A small emergent area dominated by creeping
buttercup is present at the east end of wetland.
VIII. Enhancement Opportunities.
Limit further encroachment on buffer.
3
IX. Which of the following figures best represents the shape of the wetland?
A.
1:131
C.
X. Which of the following best represents the degree of vegetative cover (blackened
area) on the wetland?
B.
C.
80%+ 60-80% border/patches 40-60% border/patches
D.
E.
20-40% bdrder/patches less than 20%
XI. Which of the following figures best represents the variation in vegetation types
within the wetland?
A.
C.
XII. Which of the following figures best represent the variation in UPLAND
vegetation types bordering the wetland?
A.
C.
XIII. Which of the following figures best represents the difference in height between
the wetland vegetation and the bordering upland vegetation?
Different
A.
C.
a. Wetland Upland Pi Wetland Upland a. Wetlaannd Upland
b. Upland Wetland b. Upland Wetland b. Upland ' Wetland
Similar
D.
Wetland � Upland
E.
Wetland Upland
F.
Wetland Upland
Trees
Red alder (Alnus rubra)
Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia)
Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
Herbs
Skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum)
Water parsley (Oenanthe sarmentosa)
Creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens)
Bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamera)
American brooklime (Veronica americana)
Stinging nettle (Urtica dioica)
Shrubs
Vine maple (Acer circinatum)
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis)
Willow (Salix spp.)
Sedges /Rushes /Grasses /Ferns
Coastal shield fern (Drysopteris arguta)
Lady fern (Athyrium felix- femina)
6
•
9`
A. BACKGROUND
Cont ConAll No.
Epic rile No. —3-9
Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 16'
,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Li
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Narne of applicant: Lourie Contracting
ALPINE ESTATES
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
578 Industry Drive Seattle, Washington (206) 575 -6422
4. Date checklist prepared: June 12, 1989.
5. Agency requesting Checklist
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
LATE SUMMER 1989
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.
NONF
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.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
N/A
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the. proposed use
and the size of the project; and site. There are several questions later in thi.,
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no.
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here. .
14 LOT SUBDIVISION - 5.7 ACRES FOR RESIDENTIAL HOME SITES.
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 permitapplica-
tions related to this checklist.
65TH AVENUE SOUTH & SOUTH 152ND STREET
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
• Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
NO
-3-
TG BE COMPLETED BY APPLIAll
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
410 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
STFEP SLOPRS
b: What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? 53%
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.
SI1TY SAND
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
THERE WILL BE 24,600 CUBIC YARDS OF CUED 2'F,5—O—F—
7rH SITE
• s
MORE SUITABLE FOR HOMES.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of 'clearing,
construction, or use? • If so, generally describe.
NO
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
25%
410 Evaivacion for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
NONE
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, .
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give . approximate quantities if'known.
DUST AND EXHAUST FROM AUTOMOBILES AND TRACTORS
DURING CONSTRUCTION. EXHAUST FROM AUTOMOBILES
AND POSSIBLE WOOD SMOKE FROM rU'rMRE HUMS S .
b. Are .there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so,. generally
describe.
AUTOMOBILE
•1
•
II •r
• , '
ROADWAYS.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
NONE
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into.
A STREAM RUNNING THROUGH THE Er ID OF THE
ROAD.
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 •feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans.
NO
3) Estimate the amount of.fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and' indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material.
NONE
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? . Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
NO
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
NO
6) Does the proposal. involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated,
volume of discharge.
NO
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known.
NO
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
NONE
c. Water Runoff (including storm water): .
1) Describe the source' of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known).' Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other. waters? If so, _describe.
STORM'WATER FROM ROADWAY - HOMES AND DRIVEWAYS.
WILL BE COLLECTED AND SENT INTO THE CITY STORM '
SYSTEM.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? .If so, generally describe.
NO
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
STORM DETENTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO CONTROL
PEAK RUNOFF RATE FROM SITE.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
xx deciduous tree: ' -r 40M11, aspen, other
xx ever'green tree: i ce.ar pine, other
xx shrubs
_ grass
_ pasture
_ crop or grain
wet soil plants: catta.I , buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other:
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil; other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
THE SITE WILL BE CLEARED
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. •
NONE
1
I Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve . or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any:
LAWNS & FLO* ' " 'I . *IPP'' HOME
sites.
5: Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site: .
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, ,gbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmoi$ trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b.' List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site.
NONE
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:
NONF
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS ARE.AVAILABLE TO THE
SITE. INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNERS COULD USE SOLAR
OR WOOD HEAT.
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:
HOMES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO CURRENT
ENERGY CODES.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could .
occur as a result of this proposal? • If so,
describe.
NO
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required.
N/A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if. any:
N/A
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
TRAFFIC FROM BUSY ROADWAYS AID APARTMENT
COMPLOt S .
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. NOISE FROM
CONSTRUCTION DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS AND FROM
.o ".1 li'
OURS.
1
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any:
NONE
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
SITE IS UNDEVELOPED. ADJACENT SITES ARE APARTMENT
COMPLEX -AND RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
NO
c. Describe any structures on the site.
NONE
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
NO
e. What is the_ current zoning classification of the
site? - -12.0
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? low density residential with special
density consideration
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Nip
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
NO
i. Approximately how many people. would reside or work
in the completed project? '14 Homesites
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? NONE.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: NONE
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: PROJECT CONFORMS TO EXISTING &
rfMPRPHFNTVF PTAI ZONING.
III Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income
housing? 14 MIDDLE INCOME HOMESITE,a._
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: NONE
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
35'
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? NONE
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: NONE
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce ?' What time.of day would it mainly occur?
GLARE FROM WINDOWS OF HOMES DURING DAYLIGHT HRS.
LIGHT FROM HOMES DURING. EVENING HRS.
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? LIGHT AND GLARE FROM ADJ.
APT. AND HOMES.
Proposed measures to reduce or control light and .
glare impacts, if any: NONE
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? NONE
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing .
recreational uses? If so, describe. NO
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant,, if any: NONE
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13.. Historic and Cultural, Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or .next to the site? If
so, generally describe. NO
b. Generally .describe any landmarks or evidence of .
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.NONE
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: NONE
14. Transportation f
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
WILL BE OFF OF 105th AVE S.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? NO. ONE BLOCK.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? IT WILL
ADD 18 PLACES. NONE
tvaluatlon for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private)., ONE STREET
RUNNING THROUGH PROJECT SITE TO SERVE HOMES.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. NO
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If . known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
140 TRIPS. PEAK VOLUMES WILL OCCUR DURING NORMAL
PEAK TRAFFIC TIMES.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any: NONE
1
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. YES. ALL PUBLIC SERVICES •
WILL BE INCREASED TO SERVE 14 MORE HOMESITES.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. NONE •
-16-
•
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities rrently avail.ble at the site:
e use servic
septic system, other.
ectricit
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
WATER, SEWER, STORM, ELECTRIC, GAS, CABLE TV AND
PHONE SERVICES WILL BE EXTENDED TO'SFRVR THE PR(1PFRTy
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.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO BE COMPLETED BY APP. ,s(
O. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful
to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of
the environment.
When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the
proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from
the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity
or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple-
mented. Respond briefly and in general terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge
to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production
of noise? ADDITIONAL STORM RUNOFF WOULD OCCUR DUE TO
ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA. AN INCREASE EMISSIONS
COULD OCCUR IF WOODSTOVES ARE USED.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are:
STORM DETENTION WILL BE PROVIDED TO CONTROL STORM RUNOFF
WOODSTOVES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET CURRENT EMISSTON
STANDARDS.
.2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life? SMALL ANTMALS nN STTF wnrrtp
LEAVE. EXISTING TREES WOULD BE CT.F.ARFD _
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani-
mals, fish, or marine life are: NONE
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
3. Now would the proposal be likely to deplete energy. or.
natural resources? 14 NEW HOMES WOULD USE ENERGY FOR HEAT
AND LIGHT.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and
natural resourses are:H,oMES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET
CURRENT ENERGY CODE REOUIREMENTS.
4. Now would the proposal be likely, to use or affect
environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or
eligible or under study) for governmental protection;
such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers,
threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime
farmlands? NA
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid
or reduce impacts are:
5. Now would the proposal be likely to affect land and
shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or
encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with
existing plans? NA
•
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land
use impacts area: NA
Now does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline
Master Plan? NA
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on
transportation or public services and utilities? 14
NEW HOMES WOULD PUT INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR ALT. PTTRT.TC
SERVICES ANS UTILITIES.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)
are: NONE
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict
with local, state, or federal laws orTequirements for
the protection of the environment. NA
• Evaluation tor
Agency Use Only
. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL..,,i
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1.. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? TO PROVIDE
14 NEW HOMES FOR MIDDLE TO UPPER MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? NEW HOMES OR WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN A
DIFFERENT LOCALE.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: THIS SITE IS PREFERRED.
