Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-27-91 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - KLICKITAT / 53RD AVENUE SOUTH / 160TH STREET IMPROVEMENTSSTREET IMPROVEMENTS KLICKITAT DR. TO 53RD AVE S. TO S. 160T" STREET TO 51ST AVE. S. EPIC -27 -91 DATE: T • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD WIN TUE two THU TIME: FRI SAT SUN TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— 0Incoming A.M. P.M. 0 Outgoing Name 01 eerson(s) contacted or in contact with you: / P.C/�i/ (7 lea Y c Organization (office, dept., bureau, etol Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: A Z-/ SUMMARY: ,'GU on/Ape,if--- ( _/) via /171‘4 A04 Afe /eeterAis ttz ,h w '‘4/1 p '61/ 6 e r l`< 41 7�ici S Signature: Title: Date: .1' M E M O R A N D U M T O F I L E FILE: EPIC- 27 -91: Klickitat Drive improvements DATE: April 2, 1992 PREP: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner The purpose of this memo is to clarify DCD's involvement in the reviews and approvals of this project. Early on in the review of this project, DCD expressed concern to Public Works regarding: 1) the design of the pedestrian path, and 2) re- vegetation of the slope pursuant to SAO. 1) In June 1991, while reviewing SEPA checklist, I vehemently expressed concern re: the design of the ped path, first to Ross Heller, and also to Ron and Bob Giberson. The main problem was the chainlink fence. At 6' high, and running for 2300 feet, aesthetically, it was unacceptable. Moreover, it created a "cattle- chute" effect, which would be very unpleasant for pedestrians. It would not appear to be a safe passage way, particularly for women or elderly. On 6/10/92 I was told by Ron & Bob that Public Works cannot respond to my concerns. The project is already out to bid, that it has taken "ten years!" to get W.S.D.O.T. approval for this specific design, which is directly tied into approval of any work on the slope, etc. Path is entirely in D.O.T. right -of -way; therefore, D.O.T. has final say. 2 The project received a waiver to the Sensitive Area Moratorium on 5/20/91 (91- 10 -SPE). At the time DNS issued on 6/17/91, SAO was not adopted. Therefore, specific re- vegetation requirements per SAO were not included in the SEPA approval. However, the slopes were to be "seeded and /or restored as necessary," once SAO was adopted. Memo to file: EPIC -27 -91 Page 2 In response to concerns raised re: re- planting, Public Works indicated that the project would not have much affect on existing vegetation. Ron & Bob stated on 6/10/91 that the trail would be located in the tree -less area of the bank. On 12/7/91 I reviewed re- planting requirements of SAO with Bob. Bob agreed to meet with Gary Schulz and I to discuss re- planting concepts. Bob subsequently provided plan of trees removed by contractor. However, no re- vegetation has occurred to date. cc: File Rick Beeler is To Date AM 0 P WHILE Y® WERE OUT of Phonef - 1 Area Co TELEPHONED/ CALLED TOXEE YOU WANTS TA SEE YOU Number Extension PLEASE CALL WILL CALL AGAIN URGENT I RETURNED YOUR CALL I I e Mes s du. .rH atiorxe.vil. _OM Fel 77 e AMPAD o EFFICIENCY® 9 a' -p/ REORDER #23 -000 -rko • G r . » 4 • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: 5 / :, /.?0_ MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: TYPE: iii Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone - 0incoming A.M. P.M. 0 Outgoing Name of •er n s) n ed or in co with Organization (office, dept., bureau, e .) Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: Telephone No.: ■I / L rJ ,� ate - deiztee/l eoxe We b / % x-71 zolLeid -at/ ozei g dat5-,k j /e07 c-7 zr 2� c"ce-G t. r 5/-6 Cz ons�. .C)6n. a r /� /0/774101 64f,/9.d,(,;04' eij I ,E geetkoni ‘% (1,49 r rlGc 5'C &6 /< '€)?2 /2d7/ fid.,(4i . G e,zei; `� Gii (a)-04' I/ Ci'? 1/7.eGO 7 - (h.4-r.�5. Coq . /�h _ 1 Apkit 5Ortewot AeorAee, 1-/e) GGy 46160-574, • anGL sc G /micas 8-erne Gi (2 Signature: , 4e /Zee Title: Date: 4dte CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: 3 / / v TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ?LW 7UE WED THU TIME: FRI SAT SUN A.M. P.M. ❑ Telephone — 0 Incoming 0 Outgoing Name of person) contacted in�onta Organization (office, dept ,bureau, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY wth yor,a4ha4i) Telephone No.: • Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: U 7 f 7 / — /� �� SUMMARY: 06f/7 / .tg75Z J ID''- / 5 747ezee ��- Av, is i p41& 07 ; e ,a .f) 21ii or 4? -.5)cons er>i 41 ary To: 470) From: PvE Return ❑ eeri or •= i Post- lt° FYI. pad 7668 0 TTER OF rTAL ❑ MEMORANDUM 1.1 174-14-1- . �► Z RECEIVED JAN 2 1 1992 TUKWiLA IC `WWWOI KS ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS ❑ 10900 NE 8TH STREET, SUITE 300 (206) 454 -5600 BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 FAX:(206) 454 -0220 o 600 WALL STREET BUILDING 2930 WETMORE AVENUE EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98201 ,t, & nl•r— br, 14P4- 1' 6fese Attention: /11/•-. . arr; / 64.-s s�— XATTACHED UNDER SEPARATE COVER (206) 258-6202 FAX:(206) 252 -8277 Date. '74)71 Project No. `/ a/// — 27 Title- 1--�r e-• A-74 A- A- A.