ALL UTTLITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AND THE
SITE TS NEAR TWO FREEWAYS.
•
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? NO
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are:
-23-
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
IES ASSOCIATES
July 3, 1989
TO : Baima & Holmberg, Inc.
1505 N.W. Gilman Boulevard, Suite 7
Issaquah, Washington 98027
1514 MuirheD,
Olympia, WA 9850:
Ph: (206) 943-0127
8835 SW Canyon Lan:,
Portland. OP 97225
Ph: (503) 29? -608
Attention : Mr. Shupe Holmberg
SUBJECT: Wetlands Evaluation & Impacts Analysis of Alpine
Estates Property located between 65th Avenue South and
62nd Avenue South in Tukwila, Washington.
Introduction :
A general biological survey was conducted offithe Alpine
Estates property for Baima & Holmberg, Inc. and Lourie
Contracting, Inc. The purpose of the site evaluation was to
determine the impact of moving the small streafi along the west
end of the site, the presence or absence of wetlands, and the
regulatory authority that would affect development of the
property..
The project site is located east of 65th Avenue South,
Maple Creek Park to the north and an apartment complex to the
south. The site is approximately 6 acres in size.
Procedures : . -
Regulatory :
Regulatory procedures for filling the site or moving the
stream are (1) the City of Tukwila ordinances and (2) Section
404 of he Clean Water Act.
Shupe Holmberg.,
July. 3,.4989 ;
The site: was walked ``from' 65th Avenue. South westerly to 62nd
Avenue South. ` •, Because, of, our 'charge, only the wetland boundary.
and-'::,,general wetland. `conditions were surveyed.. No general
biological data was • 'collected for the ' remainder of the site.
Wetlands. were identified' delineated in general terms based on
elevation but ,,were- *not •faagged'_ for - formal_-surv_e:y,.
Results :
Site Conditions :
The ground surface slopes from north to south and from east
to west into a low drainage area along the west side of the
property. There are, two low -lying areas locaied on the site.
One is in the south central portion of the site; the other in
the west end of the site, contains a drainage course flowing
northwest to southeast. Both areas contained standing water at
the time of our surveys.
The area surrounding the low areas is a sparsely wooded
upland that is dominated by Douglas fir /maple at higher
elevations, with western red cedar close/,'t to the low areas.
The south central low area has a frifige of willow (Salix
sessifolia) and (Salix lasiandra) around portions of the
wetland, with intrusions of willow throughout the center
portions of this low area. That portion of the low area that
did not have willow vegetation was dominated by a mixed growth
of reed canarygrass.
There are areas next to the willow where bittersweet
nightshade is growing into the willows. The upper edge of the
wetland and the buffer area immediately above the wetland is
dominated by a dense stand of Himalayan blackberry. The low
area corresponds to approximately elevation 144 to 145. There
does not appear to be a physical connection between this low
area of wetland and the low area along the west property line.
2
Shupe Holmberg
July 3,1989
The low area along the west property line supports an
existing stream that is unnamed on maps and the Washington
Department of Fisheries fish maps. The wetland area in this
area appeared to extend from approximately elevation 144 to 145
also. It was dominated by willow with reed canarygrass ground
cover.
The two wet areas are separated by a very low area at the
south property line. The vegetation at the finger of the pit
between the two is Facultative and Facultative Wet, however the
soils and ground water hydrology were not consistently wet
across the area. In the geote'chnical report by GeoEngineers,
they indicated that they could obtain no ground water elevations
above 150. The low area at the south end of the property
extends down to approximately elevation 148 at one point.
Wetlands :
Both the existing low area in the south central portion of
the site and the low area adjacent to the existing stream in the
west portion of the property meet allfi three criteria for
wetlands under the Unified Federal Agency delineation procedure.
At the time of the site survey, both areas had standing surface
water over deep peat soils, with a predominance of Facultative
Wet and Obligate wetland plant species. Because of the
steepness of the slope, the extent of the wet area is limited.
There appears to be no physical connection between the
small wet area in the south central portion of the site and the
wetlands bordering the existing stream. With this separation
and the size of the area, the low area in the south central
portion of the site would be isolated. Because the wetland is
isolated; it qualifies for a Nationwide Permit procedure under
the Corps of Army Engineers Section 404 guidelines. Under these
guidelines, isolated wetlands up to, but not exceeding, one acre
are automatically permitted under the Nationwide Permit. Areas
between one and ten acres may be filled under a Nationwide
3
•
IY80
Shupe Holmberg
July 3, 1989.
Permit if the agencies concur that an Individual Permit would
not be necessary to address the impacts from the development of
the site.
The wetland along the west side is believed to be above the
headwaters of any named stream,;,-since • it does -. not flow an
average of five cubic feet per second. As in the area above the
headwaters, this portion of the stream is also eligible for
consideration under the Nationwide clause of the Section 404
Permit.
These regulations vary from the City of Tukwila's
regulations, which deal with the area on a site by site basis.
Wetland Values :.
Values for the two wetlands will bet addressed separately"
because they` are isolated by the finger of land that extend's'
from the north property boundary to the south property boundary
between the two areas.
Functional Values :
Both areas act as ground water recharge and collection
areas for surface water runoff from the surrounding hill slopes.
The south central area, because of its trapped nature,
collects and stands,water during the rainy season The water is
held and discharged into the ground water table. Because of the
nature of the area, it provides no flood synchronization, little
biofiltration or other values. Historically, before the area to
the south was filled, the area probably functioned as a first
step in the biofiltration /cleansing area for waters that were
subsequently discharged to the south. However, since the
filling, none of these values are present.
The wetland bordering the stream also .acts as a
biofiltration system, trapping out sediments and potential
contaminants prior to the time they reach- the small stream.
4
Shupe Holmberg
July .3, 1989
Because of the flatness of the area, the water stands for
extended durations, which contributes to re -entry into the
ground water table, as well as functioning as a biofiltration
and settling area. ,
Biologically, the area in the south . central area was not
supporting any wetland or water- dependent wildlife at the time
of our visit. The grass was high and the shrubs in their area
fairly open, which is not conducive to utilization by waterfowl
or dense shrub- using wetland species. Because of the
intermittency of the standing water conditions in this wetland,
it is not supporting resident species that require year - round
water. There was no evidence of species that require year - round .
standing water.
The wetlands adjacent to the stream are alto overgrown and
are functioning as a shrub community under a coniferous canopy,
and not as a wetland or a habitat for wetland or water dependent
species.
The dominant birds on the area are typical forested upland
and shrub upland species. A list of species can be provided if
required.
Impacts :
Moving the stream within its drainageway would alter the
existing shrub community and reduce the biofiltration and ground
water recharge capabilities of the area if portions of the
wetland adjacent to the stream were filled. Any reduction in
surface area of the wetland would increase the high water flow
rate through the area. This would decrease biofiltration, and
the limited amount of flood synchronization that does occur
during high flows.
7
5
Shupe Holmberg
July 3, 1989
Conclusion :
The Alpine Estates area contains two wetlands that take up
a major portion of the leveler areas of the project site. The
south central area is wet from approximately elevation 145 down,
or at the toe of the steep slope on three'sides. The wetlands
to the west utilizes all of the west portion of the site, with.
the exception of the smaller corner in the southwest portion.
The wetland is adjacent to a stream which collects and
drains into a culvert at the south property line. The stream
appears to have been dredged and .modified, particularly at the
south edge, where it is directed towards the culvert.
None of the wetlands contain rare or endangered plant or
animal species. Neither of the wetlands. are providing
significant habitat for wetland or water - dependent wildlife
species.
The vegetation on the upland portion of the site is a
typical Douglas fir /bigleaf maple community, with an understory
of blackberry, Oregon grape and salal, which is a common
community in western Washington.
Impacts to the development area would'be the loss of ground
water retention /detention, possible loss of some biofiltration
along the existing stream, depending on the handling of the
surface water on the site.
This constitutes the report of IES Associates on the Alpine
Estates for Baima /Holmberg Engineering and Lourie Contracting,
Inc.
6
R.L.Van Wormer
Senior Biologist
IES Associates
•
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
ALPINE ESTATES
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
LOURIE CONTRACTING, INC.
MN) I /q3e1
i.j!L...th N.44 i,; Er.
.N"
• •
I.ourie Contracting, Inc.
X78 Industry Drive
Seattle, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Dan Lourie
Gentlemen:
April 24, 1989
Consulting Gcotcchnical
Fnginccrs and (.cologists
Report
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Alpine Estates
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 1559 -01 -7
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering
services for the proposed Alpine Estates plat in Tukwila, Washington. The
project site is located west of 65th Avenue South, as shown in the Site
Plan, Figure 1. Authorization For our services was confirmed by Mr. Dan
I.ourie of Lourie Contracting, Inc. by countersignature of our letter of
March 8, 1989.