-°- Re- Ped �ti •• ❑ ORIGINALS ❑ PRINTS ❑ OTHER FOR YOUR: X; INFORMATION /USE ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ OTHER OUR ACTION: ❑ REVIEWED ❑ APPROVED ❑ NOT APPROVED ❑ SEE REMARKS ❑ OTHER REQUESTED ACTION: ❑ APPROVAL ❑ REVIEW & COMMENT ❑ MAKE CORRECTIONS NOTED ❑ REVISE & RESUBMIT ❑ OTHER NO. OF COPIES DRAWING NUMBER 2-81 V DESCRIPTION A� �J 192 ■ ,N1N�' DAP Remarks•b 1 / A X51 4�1 C� T re_id-a-eA-7'.es.,. A_ ,.s-7,61-0 J `er0 g H-Q—. 7. ;7 By :if�^^,".. cc• DISTRIBUTION: White to Addressee - Canary to Project File - Pink to Day File A 02.(2 -89) • CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: /O. / / 7/ I/ MDN TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: A.M. P.M. TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ■ Telephone— Olncoming OOutgoing Name of per .; s .••ntacte• • in •• act w o : Jai ►A,or r-_, irf urgau, etc.) Organization office, de l FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: /e_b`C1 7/(//,*- cnerg SUMMARY: Signature: Title: Date: Sensitive Ordinance /1,00. 0\k\ Page 15 (4) When required by the. Director of DCD, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an arch culvert using oversize or superspan culverts for --rebuilding of a stream bed. These shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD. (5) When necessary to provide for fish passage, fish ladders shall be one foot vertical rise to ten foot horizontal distance, or as approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries. (6) Stormwater runoff shall be detained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse channel's dominant discharge. (7) All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment. (8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as specified by the State Department of Fisheries. (9) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable. 7. Dredging, digging or filling a. Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse or its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (1) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (2) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (3) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (4) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (5) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (6) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. b. Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. c. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan•approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. E. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. 2. Exemptions: Any temporary slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded without application of this chapter under an approved permit. 3. Alterations: a. Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development, and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or (2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, slope stability is not decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability. b. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall include tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous • trees, preferably native, and approved by the Director of DCD. Replacement vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and stabilization protection. CITY OF T UKWILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 MEMORANDUM rThi TO- 11 PE . U1(wlLA <IALX Tb;,,,N,E 1) . C,W At V09 FROM: % --5* i DATE- SUBJECT: L0,02SPC 01i1L6 S ' = 't('. -'t?:2 <;_i rip,—T le. .i ale PmF -S K7 N dim ���`� i�� (-r1h ) r o \ '631),0 U �? ; \u ! t WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal Construction of an elevated pedestrian path, and minor street widening, including retaining walls and rockeries. Proponent City of Tukwila department of Public Works. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any Klickitat Drive (from I -5 to 53rd Avenue South), 53rd Avenue South (from Klickitat Drive to South 160th), and South 160th (between 53rd and 51st Avenue South). Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC= 27 -91: Klickitat Dr. /53rd Ave. 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. XE(X There is no comment period for this DNS C1 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuki]1bA X9,8188 Date v -, _., i,i»i Signature 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 tie 1 £ U IS V 1 1 SYLVIA A. OSBY • 0 Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting, (] Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet [] Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit u t' U 1 :i T R 1 B U T l O N hereby :. declare that: • fa Determination of Nonsignificance [] Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance • and Scoping Notice 0 Notice of Action O Official Notice Q Other Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Name of Project Klickitat Dr./ 53rd Ave. File Number EPIC -27 -91 June 17, 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF C.IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 FAX NO. y51 — 0.0 to IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 43 I - 362 70 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED. INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 SENT BY (INITIALS): ,10:55nc .47:519, Office: (206) 431-3670 oe/16/90 DATE: 17 , 10 q/ , , , f TITLE: r FROM: cliovit / azuem) COMPANY: vatil Y TITLE: ,17,,...,d- ,Pia,x4L,„ t DEPARTMEN : 54 4(40.5X,06MC440,40,0:4W,06000.4.** OW 4, 1 ,,,,„...., DEP MENT: 1 A / , .._......., A 40,45v4,-04t995, r FAX NO. y51 — 0.0 to IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 43 I - 362 70 NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED. INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 SENT BY (INITIALS): ,10:55nc .47:519, Office: (206) 431-3670 oe/16/90 City of Tukwila PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -0179 Ross A. Earnst, P.E. Director [wNlll9si CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DrPT. MEMORANDUM TO: Ann Siegenthaler, Assistant Planner FROM: Ron Cameron, City Engineer Arl,N, DATE: June 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Klickitat Pedestrian Path Soils We do not have a "normal sense" soils report for the pedestrian path design. The soils work for the pedestrian path superseded a "normal" project from the Klickitat original freeway design work and as fall out of soils litigation. WSDOT did not want soils borings on the embankment because of the extensive previous soils investigations and knowledge. The hillside has been designed and constructed with ballast rock /rip rap. This was based on I -5 soil work. It has an elaborate drain system. The pedestrian path foundation /piers have been designed to have "no" loading affect on the ballasted hillside. This design was: 1. Provided to us by WSDOT. for design by our engineers, Reid Middleton (May 1, 1989 letter attached); 2. Reid Middelton drawings given to WSDOT local programs for approval; 3. Local Programs obtained WSDOT structural (soils approval) after modification required by WSDOT structural; 4. Returned to us for Reid Middleton preparation of PS &E; 5. Reid Middleton revised design with foundation changes required by WSDOT structural engineers; 6. The revised plans were resubmitted for structural approval and returned with the June 14, 1990 WSDOT approval letter. (January 11, 1991 and January 17, 1991 submittal and June 14, 1990 approval letters attached). RC /kjp File: 86- RW02 -1 4difiCONVERSATION RECORD DATE: / -1 D TYPE: ❑ Visit [ MON 7UE WED THU TIME: FRI SAT SUN nference El Telephone - O Incoming A.M. P.M. 0 Outgoing Name of rson(s) contacted or in co -ct ith i_AI L�14 •f l / Organize ion office, dept., bure = u, e c.) Y FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: LI Ctafirr WA/5S - i reArieLo SUMMARY: m/ 5-• -!' GB H, t2 67r-d e c K/UeLS 1aa n 176 dr //.S' ; fit e) 76(..e rfta-Lf 6-1(% ee/(CD/ e �-cfeet Zetes- Git 4W. icrP 7 'r .4e &I; k // irgef /- d/ 7 tr,earri 7e c- Signature: Title: Date: $sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 41) c. Every reasonable effort shall be made to maintain the existing viable plant life in the buffers. Vegetation may be removed from the buffer as part of an enhancement plan approved by the Director of DCD. Enhancements will ensure that slope stability and wetland and watercourse quality will be maintained or improved. Any disturbance of the buffers for wetlands or watercourses shall be replanted with a diverse plant community of native northwest species that are appropriate for the specific site as determined by the DCD Director. If the vegetation must be removed, or because of the alterations of . the landscape the vegetation becomes damaged or dies, then the applicant for permit must replace existing vegetation along wetlands and watercourses with comparable specimens, approved by the DCD Director, which will reproduce the existing buffer value within 5 years. d. The DCD Director shall require . subsequent corrective actions And long -term monitoring of the project if adverse impacts to regulated wetlands, watercourses or their buffers are identified. D. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. Each development proposal for a legal lot of record containing an area of potential, geologic instability shall be subject to a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of Sections 18.45.060 and 18.45.080(6). The ' geotechnical report shall analyze, and make recommendations on the need for and width of any buffers necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this ordinance. Development proposals ~shall `then include the buffer distances as defined within the geotechnical report. - 2. Buffers may be increased by the DCD Director when an area is determined to be particularly sensitive to the disturbance created by a development. Such 'a decision will be based on a City review of the report as prepared by a qualified geotechnical consultant and by a site visit. 18.45.060 Procedures General: When an applicant submits an application for any ,building permit, subdivision, short subdivision or any other land use review which approves a use, development or future construction, the location of any sensitive areas and buffers on the site shall be indicated on the 'plans submitted. When a sensitive area is identified, the following'procedures apply. The DCD Director may waive any of the following if the size and complexity of the project does not warrant a step in the procedures. 