The configuration and location of the proposed plat is shown on
Figure 1. The property is bordered by 62nd Avenue South to the west,
Mapletree Park to the north, 65th Avenue South to the east, and an
apartment complex to the south. The parcel covers approximately 6 acres
and is currently undeveloped. The access roadway is planned from 65th
Avenue South. We understand that the preliminary plans include balancing
cui.s and fills at approximately Elevation 158. This will require cut
slopes approximately 40 feet high and fills of approximately 15 feet above
existing grades. Sixteen lots are included in the preliminary plat.
'.1 I ,
(co� 0 Enti'ii������1
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 2
SCOPE
The purpose of our services is to develop general geotechnical design
criteria for site development. Separate studies may be appropriate for
individual residences, depending upon the specific design requirements of
each structure related to each lot. Specifically, the scope of our
services includes:
1. Exploring subsurface soil and ground water conditions with a
series of backhoe excavated test pits. -
2. Performing limited laboratory testing for evaluation of soil
types.
3. Providing recommendations for grading and filling, including
specifications for compaction.
4. Providing recommendations for roadway subgrade support.
5. Providing recommendations for drainage and erosion control.
6. Developing foundation design recommendations including allowable
soil bearing pressures and settlement performance estimates.
SITE CONDITIONS
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The ground surface generally slopes down to the south, as shown in
Figure 1. Two large low lying areas are present on the site. One of
these is located in the south central part of the site; the other is
located at the west end of the site and contains a drainage course flowing
northwest to southeast. Both areas contained standing water at the time
of our field work.
The site is sparsely wooded, consisting generally of cedars, Douglas
firs, and maples. Undergrowth includes blackberries, ferns and tall
brush. We did not observe indications of soil movement on the site.
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface conditions were explored by excavating 14 test pits at the
locations shown in Figure 1. Test pit locations were determined by pacing
from existing features. Elevations at the test pits were determined by
• •
(wl 1 Ng.l bgi I Ieers
Laurie Contracting, Inc.
Api it 24, 1989
Page 3
interpolation between contours on the plan provided. Locations and
elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
methods used.
Test pits were excavated using'a track — mounted backhoe. The test
pits were logged in the field by an engineer from our firm who identified
the various soil strata encountered, obtained representative samples from
the test pits, observed ground water seepage conditions, and maintained a
detailed log of each test pit. The soils were visually classified in
general accordance with the system described in Figure 2. Logs of the
test pits are presented in Figures 3 through 8.
The two low lying areas were inaccessible with the track - mounted
backhoe. These areas were explored by hand probing. The probe consists
of threaded 3/8 -inch diameter steel rods with a 3/4 -inch diameter sampler
attached to the tip.
Samples from the test pits were examined in our laboratory to confirm
field classifications. Moisture contents were measured on samples from
the test pits to evaluate the general workability of the soils in their
existing state. Results of these tests are presented in Figure 9.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is mantled, in most of the areas we were able to observe,
with a layer of dark brown topsoil having a thickness ranging from 0.3 to
1.0 feet. In the upper, northerly portion of the site (above Elevation
150), a unit of medium dense to dense silty sand with occasional gravel
was encountered underlying the topsoil. This unit varies from 2 to 6 feet
thick in the test pits and is underlain by bedrock. The bedrock appears
to be a sandstone and siltstone conglomerate. The explorations
encountered a weathered zone up to 6 feet thick underlain by competent
bedrock at depths of 3.5 to 12 feet.
( 1('1 I vr4 I WI I Il lTS
Lowrie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
l',t };r, 4
In the lower portion of the site, loose, wet silty sand and soft,
we!, sandy silt was encountered to depths of 2.5 to 10 feet. Some of the
explorations ended with refusal in bedrock, while others could not be
deepened because of severe caving.
In the lowlying areas, the hand probe. explorations encountered
between 2 and 12 feet of peat and organic silt overlying 2 to more than 10
feet of soft silt. The total depth of soft soils in the explorations
varied from 2 to more than 16 feet.
No ground water seepage was observed in the explorations located
above approximately Elevation 150. Explorations in the lower portion of
the site encountered ground water at depths of 0.5 to 4 feet. We expect
that the ground water levels will fluctuate seasonally.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Most of the site is suitable for construction of residences in our
opinion, provided our recommendations are followed with regard to
earthwork, drainage, and foundation support. We expect that conventional
construction procedures will be satisfactory for dealing with these
elements of the work. Based on site conditions, we recommend against
development of the westerly low lying area in proposed Lots 8 and 9. A
geotechnical engineering review of the design of individual residences is
recommended. We recommend that a representative from GeoEngineers, Inc.
be present during site preparation and earthwork to observe the work and
to evaluate whether our recommendations are being implemented properly
and to provide additional consultation as needed.
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be accomplished
during periods of prolonged dry weather. The on —site soils are moisture
sensitive and will become very difficult to work during wet weather. If
these activities must take place during wet weather, we recommend that
measures be implemented to reduce disturbance and softening of the soils,
la'ii��I.1l:;llll't'I'�
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page '∎
for example from construction traffic and precipitation. These measures
may include stabilizing the subgrade with filter fabric, covering
stockpiled fill with visqueen and placing gravel and crushed rock for
temporary access roads.
Building, driveway and access road areas should be cleared of
vegetation and stripped of topsoil or disturbed silty soils prior to
placing fill. We expect that the depth of stripping will generally be
about 6 to 18 inches. A greater depth of stripping may be necessary
during wet periods since it is probable that the subgrade soils will be
disturbed. The stripped material may be reused for landscaping purposes.
We recommend that the native soils exposed by stripping within
building, driveway and access road areas be,proofrolled,with a loaded dump
truck or heavy compaction equipment. The proofrolling should aid in
detecting any soft areas which may require further excavation before fill
placement. During wet weather, proofrolling and compaction of native
soils will not be practical and identification of soft zones should be
done by probing.
We recommend that all fill in building and roadway areas be placed as
structural fill. Structural fill may consist of on —site clean to silty
sand and gravel and /or imported clean pit run sand and gravel. The fill
should not contain material larger than 6— inches in size or deleterious
materials such as debris, wood or organic matter. During placement in wet
.weather, fill soil should contain less than 5 percent fines (material
passing No. 200 sieve) by weight relative to the fraction finer than the
3/4 —inch sieve. A higher percentage of fines (not exceeding 12 percent)
in the soil may be practical for placement, during periods of prolonged dry
weather.
Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts less than 10— inches
in thickness. Each lift should be appropriately moisture conditioned and
compacted to the specified density using heavy vibratory compaction
equipment. The upper 5 feet of structural fill placed in building pad
• •
•(10)\1.--joI'.11 1111'.'I'S
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 6
areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density
determined in general accordance with ASTM D -1557 test procedures. Deeper
till should be compacted to at least 90 percent.
The on -site soils contain a high percentage of fines and are well .
above the optimum moisture content for compaction. We recommend that on-
site soils not be used as structural fill unless the material can be
successfully dried during long periods of dry weather. Drying the soil
may require spreading the soil into thin, loose lifts and allowing it to
air. dry.
SLOPE CUTS
Based on our observations and explorations, we recommend that all
permanent slope cuts be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
However, it appears that much of the proposed cuts would be in rock.
Steeper slopes may be appropriate below the weathered zone of the rock.
This would require verification by additional explorations or by field
examination as the cuts are made. The rock obtained from the cuts may be
suitable for use onsite such as roadway foundation material. This will
depend on the size and quality of the excavated material. Excavation of
the rock to the depths anticipated is considered to be feasible using
ripping techniques provided extra heavy equipment is used and there is
opportunity to work towards a slope or face.
We recommend that the sides of any temporary excavations other than
shallow drainage ditches be sloped no steeper than 1 -1/2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Permanent cut slopes in structural fill should be made at 2:1
or flatter.
All slopes, whether in rock or soil, should be hydroseeded as soon as
possible after cutting to minimize erosion.
SOUTH CENTRAL LOW AREA
Prior to placing fill in the low lying area in the south central part
of the site, we recommend removing part or all of the soft soils. Based
on our explorations, the area below approximately elevation 1,42 is
l a'04.,„1:IMillll l
6(111;405 11a05 (;I1;;1Ik'c'1'S
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 8
SURCHARGE
If the soft silt is not excavated from the low lying area in the
south- central part of the site, we recommend that building areas overlying
the soft silt (preliminary Lots 12, 13 and part of 14) be surcharged to
accelerate the settlement that will occur due to the weight of the
structural fill and the proposed buildings. This will reduce future
settlements. If the same material used for structural fill is also used
for the surcharge, the surcharge portion may be used as structural fill in
the other areas.