1. Sensitive ` Areas Study and Geotechnical Report: The applicant shall submit the relevant study as required in TMC 21.04.140 and this chapter. It is intended that sensitive areas studies and information be utilized by applicants in preparation of their proposals and therefore shall be undertaken early in the design stages of a project. Any new subdivision, short subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or multiple family residential proposal which includes a sensitive area or its buffer on the site shall apply for a Planned Residential Development permit and meet the requirements of Chapter 18.46 of the Tukwila Zoning Code. Denial of Use or Development: A use or development will be denied if it is determined by the DCD Director that the applicant cannot .ensure that potential 'dangers and costs to future inhabitants of the development, adjacent and local properties, and Tukwila are minimized and mitigated to an acceptable level. Pre - development Conference: The applicant, specialist(s) of record, contractor, and Department representatives will be required to attend pre- construction conferences prior to any work on the site. • • Construction Monitoring: The specialist(s) of record shall be retained to monitor the site during construction. 6. The DCD Director may require the boundary between a sensitive area and its buffer and any development or use to be permanently identified with fencing, or with a .wood or metal sign with treated wood, concrete or metal posts. Size will be determined at the time of permitting, and wording shall be as follows: i,rE oy "Protection of this natural area is in your care. Alteration or disturbance is prohibited pursuant to TMC 18.45. Please call the City of Tukwila for more information." 48.45.080 Uses and Standards A.. General. The following general uses may be located within a sensitive area or buffer, subject to the provisions of TMC 21.04. Each permitted use is subject to the standards of this section. 1. Maintenance anSepair of existing uses and facilities pr ded no alteration or additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used in the sensitive area or buffer. 2. Non - destructive education and research. 3. . Passive recreation and open space. 4. Maintenance and repair of essential streets, roads, rights-of-way, or utilities. 5. Actions to remedy the effects of emergencies that threaten the public health, safety or welfare. 6. Other uses may be allowed pursuant to TMC 18.45.080 B -H. Permitted Uses Subject to Administrative Review. The following uses may be permitted only after administrative review and approval by the DCD Director. - 1. Maintenance and repair of existing uses and facilities where alteration or . additional fill materials will be placed or heavy construction equipment used. 1 Construction of new essential streets and roads, rights-of-way and utilities. 3. New surface water discharges to wetlands or watercourses or their-buffers from detention facilities, pre - settlement ponds, or other surface water management structures may be allowed provided that the discharge meets the clean water standards of RCW 90.48 and WAC 173.200 and 173.201 as amended, and does not increase the rate of flow to the wetland or watercourse beyond the level of the existing rate. 4. Regional stormwater detention areas may be allowed if use results in no decrease in rating of resource and enhances existing values and functions. Design shall be subject to the standards of this section and other applicable City of Tukwila standards. 5. Enhancement or other mitigation including landscaping. C. Wetlands. 1. General: a. No use or development may occur in a Type 1 and Type 2 wetland or its . buffer except as specifically allowed by TMC 18.45.080 (A, B and 1-1). Any use or development allowed is subject to the standards of this section. Only isolated Type 3 wetlands can be altered or relocated , and then only with the permission of the DCD Director. A mitigation or enhancement plan must be developed and must comply with the standards of compensatory mitigation required in this chapter. c. Mitigation plans shall be completed for any proposals for dredging, filling, alterations, and relocation of wetland habitat allowed in TMC 18.45.080 (A, B and H). 2. Compensatory Mitigation: a. The mitigation plan shall be developed as part of a sensitive area study by a specialist approved by the DCD Director. Wetland and /or buffer alteration or relocation may be allowed only when a mitigation plan clearly, demonstrates that the changes would be an improvement of wetland and% buffer,;quantitative and qualitative functions. The plan shall follow the performance standards of this chapter -and 'show how water quality, wildlife andIor fish habitat, and general wetland quality would be improved. b. In order to achieve the City's goal of no- net -loss of wetland functions and acreage, alteration of wetlands will require the applicant to . provide a restoration, enhancement or creation plan to compensate for the impacts to the wetland and will compensate at a ratio of 1.5:1. c. Mitigation Location. (1) On -site compensation shall be provided except where the applicant' can demonstrate that: (a) the hydrology and ecosystem of the original wetland and those who' benefit from the hydrology and ecosystem will not be damaged by the' on-site loss; and . (b) on -site compensation is not scientifically feasible due to problems with hydrology, soils, waves, or other factors, or • (c) compensation is not practical due to potentially adverse impact from surrounding land uses; or (d) existing functional values at the. site of the proposed restoration are significantly greater than lost wetland functional values; or ,sensitive Areas Ordinance Page 15 • • (4) When required by the Director of DCD, watercourses under drivable surfaces shall be contained in an arch culvert using oversize or superspan culverts for rebuilding of a stream bed. These shall be provided with check dams to reduce flows, and shall be replanted and enhanced according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD. (5) When necessary to provide for fish passage, fish ladders shall be one foot vertical rise to ten foot horizontal distance, or as approved by the Washington State Department of Fisheries. (6) Stormwater runoff shall be detained and infiltrated to preserve the watercourse channel's dominant discharge. (7) All construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer and surrounding environment. (8) Piping shall be constructed during periods of low flow, or as specified by the State Department of Fisheries. (9) Water quality must be as good or better for any water exiting the pipe as for the water entering the pipe, and flow must be comparable. 7. Dredging, digging or filling a. Dredging, digging or filling within a watercourse or its buffer may occur only with the permission of the DCD Director and only for the following purposes: (1) Uses permitted by Section 18.45.080(1), (2) and (3); or (2) Maintenance of an existing watercourse; or (3) Enhancement or restoration of habitat in conformance with an approved mitigation plan identified in a sensitive area study; or (4) Natural system interpretation, education or research when undertaken by, or in cooperation with, the City of Tukwila; or (5) Flood control or water quality enhancement by the City of Tukwila; or (6) Maintenance of existing water quality controls, for normal maintenance needs and for any diversion, rerouting, piping, or other alteration permitted by this chapter. b. Any dredging, digging or filling shall be performed in a manner which will minimize sedimentation in the water. Every effort will be made to perform such work at the time of year when the impact can be lessened. c. Upon completion of construction, the area affected must be restored to an appropriate grade, replanted according to a plan approved by the Director of DCD and provided with care until newly planted vegetation is established. E. Areas of Potential Geologic Instability. 1. General: The uses permitted in the underlying zoning district may be undertaken on sites which contain areas of potential geologic instability subject to the standards of this section and the requirements of a geotechnical study. 2. Exemptions: Any temporary ,slope which has been created through legal grading activities may be regraded without application of this chapter under an approved permit. 3. Alterations: a. Prior to permitting alteration of an area of potential geologic instability, the applicant must demonstrate one of the following: (1) There is no evidence of past instability or earth movement in the vicinity of the proposed development, and quantitative analysis of slope stability indicates no significant risk to the proposed development or surrounding properties; or '(2) The area of potential geologic instability can be modified or the project can be designed so that any potential impact to the project and surrounding properties is eliminated, slope stability is not 'decreased, and the increase in surface water discharge or sedimentation shall not decrease slope stability. b. Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for development, a landscaping plan for the site shall include ,tree re- planting with an equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, preferably native, and approved by the Director of DCD. Replacement vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and stabilization protection. • Sensitive Areas Ordinance Pagt 4. Geotechnical Report: a. The.applicant shall submit a Geotechnical Report, appropriate to both the site conditions and the proposed development. A geotechnical investigation shall be required for development in Class 2, Class 3, Class 4 areas, and any areas identified as seismic or coal mine hazard areas. This requirement may be waived by the Director of the Department of Community Development for sites in Class 2 areas that are at least 200 feet from the nearest adjacent Class 3 or Class 4 hazard area, and which do not show any erosion or sedimentation problems. b. Geotechnical reports for Class 2 areas shall include at a minimum a site evaluation review of available information regarding the site and a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas. Subsurface exploration of site conditions is at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. c. Geotechnical reports for Class 3, Class 4 and Coal Mine Hazard areas shall include a site evaluation review of available