We recommend using at least 3 feet of surcharge above the antici-
pated final grade. The crest of the surcharge should extend a minimum of
15 feet outside of the anticipated building lines. We expect up to
40- inches of settlement from the weight of the surcharge and the struc-
tural fill. The surface elevation of the fill should be maintained during
the surcharge period by adding additional fill as necessary.
The surcharge should be monitored to evaluate the magnitude and rate
of settlement. This data will be essential to evaluate whether con-
solidation of the underlying soils has slowed sufficiently to allow
removal of the surcharge. We will develop a settlement monitoring plan if
this option is selected. We anticipate the surcharge to be in place from
8 to 12 weeks.
ROADWAY SUPPORT'
Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as described under SITE
PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK. We recommend that part or all of the soft
soils underlying the proposed roadway alignment be excavated as described
under SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK prior to placing tIle roadway fill.
If the soft silt is not removed, we recommend that the roadway not be
surfaced until after the settlement data described under SURCHARGE
indicate that the majority of the. settlement has occurred. If the roadway
is surfaced too soon, there is a risk of damage to the pavement due to
differential settlement.
t w u`0 i'.I14I1 Il'l'1'1
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 4
The pavement subgrade soil should be compacted such that the upper 2
feet of soil attains at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. Fill
placed deeper than 2 feet below subgrade in roadway areas should be
compacted to at least 90 percent. Access roads and paved areas should be
underlain by a subbase of at least 6 inches of sand and gravel or crushed
rock containing less than 5 percent fines by weight.
DRAINAGE
We recommend that surface runoff be tied into a storm drainage
system. Concentrated runoff should be prevented from flowing over the top
of slopes. Roof, pavement and foundation drains should be connected to .a
tightline disposal system. Roof and foundation drains should NOT be
combined around the structures.
A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed around
the building footings. The system should consist of perforated drains
located at the outside base of the perimeter footings. These drains
should consist of perforated PVC pipe surrounded by 6 inches of 'pea
gravel wrapped in appropriate filter fabric and connected by a tightline
to an appropriate disposal point.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Provided the lowlying area is treated as described in our report,
shallow spread footings are recommended in all areas of the site. Spread
footings should be founded on the medium dense to dense silty sand and
weathered rock or on compacted structural fill. The footings should be
founded at least 18— inches below the lowest adjacent grade. We recommend
r.laat basements not be constructed in the fill areas without additional
evaluation by our firm. We recommend that continuous and isolated
foundations be designed with minimum widths of 16 and 24— inches respec-
tively. For foundations designed and constructed as described above, we
recommend an allowable bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot
applicable to the total of all dead and real live loads, exclusive of the
weight of the footing. For total loads, including wind or seismic, the
:allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one — third.
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 10
Settlement of the foundations from elastic compression should be less
than 1/2 -inch for footings founded on the native soils. Total settlement
for footings founded on structural fill is expected to be up to 2 inches
with differential settlements of approximately 1.5 inches.
We anticipate that exposed bearing surfaces in excavations will
become softened or disturbed if not protected from exposure to moisture
and construction activities. Therefore, we recommend that these excava-
tions be made during periods of dry weather and the footings poured on the
same day as excavated. If this is not practical, the excavations should
be protected from moisture. If the bearing surface becomes softened, the
disturbed soil should be excavated and replaced with structural fill and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
The silty sand and weathered rock encountered in the upper areas will
provide satisfactory support for on -grade slabs if the subgrade is not
disturbed by construction activities. Disturbed areas should be repaired
in the same manner as described for footing excavations. Slabs may also
be supported on structural fill placed and compacted to 95 percent of
maximum dry density.
We recommend that a 4 to 6 -inch base course layer of imported
granular fill or crushed rock, containing less than 5 percent fines by
weight, of that fraction finer than 3/4 inches, be placed to form a
capillary break beneath the slab. A positive hydraulic connection should
be provided between the base course layer and the footing drains. This
connection should be on the downhill side of the residences. A vapor
barrier should also be installed to reduce the potential for migration of
moisture through the slab.
USE OF THIS REPORT
We have prepared this report for use by Lourie Contracting, Inc. and
their architects and engineers for their use in design of a portion of
this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective
• •
(�t'U N.;.;1.41' '.II4IIh't'I
Lowrie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 11
contractors for their bidding
conclusions and interpretations
the subsurface conditions.
The design details are not
or estimating purposes, but our report,
should not be construed as a warranty of
known at the time of preparation of this
report. As your design develops, we expect that additional consultation
may be
necessary, to
provide for modification or
adaptation
of
our
recommendations.
When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final
design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our
recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended.
The scope of our services does not include services related to
construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended
to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures,
except as specifically described in our report for consideration in
design.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the
explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated
conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient
monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent
with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for
design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from
those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation
installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services
have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this
area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or
implied, should be understood.
ite,14�1'IIgIIII'l'I'ti
Lourie Contracting, Inc.
April 24, 1989
Page 12
The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied
in their entirety. We are available to review the final design and
specifications to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted.
If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide
additional services, please call.
DEA:WRC:cs
Two copies submitted
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Douglas E. Argo
Staff Engineer
Gordon M. Denby, P.E.
Associate
William R. Clevenger
Associate
160 �
14
0
120
60
SCALE IN FEET
\
Property Line
P/15-11(--1.
i
\
1 Ct2)1
. P-15P-1611 8
P-23O
�, \ n
P-14
p..22
APprox'Inat \oundary p-1
Of Stand ater
0
P-21
� m
P -200
n
9 P -190
\TP-1
\..P -180 i> ,, P -17
O�•
12' Concrete Culvert
EXPLANATION:
_TEST PIT LOCATION
TP-1
AND NUMBER
p -1 p HAND PROBE LOCATION
AND NUMBER
LED " CONTRACTING NC., ALPINE ESTATES,
ENTITLED LOURIE
I
BY BAI HOLMBERG INC.
REFERENCE: DRAWING PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 PRELIMINARY
41
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 509
RETAINED ON
NO. 200 SIEVE
GRAVEL
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED
ON NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE 70
COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
- GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE FRACTION
PASSES
NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE 70
COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY- GRADED SAND
SAND
WITH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
SC
CLAYEY SAND
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50%
PASSES NO. 200
SIEVE
SILT AND CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
50 OR MORE
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on
visual examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D2488 -83.
2. Soil classification using laboratory
tests is based on ASTM D2487 -83.
3. Descriptions of soil density or
consistency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data.
visual appearance of soils, and /or
test data.
Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
usually soil is obtained from
below water table
�0 GeoEnglneers
�� Incorporated
7
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE 2
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
0 - 0.5
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 1
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 162 FEET
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
0.5 - 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL
GRAVEL AND SMALL ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
1.0 - 4.5 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITII GRAVE!.
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
4.5 - 11.5 SM LICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEI.
(DENSE. TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
11.5 - 12.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COBBLES
(VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
- 1.0
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 12.0 FEET ON
3/10/89
SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 0.7 AND 3.0 FEET
TEST PIT 2
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 172 FEET
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
1.0 - 7.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WI.TII
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND WITH ROOTS TO DEPTH OF
3.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
7.0 - 9.0
SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
(VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET AT BEDROCK AT
9.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
TEST PIT 3
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 FEET
0 - 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE. SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
1.0 - 3.5 ROCK • GRAY WEATHERED ROCK WITH NUMEROUS FRACTURES AND
WITH REDDISH -BROWN SAND
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET AT BEDROCK ON
3/9/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
THE DEPTHS ON THE- TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED UN AN AVERAGE -
OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET.
Gco Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 3
LOG OF TEST P1T
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) 8VMBOL,
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 4
PPROXIMATE ELEVATION:
161 FEET
1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST)
I.o - 3.0 SM LICHT.BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
(DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
1.t1 - 9.0 SM LIGHT BROWN. SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 9.0 FEET ON
3/10/89,
NO GROUND WATER SEE PACE OBSERVED
TEST PIT 5
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 130 FEET
0.3 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
0.1 - 4.0
SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED' ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET UN
3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OHSENVI:It
i
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 4
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
u — 0.4
0.4 — 2.0
.0 — 3.0
s.O 3.5
1.` — 5.5
— 1.0
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 6
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 146 FEET
SM DARK BROWN, SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
SM BROWNISH —CRAY SILTY FINF. TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCA$IONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST)
ML /SM GRAY FINE TO MEDtUM SANDY SLLT TO SILTY FINE TO
MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM STIFF TO LOUSE, MOIST TO
WET)
ML /OL
SP —SM
SM
DARK BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS AND SAND (SOFT, WET)
BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SLLT
(MEDIUM DENSE, WET)
GRAY VERY SILTY FINF. TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES
(ME_DIUN DENSE, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO EXCESSIVE CAVING
RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET
SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.2, 2.5, 3.2, 4.5 AND
6.0 FEET
TEST PIT 7
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 165 FEET
0 — 0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST)
U.' — 1.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
3.0 — 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE -TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE., MOIST)
(WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 3/10/R9
TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO LARGE BOULDER AND WEATHERED
ROCK
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
SAMPLE — OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET
LO
OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 5
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
TEST FIT 8
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 145 FEET
O - 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOUSE,
WET)
10 - 2.5 SM GRAYISH - BROWN SILTY FINE. TU MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (1.00SE., WET)
2.5 - 4.0 OL /PT DARK BROWN SILT WITII PEAT (SOFT, WET)
4.0 - 10.0 SM CRAY VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH C088LES
(LOOSE, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 4.0 FEET
SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 3.5 FEET
TEST PIT 9
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 171 FEET
U - -0.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
0.5 - 5.0 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL 'GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
5.0 - 8.0 SM L.ICHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHEIIED
ROCK)
gi
_.t_ 1'
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 8.0 FEET ON
3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 6
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP S011.
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 10
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 142 FEET
ti - 0.5 SM
0.5 - 1.0 SM /OL
1.0 - 5:71 OL /PT
5.0 7.0 SM
0 - 0.5
0.5 - 2.5
2.5 - '1.5
DARK BROWN SILTY FLNE SAND WLTH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
BROWN VERY SILTY FLNE TO MEDIUM SAND TO FINE SANDY
SILT WLTH ORGANICS AND. GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET)
DARK BROWN SILT WITH PEAT AND FINE SAND (SOFT,
WET)
CRAY SILTY 'PINE TO COARSE SAND WITH COBBLES (LOOSE
TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 3/10/89
TEST PIT ENDED DOE TO SEVERE CAVING BELOW 5.0 FF:F:`f
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 0.5 FEET
IPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5, 3.5 AND 6.0 FEET
TEST PIT 11
APPROXLMATE ELEVATION: 140 FEET
SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
ML BROWNISH " -OKAY SANDY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF,
WET)
SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 3.5 FEET ON
3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
SAMPLE OBTAINEDAT 2.0 FEET
OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 7
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW GROUP S01L.
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
o - 0.8
0.8 - 3.0
1.0 - 4.0
CRLPTION
TEST PIT 12
APPROXIMATE .ELEVATION: 150.FEET
SM DARK BROWN SILTY: FINE SAND WITH ORCANLCS (LOOSE,
WET)
SM
LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE,
MOIST).
SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED ROCK)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT BEDROCK AT 4.0 FEET ON
3/10/89
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
TEST PIT 13
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION t- 142 FEET
u - 1.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
WET)
1.0 3.5
SM /ML LICHT BROWN: SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE. SANDY SILT
WITH COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED" AT BEDROCK AT 3.5 FEET ON
3/10/89
OUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.0 FEET
SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 2.0 FEET
TEST PIT 14
APPROXIMATE ELEVATION. 142 FEET
- 1.5 OL DARK BROWN FINE SANDY ORGANIC SILT (VERY SOFT,
WET)
1.5 - 3.0 SM CRAY SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, WET)
1.0 - 4.5 SM DARK. BROWN VERY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH
ORGANICS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET)
4.5 - 6.0 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES
(LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 3/10/69
TEST PIT ENDED DUE TO SEVERE CAVING
TEST PIT LOCATED IN AREA WITH APPROXIMATELY 0.5
FEET OF STANDING WATER
SAMPLES OITA1NED AT 1.0, 2.5, 4.0 AND 5.0 FEET
ineem
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 8.
Exploration
FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
Sample Depth
(feet)
Soil Type
Moisture Content
(percent)
TP -1 0.7 SM 20.4
TP -1 3.0 SM 20.6
TP -6 1.2 SM 12.5
TP -6 2.5 ML /SM 20.3
TP -6 3.2 ML /OL 64.1
TP -6 4.5 SP -SM 11.6
TP -6 6.0 SM 28.3
TP -7 2.0 SM 16.5
TP -8 1.5 SM 17.3
TP -8 3.5 OL /PT 168.7
TP -10 1.5 SM /OL 58.0
TP -10 3.5 OL /PT 107.6
TP -10 6.0 SM 24.7
TP -11 2.0 ML 42.9
TP -13 2.0 SM /ML 46.2
P -3 0 - 6 PT 346.6
P -3 6 - 8 OL /PT 110.7
P -3 8 - 10 OL 75.9
P -3 10 - 16 SM /ML 52.2
P -20 0 - 8 PT 263.9
P -20 8 - 12.5 ML 63.7
P -22 0 - 6 PT 223.6
P -22 6 - 9 ML /OL 62.1
Geo Engineers
FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
FIGURE 9
(2) No significant habitat area will be destroyed.
d. Design and Construction.
(1) A moorage structure may extend no farther than is necessary to
function properly, but in no event may it extend more than 200 feet
waterward of the high waterline.
(2) A moorage structure may not be treated with creosote, oil base or
toxic substances.
(3) Dock and pier decks and the top of other moorage structures may
not be more than 2 feet above the high water level.
Development in Regulated Wetlands
1. General - No land surface modification may take place and no improvement may be
located in a regulated wetland except as specifically provided in this Section.
2. Public Park - The City may develop access through a regulated wetland in
conjunction with a public park.
3. Essential Public Facility or Utility - The Planning Official may permit the placement of
an essential public facility or utility in a regulated wetland. He /she must determine
that the public improvement must traverse a regulated wetland because no feasible
alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency.
Also, the specific location and extent of the facility or utility must constitute the
minimum necessary encroachment.
4. Rehabilitation - The Planning Official may permit or require the applicant to
rehabilitate and maintain a regulated wetland by removing material detrimental to the
area such as debris, sediment, or vegetation or by the adding of landscaping.
Rehabilitation may be required at any time that a condition detrimental to water
quality or habitat exists. This decision may be appealed in accordance with Section
90.55 of this Chapter.
5. Modification - The applicant may request a modification of the requirements of this
section using either a variance described in Chapter 120 of this Code or a Planned
Unit Development described in Chapter 125 of this Code. In addition, the City may
approve a modification only if the applicant submits a report prepared by a qualified
professional approved by the City which finds that --
a. It will not unduly adversely affect water quality; and
b. It will not destroy, nor unduly damage, or disrupt a significant habitat area;
and
c. It will not have an undue adverse effect on drainage and /or storm water
retention capabilities, and
d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards, and
CH90 /3- 6 -89 /rk 248
Revised 2/89
CH90/3- 6 -89 /rk
e. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the
subject property or to the City as a whole, and
f. It will result in the land surface modification of no more than ten percent
(10 %) of a regulated wetland on the subject property. This limitation may be
exceeded if processed through Process III described in Chapter 155 of this
Code,
6. Type of Fill - All material used in a landfill must be non - dissolving and
nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that
would be detrimental to the water quality or the existing habitat.
7. Dredge Spoils - The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only
if part of an approved development on the subject property.
8. Exposed Areas - The applicant shall stabilize areas left exposed after land surface
modification with vegetation normally associated with that stream, lake or regulated
wetland.
9. Determination of a Regulated Wetland
a. Following a site inspection, the planning official shall make an initial
determination as to whether or not any portions of a site may meet the
criteria for a regulated wetland.
b. If the initial inspection indicates that a regulated wetland may exist on a site
the applicant shall be required to submit a report prepared by a biologist,
botanist, plant ecologist or similarly qualified professional approved by the
City including the following:
i. An overview of the methodology used to conduct the study;
ii. A description of the wetland, (including a map identifying the edge of
the wetland and plant communities) wetland classification (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats in the U.S. ") surrounding area; and detailed description of
the method used to identify the wetland edge.
iii. A list of observed plant and wildlife species, using both scientific and
common names, and a description of their relative abundance;
iv. A list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other
observations;
v. An assessment of the potential impact of proposed development on
the wetland including Toss of flood storage potential, loss of habitat,
changes in species diversity or quantity, impacts to water quality,
increases in human intrusion and impacts on associated wetlands or
downstream sensitive areas.
249
Revised 2/89
• •
c. The final determination of whether or not a wetland is a regulated wetland
shall be made by the Planning Official after review of the report prepared in
accordance with paragraph 9.a. above.
10. The City may require the applicant to fund a qualified professional, selected and
retained by the City, to review the wetlands report.
11. If the initial site inspection by the Planning Official does not indicate the existence of a
regulated wetland, no additional wetlands studies will be required.
90.25 Minimum Setbacks From Major Streams. Minor Lakes and Wetlands
1. General - No land surface modification may take place and no improvement may be
located in the following setbacks for streams, minor lakes and regulated wetlands,
except as provided in this section.
a. 50 feet from each side of the top of the banks of a major stream (see Plate
16).
b. 50 feet from the ordinary high water line of a minor lake.
c. 50 feet from the edge of a regulated wetland as determined in the report
required by Section 90.20.9b of this chapter.
2. Culverted Streams - The setback requirements for streams in paragraph 1 of this
Section do not apply to any stream that is in a culvert unless the stream will be taken
out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property.
3. Essential Public Facility or Utility - The Planning Official may permit the placement of
an essential public facility or utility in a setback from a major stream, minor lake, or
wetland. He /she must determine that the public improvement must traverse the
setback because no feasible alternative location exists based on an analysis of
technology and system efficiency. Also, the specific location and extent of the facility
must constitute the minimum necessary encroachment to meet the requirements of
the public facility or utility.
4. Modification - The applicant may request a modification of the requirements of this
section using either a variance described in Chapter 120 of this Code or a Planned
Unit Development described in Chapter 125 of this Code. In addition, the City may
approve a modification only if the applicant submits a report prepared -by a qualified
professional approved by the City which finds that --
a. It will not adversely affect water quality; and
b. It will not destroy, nor damage, or disrupt a significant habitat area; and
c. It will not adversely affect drainage and /or storm water retention capabilities,
and
d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards, and
CH90/3- 23 -89 /cm 250
Revised 2/89
•
e. It will not be materially detrimental to any other property in the area of the
subject property or to the City as a whole, and
5. Type of Fill - All material used in a landfill must be non - dissolving and
nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that
would be detrimental to the water quality or the existing habitat.
6. Dredoe Spoils - The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only
if part of an approved development on the subject property.
7. Exposed Areas - The applicant shall stabilize areas left exposed after land surface
modification with vegetation normally associated with that stream, lake or regulated
wetland.
8. Minor Improvements
a. General - Minor improvements such as walkways, benches, and footbridges
crossing streams may be located within the setback established in Section 25
of this Chapter.
b. Required Review - The Planning Official will review and decide upon a
proposal to construct a minor improvement within a required setback.
c. Criteria - The City will allow a minor improvement to be located within the
required setback only if it finds that:
(1) It will not adversely affect water quality; and
(2) It will not destroy, nor damage a significant habitat area, and
(3) It will not adversely affect drainage and /or storm water retention
capabilities, and
(4) It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards,
and
(5)
The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any
other property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a
whole including the Toss of significant open space or scenic vistas.
d. In the event that any of the impacts described in paragraphs 1 -5 of this
section appear likely, the City may require the applicant to submit a report
prepared by a qualified professional approved by the City. The report shall
discuss the potential for the impact to occur.
CH90/9- 13 -89 /cw 251
REVISED 2/89
90.27 Minimum Setbacks From Minor Streams
1. General - No land surface modification may take place and no improvement may be
located in the following setbacks for minor streams, except as provided in this
section.
a: 20 feet from each side of the top of the bank of all minor streams.
2. Culverted Streams - The setback requirements for streams in paragraph 1 of this
Section do not apply to any stream that is in a culvert unless the stream will be taken
out of the culvert as part of development of the subject property.
3. Essential Public Facility or Utility - The Planning Official may permit the placement of
an essential public facility or utility in a setback from a stream. He /she must
determine that the public improvement must traverse the setback because no feasible
alternative location exists based on an analysis of technology and system efficiency.
Also, the specific location and extent of the facility or utility must constitute the
minimum necessary encroachment.
4. Modification - A proposal to modify a stream setback will be reviewed by the Planning
Official. The decision of the Planning Official may be appealed using Section 90.55.
The Planning Official may approve a modification of a stream setback only if the
applicant submits a report prepared by a qualified professional approved by the City
which finds that:
a. It will not adversely affect water quality; and
It will not destroy, damage, or disrupt a significant habitat area, and
c. It will not adversely affect drainage and /or storm water retention capabilities,
and
d. It will not lead to unstable earth conditions or create erosion hazards, and
e. The minor improvement will not be materially detrimental to any other
property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole including
the loss of significant open space or scenic vistas.
5. Type of Fill - All material used in a landfill must be nondissolving and
-= nondecomposing. The fill material must not contain organic or inorganic material that
would be detrimental to the water quality of the existing habitat.
6. Dredge Spoils - The applicant may deposit dredge spoils on the subject property only
if part of an approved development on the subject property.
7. Exposed Areas The applicant shall stabilize areas left exposed after land surface
modification with vegetation normally associated with that stream, lake, or regulated
wetland.
CH90/12- 18 -89 /rk 252
REVISED 2/89
•
90.30 Site Design Requirements for the Subject Property.
1. General - The applicant shall locate all improvements on the subject property to
minimize adverse impacts on the stream, lake or regulated wetland.
2. Physical Barrier - The applicant shall install a berm, curb, or other physical barrier
during construction and following completion of the project when necessary to
prevent direct runoff and erosion from any modified land surface into the stream, lake
or regulated wetland.
3. Vehicle Circulation Areas - The applicant shall locate parking and vehicle circulation
areas as far as possible from the stream, lake or regulated wetland.
90.35 Additional Protection Techniques
90.40 Bonds
1. Timing of Development Activity - The City may limit development activity in or near a
stream, lake or regulated wetland to specific months and to a maximum number of
continuous days or hours in order to minimize adverse impacts on the area.
2. Construction Techniques.
a. The City may require that equipment be operated from only one side of a
stream in order to minimize bank disruption.
b. The City may require other construction techniques, conditions and
restrictions in order to minimize adverse impacts on the stream, lake or
regulated wetland and on any related area not subject to development
activity.
The City may require a bond under Chapter 175 of this Code to ensure compliance with any
aspect of this Chapter.
90.45 Dedication
90.50 Liability
CH90/ 12- 18 -89 /rk
The applicant shall dedicate development rights, air space, or an open space easement to the
City to ensure the protection of a stream, lake or regulated wetland and required setback
areas.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City
which runs with the property, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, indemnifying the City
for any damage resulting from development activity on the subject property which is related
to the physical condition of the stream, lake or regulated wetland. The applicant shall record
this agreement with the King County, Bureau of Elections and Records.
252A REVISED 2/89
• •
90.55 Appeals of Stream, Lake or Wetland Determination or Decision
1. Who Can Appeal - The City will notify an applicant in writing when a determination is
made that a stream, lake or regulated wetland exists on their site. Any person who is
aggrieved by a determination that a stream, lake or regulated wetland is located on or
within 100 feet of the subject property; or is aggrieved by the Planning Officials
decision on stream rehabilitation, relocation, minor improvement within required
setback, vegetation removal or landscaping within required setbacks may appeal that
determination or decision within 14 days of the date of the written determination.
CH90/3- 6 -89 /rk
2. How To Appeal - The applicant must file a letter of appeal indicating how the
determination or decision affects his /her property and present any relevant
arguments or information on the correctness of the determination. The applicant
shall include the appeals fee as established by ordinance.
3. Applicable Procedures - All appeals of determinations of this Chapter will be reviewed
and decided upon using Process IIA, described in Chapter 150 of this Code.
2528
Revised 2/89
N
000 NOTE / (ITT Of 114010.4
7-30-07
DAV
07-03-N1
JIB NO.
50-001
in22
12117991CII
MY 91•11P19.
MIX
PNOVMO
Selma & Holmberg Inc.
CMGS •11110970119
CLAY MTN MN • M.. 0(aliN110 1 MN" 4104 S - NY
I Olaf OT
I
MO= 90
INN
01310OD
itur„ss tit
CONTN.T.(31 3.4
DON .1.0 DENTN NWT%
MON
LOURIE CONTRACTING INC.
63,7 1 MAC MATZ M.
MOM
ALPINE ESTATES
OCR
KIT COMM
SO. 153RD PL — mums — PLAN/PROFILE
OF
1
, -
. 1.50
. 111.52 /
--if
A\ ITN
NE
R
, 1._
. 141N
i
114
MO
150
S•N VA
011 ELEV
N.
.
\
1St
•
a
7
O
iNP m P NCut
I I"Pv•".-'F 'i' •
i
M 7
0
gmw
70
110-
,N.r. • t. r
-. -
X
a
140
A1.."...-
t„ i1r
S • MN
• ?JO WIt 'A
4)Y , \ .\ -..-
-r.---u,-..-
a.
- 00
1n
4.
2
RN • 15206
NV . INA*
• *V
. IN•50
ON N 1.21
111,':
ON
TM t'r
• INN
15_0]UN
7-77,2NNI L
TO CON
. 132
N
in
Ert
7
..., r
•
. IN
• IIN
.
. IN PO CUT
• NINO CUT
.., .
NV .
N.33
1.00 Ovr
NV •
NV •
T11.0
"NU NI
/MN OUT
ON
013
%EN
• 1.2.14 IN
•• INNS OUT
N
000 NOTE / (ITT Of 114010.4
7-30-07
DAV
07-03-N1
JIB NO.
50-001
in22
12117991CII
MY 91•11P19.
MIX
PNOVMO
Selma & Holmberg Inc.
CMGS •11110970119
CLAY MTN MN • M.. 0(aliN110 1 MN" 4104 S - NY
I Olaf OT
I
MO= 90
INN
01310OD
itur„ss tit
CONTN.T.(31 3.4
DON .1.0 DENTN NWT%
MON
LOURIE CONTRACTING INC.
63,7 1 MAC MATZ M.
MOM
ALPINE ESTATES
OCR
KIT COMM
SO. 153RD PL — mums — PLAN/PROFILE
OF
1
16 amia
\ 4.0 �
"--� Property Line
0 60 120
SCALE IN FEET
TP-3�
P-3
iii}-
• P-6
,
P-2
ry
TP-3�
P-3
10
12
1
14
15
TP-S
12' Concrete Culvert •
• /fit Uz 77toze- -4 ' /o/ Ou:
TP-1
'i'TEST PIT LOCATION
AND NUMBER
P-1 A NAND PROBE LOCA r[ON
AND NUMBER
REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "LOURIE CONTRACTING INC., ALPINE ESTATES,
PRELIMINARY PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 BY BAIMA 6 HOLMBERG INC.
Geo Engineers
SRS
FIGURE
• P-6
mat o
P-2
ry
. Approx
Ot Standb
g wat r
A
A
P-1
AP-2S
((
I
P -T
10
12
1
14
15
TP-S
12' Concrete Culvert •
• /fit Uz 77toze- -4 ' /o/ Ou:
TP-1
'i'TEST PIT LOCATION
AND NUMBER
P-1 A NAND PROBE LOCA r[ON
AND NUMBER
REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "LOURIE CONTRACTING INC., ALPINE ESTATES,
PRELIMINARY PLAT" DATED 2/7/89 BY BAIMA 6 HOLMBERG INC.
Geo Engineers
SRS
FIGURE
\��� `
. S .138'. 25 28'. E
\ `,
,' �.} ti `\ '��\,' \ \\,\;\ \\ r
708' �� ---7-1 � . 11 1,1,l \ \'•' \ \�` • . \ \.\
_� • ' 1 1 ` \ \ \w I . �\ \`..,.\ \\ \ \ \ ■
�\ \� \ -\ - \ \ \ \ \ \_ \� \ \ \ \ \ \`\ \� \ \ \ \'.' \ \ \`4`. \
�����2� may, \ \ \ ` \\ \ \ \�� }l'i 1.\
c/4 � .........:\
\\\ \� \ \ \ \ \� ,'/ � 11111111 1 �I � 11
��-� ���\;_ �;�= !21i:111 11111 I .I � \\I\
I l
. 1-_� \, = �;,�; `�.� :` ���i 1111 I • I 1 \
_�__ ..'-.-.--s �,IIIiI�,1
�— �� �� =� f' I 1 Imo.. -�4'a
\
✓�,'\ \ \ \\\
\\\\" \ \\
,,.':.\'..\\ \\\\,\.
\\\VI 1 1 i
111W'\'\N•-_.
I i!1.`1 .
/ •
\ 1, i
1i1r�
; I
•12=1
72,000 sq. f1.
0.27- acres I
12,082!sq. ft.
/ /0.2'7' ocres
r\
–_ _— _— _-- S8825'27'_E -'
- 824'- - - - -- —
\ \ \ \'
\ 1 1 \ \
\
c
m
IES ASSOCIATES
OLYMPIA, WA
(206) 943 -0127
Alpine Estates
Tukwila, WA
Wetland Mitigation Plan
\ \ �, N _� �
\' c _
N.
- \ • , �N . 88'25 28" E
`
708' /i: --- i 1 i1�',i� `` �\ \\
\
1
! 11 I1
0 ` \1V' \\1 / » //' r
.nS, \ \ \` \ // // V ��-
• ,;N � // // / / !; ,
\\ \\ NN / ( 3 a(. -
1,\- \M?"
-Er'3:::14".?..".4.1w...;-kr:,ta_vil,.%:::Litr.:.4.*.:„.::57...v.7:::24,:rioek._•41.,..e..._::\:1
111
.1 \11 \1 \1�
\\\\\\\ \\\\\A\
\ �
\\ \ 11111
r \ \11,\1\ \
r \,Nr 11 1
;;\\ '' 1
12,0821sq:
12,1 4r \
%0.2�'ocres � �, 1
0.27; . re \ \
i
1 v \ \
l
•
10
12.122 sq. ft.
0.27 ocres
\
S.8825.27" E)
- 824— —
c
m
1ES ASSOCIATES
Alpine Estates
Wet[ono Miti9otion Plan
OLYMPIA, WA
Tukwila, WA
1
(206) 943 -012=
\
55)11
TA 4+72,
CB. /2 TYPE I VAN)
73• RT.'.
c2'13 rfRE•IL-
• STA, 2..13` RT.
0.524 •4(-' CE- 133.98' •
CONFI./CT PREP' SEWN OILR •
673ST 9!:W1• 5AIN. CONTRACTOR' ;
VE.R11, - 1.1047106 AND DEPTH' PRIOR. '. •
,TO 2 'ISmuc7IGN: NOTIFY ENGINEER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 2'
SCALE: HORZ 1' - 40'. '..
EDGE OF.NETLANDS
CB /8 mgr
STA 4+00, 00. 13• LT - / ; •
"-- CB '/7 TYPE 1 � \ �� '`� �•
STA' 4+72, 13' ti.: `,
V:, � :�5�`�4N. -u
LF 12.0 SD —�1r� `q
_▪ , _ 35:-
STA 3h19. ON.( , ._ \ .- - _ FLO.
C8 /4 TYPE 11-48'0 [
'TA 1 +52'13' LT
TRACT 'B' \ -LF .... `.. >
Q SEE H216 * WETLAND / .
0.78 ACf160
NOTE. ORIGINAL WETLAND BOUNDARY. " - (TRACT 6) FLAGGED 1 -9 -91 •
'-
REEVALUATED WETLAND BOUNDARY (TRACT 9)' FLAGGED .7-21-91-
-ORANGE FLAGGING PLACED -41 WETLAND 610LOGIST
YELLOW FLAGGING PLACED BY SURVEY CREW -
—ANGLE POINTS ALONG .WETLAND BOUNDARY' (TRACT 5),.- .. .
-• REPRESENT, FLAGGING LOCATIONS.
LNMINAIRE- 824.
DISCHARGE
SO. 153RD: PLACE
150. VC'
r�. Ar 4y re4L.t ' .). J4 JA a f, / /a /rrL / N.ama day
,so
e r /AZ - s/dj.�6K117i `wl�'Ftl�% ifbiv� eyfrcyh C.
//ht ✓ + Y . ;r. - : /1C 6 Teaf
FROM CB in
Rik = 155.82
INV = 15252
TO Ell • SWALE
92 IS 8.0
INV'=
INV 15200
f �e n :32 ara e p.a l w�y f t :Avt is,00 . b‘;
/ .. err/ e / /',��t/ ��✓CQ ft' /f Wei& QT. • ;.
m- S5 0 0.45
55 0.0.45
INV - 149.20
CB
VAN
RIM
Nv
TYPE I'
lsz152
pa '.
148.68;
CB 44 TYPE II -48=0
C.O.
ROA
INV
152.23
145.00-OUT
- 05T411'A4
RIM 154.47 ..
INV = 144.63 IN
INV = 144.53 OUT
ESMH 42
RIM -•154.71 -
' .INV= 142981N
INV.+ 14298 OUT
SSW
• RIM =1464*
WV = 13398-
16 j.
COST' SEWER, CONTRA7.T::R -'
'.4591FY Lp:..AT10N AML DEPTH 54144
,'TO' CONSTRUCTION. 1;
:: 1321 ...
AOC NOTE / CITY OF TUKWILA
7 -30 -91
Baima: & Holmberg Inc.. <
07-03-91
JOB NO.
54 -001..
ILA
E N•C 1 N.E E R S k 9.0 R' V E Y O R.9
621c,23-61
OWNER
LOURIE- CONTRACTING INC.
8575 S. 152ND pas 0647710 -*A. -
'1806 N,f. OUM016 4509.. Burrs 7 6940018, 9429130192 98027 (008) 882 — 0280
DONNED BY DRAWN BY OBECLOD BY
M.C.L./J:7 ..' •M.C.L: - .COSH ..
s as-zsler E
. 85.34•
86.691
129.95'
• - 12.466 49 8
0.29 acres
0.1- acres • ,
7,256 s;. ft.
0:16 aver
,.7.1;•;r1 sa. '
0.16 a:res.., ..
2'3,571 'sfs ft
••re.t..rs•
C15 . fi4f:.
'• c.f., • ,
TRACT
' at?,
SCALE 1-30''
sH‘r-'4.1'
,re' rt.
airec
S 88.25'27- E
. S'...L.]1:-...;71C.S • '
,LO-11.8F 21.411..4eT.NO
• . . 8575 3, 4711p 895, .:1/. 78185
)PER •..C.4118E. 155' 0.. ■1;•O"
' 85-'5 157/45 (.95, 53,1•21T.F.;'-58. 36'7r
91:3•NEF,P1 `.54.948 "
SUP..182 11,_14,10 5.511F -t
P./7•8•.. ti..111:BFF •1O ,7 +".
.SED
11;c11 fa;.
• 0.25a,res • .
f. 8•1•1:f
824'
2 88.2
LGt.... , DF.SCF:i',3 TiOt.'4' ' • . .
. , . .
..01 19 81'FR-2888,N AODiT1011 7:, WATT,: 1.1 RET.E7.1Z.T., '
' 1,1 /3...1.11AS 10 C.- F': 525, 58.3, ES: RE1'2...4P51.1. OF 1. iNO . '
197.3,3;7
. . i-,V-. .;;,'... . : • . . • . . . .•
. . ...
- •
.. , • . . :
. . . • . •
!JON-21A7.117.11- ...•-•■••..:E ',.:: 117 =Sir. .T1(.4.1 ...F. E2N1D -;.7.E.
• • . E01.171 81 .t.....OUTH '.51`.1.5. :9-1T,12.'
. , . . • .
. . . . .
.....18-i.,..11: ,, -.52.0e - • .
..
. . ' •
1P401 TAT 1415 T9.8,07 -9- 9.. T . . • •
P4RN. ,T,EF487131.1. PEFOPO2:O
,•■••• 01. 3,87.
,:s 15360.
4.4t.
OTSPM PO1:2PF :1.11..1.. Es!, .1:1RFC.TE1.) 70
STOF1,* S .1:. 657-1 8 FS S. 10or 12;
• 9.285Ui. CES TT.9.0T • 8017 11:11,11..7 #4
2.15:191723. FIRE DICTFECT
• , TE :.11 NEST D159T, 7
• OE1,1S'n: 2.43 51
. ••
. . .
:::E1F.: • •■.4.15;::00...r.E.7..E4-15 '1E051:1 0E, .:114.....:1. 9". 5'...:1:101a) :-5-91 •
, • ' frEf.:',ALUeTE:.11.151-.A140' aourDAa.(7RA..:7.'F!:.. FLAGT,E2, •11.:.■
. . .. • . .
• • — .,06/41(.;:. F...00131N5 18-AcED. 1) , .,..F.7....;01- aN:.....05,1S7.. ....-
.•
- • ..(F.,_,:m. P_AGGI:IG PLACE: a, SUP .E•■••■•:8.613 • . .. .
• • .
-14111,LE FI:a 72 AWN:, 9E1124110 ;,..-1.66,,i....• ,-as,:r„-7- 8. • .... •
..
REPRESENT -FLAGG:NG 1_0CA11011:7. .._ ••••
. . .
OCIIJITY MAP '
RECEIVED
Mr; • 1 2393 •
-cCmmulgrry
D7VELOPMENT
APPROVAL
•
. .
DATE
0",..14--92
. .
" • .
.
.•
• .
. .
,
•
.
.
- . •
•
• I.
JCS NO. • .
54.-.0Q1
.
. .
.
' DESCRIPTICN.
1 , sy
IcirEciam
.-. E.
.-Baima 8c• Holmberg Inc.
• • ENGINEERS & ...,?t.".RVEYORS •
caws am. .avrra 7 ISSAQUett. P8511019708 98027 (zoai 3a - 0250
DESIGNED BY DRAVOI BY. I CHECKED BY
LOURIE -CONTRACTING INC.
10516. eve 1017 • :a
PRO.ECT
CONTOUR INTERVAL -' 2'
'. . SCALE: rIORZ.. 1' . = .40'
VERT.' =.4
— Wcc OF. rE r.ANos•
11.11. '.r1
X11• 11
25.00'
I a 0. %
,1
71 11 8
,^ IF 10,64 !t. 1. - 1.11.011,x0 � R.
7.24 _5
1. 1.
•
•
•J?/ F 2177.77:01
CURVE TABLE.
RL_Gc1V 1 •
oeMrruicry •
A00 NOTE ' ..T7 CF. PJKWILA
ii. C.L.
07 -03 -9!
JOB NO. •
REV. N0.
Baima & . Holmberg Inc..
OWNER
LOURIE CONTRACTING INC.
0575 :. t.:21C #05:0' 'E WA
E -N G I-N E E.RS 8- S U R V E' Y 0 R.S. -
1503
camp; BIND. 90100E 0 I03A9GAB. ►AIONG709•0802' (203) 392 - 0250
OFSGl4ED BY
SHEET CONTENT .
PRELIMINARY PLAT
__ S 884526'•E
40!2 1
_..7,203 W It. '•'.
l iA 72 2' LT • _ /r, • . - - 1 f � I i, ) 1 ". �. t
/ - ' ^� - -C8 (3 TvPE 0�4a • I f 1 i s
1 !` mt��� -r• 26 LF. 7Y-4p y Z; o�� =�
® ® o
°j 6g fi ��= 71S7LF6 sS1 �-` \ � 2 is
87 E 2 e 1 1 i\
�, / ` MCC 7R1LAN0$ I R25
- R I
R3100' .�. �\ SBA �.00 EIS L7. !�`��•�/��
•- t.8, /- 72 Lt1 L 'SSMM I3 . • /�
• �/ T 514 S.tS ON Q '\ �a�! fLJ3.
O 1`0Z i
C.0 /1
STA 5.72.'5• LT. COI /0 7696 8 -48••
'.570 5.45. 32•
TRACT. 'B' .
Sec NOTE * WE TLAtND'•
AE9411
SSMH / - 64133.98. _
CONSTRUCT PROP SSAIN OVER
. (415T wER MAIN.. CONTRACTOR. TO
• vER7711jCCAT10N- AND -DEPTH PRIOR'
.TO CON TRUE RON 401170 ENGINEER.
..F AN HSCREPANCIES_ •
•
CONTOUR INTERVAL
SCALE: HORZ. I = 40' •
C13. /1
STA'0
599.1 /2
0941+
8.
.•.11011 fp."'
0.25 acres
■7144 s9 II
039 aces
D 960 49
EAI57.
8066E99;
1.1.0w ARE
57.28. •
• 99.1)'
NO 1E - ORIi,INA•_- rrEi_+ND• BOLING AR..(TRACT' 3;1 FLAGGED 1 -9 -91
• REEVALUATED WETLAND B('JNC,,R �TRAC7 5) FLAGGED 7 -21 -9i
R.NGE: -,AGGING PL ACEC -80 1 :0( (700' 6106005T
• YELLOW FLAGGING: RL ACE.) ET -SURVEY CREW •
ANGLE- PO!NIS' ALONG ".WE TL AND. BOUNOARY'(IRACT -B)
REPRESENT FLAGGING LOCF TI01:5: "
ASPHALT
DISCHARGE
PDT ST
PN ELE
= 0.•5 •
= 145.78
•
• FROM C8 11
C8 /6' TYPE I
RIM = 155 82
INV - 152 00
e SS.O 0.4X
C8 /1 'TYPE :2.007.
VANED ORA
.167 - 149 :2
• CB A TYPE 1
VANE. GRATE
• RIM - .152.08 •
INV -- .74868
C.O. 1
Rad - 152.23 -
INV • 145.00 OUT
•
6.00.
SSMH AN
RIM .154.47
INV • .144.63 IN
'INV • 144.53 OUT
•, EXIS) SEWER.. CONTRACTOR 10.
. VERIFY LOC8 TION• AND DEPTH PRIOR •
_ TO CONSTRLCTION . , ••
FI A . i 1s •
5 +00 . 4+00 3.00 - I
ADD NOTE /•CITY OF TUKWILA
7 -30191
PREPARED. BY
Baima & Holmberg. Mc.
OWNER. .
LOURIE. CONTRACTING :INC.::
8575 S 152ND /95 SEATTLE WA. - • -
07 -03 -91
JOB. NO.
54 -001
(54 -0613)
:505 N 6 MILAN' 0190 SUITE 7' 33.845406 28S1050108 98027 (208) -392'- 0250
,DESIGNED BY ORAYN BY ' . CHECKED BY
M C.L. /J.T, - M.C.L WS''
SHEET CONTENT ,
S: 15380' UTILITIES PLAN/PROFILE, & ST. UGHT.. PLAN