information about the site, a surface reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas, and a subsurface exploration of soils and hydrology conditions. Detailed slope stability analysis shall be done if the geotechnical consultant recommends it in Class 3 or Coal Mine Hazard areas, and must be done in all Class 4 areas. d. Seismic hazard areas shall include an evaluation of site .response and liquefaction potential for the proposed development area. For one or two story single family dwellings this evaluation may be based on the performance of similar structures under similar foundation conditions. For proposed developments including occupied structures other than one and two story single family dwellings, the evaluation shall include sufficient subsurface exploration to provide a site coefficient (S) for use in the static lateral force procedure described in the Uniform Building Code. e. Applicants shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to prepare the reports and evaluations required in this Section. The Geotechnical Report and completed Site Evaluation checklist shall be prepared in accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical practices, under the supervision of and signed and stamped by the Geotechnical Engineer. The report shall be prepared in consultation with the appropriate City department. Where appropriate, a Geologist must be included as part of the geotechnical consulting team. The report shall make specific recommendations ,concerning development of the site. f. The geotechnical engineers required under this section must meet the qualification standards approved by the Director of DCD. Applicants shall provide a list of qualifications of the firm or individuals who will be doing the technical studies, and those shall be approved by the Director of DCD. If the engineers' credentials are not sufficient, the City may require applicants to use a different engineer or firm which does meet the City's standards. The opinions and recommendations contained in the report shall be supported by field observations and, where appropriate or applicable, by literature review, conducted by the Geotechnical Engineer which shall include appropriate explorations, such as borings or test pits, and an analysis of soil characteristics conducted by or under the supervision of the engineer in accordance with standards of the American Society of Testing and Materials or other applicable standards. If the evaluation involves geologic evaluations or interpretations, the report shall be reviewed and approved by a Geologist. h. An independent review of geotechnical reports will be required per TMC 21.04.140. Disclosures, Declarations and Covenants. a. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to submit, consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report, structural plans which were prepared and stamped by a Structural Engineer. The plans and specifications shall be accompanied by a letter from the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the Geotechnical Report stating that in his /her judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and that the risk of damage to the proposed development site, from soil instability will be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the report; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. b. Further recommendations signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be provided should there be additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based on the plans, site conditions, or other supporting data. If the Geotechnical Engineer who reviews the plans and specifications is not the same engineer who prepared the geotechnical Report, the new engineer shall, in a letter to the City accompanying the plans and specifications, express his or her agreement or disagreement with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and state that the plans and specifications conform to his or her recommendations. g. ,ensitive Areas Ordinance • • Page 17 c. The Architect or - Structural Engineer shall submit to the City, with the plans and specifications, :a letter of notation on the design . drawings at the time of permit application stating that he or she has reviewed the Geotechnical Report, understands its recommendations, has explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss due to slides on the site, and has incorporated into the design the recommendations of the Report and established measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the Report. d. The applicant, or the owner of the site if the applicant is not the owner, shall submit a letter to the City, with the plans and specifications, stating that he or she understands and accepts the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that he or she will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective purchasers of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. e. The owner shall execute a covenant, running with the land, on a form provided by the City. The City will file the completed covenant with the King County Department of Records and Elections at the expense of the applicant or owner. A copy of the recorded covenant will be forwarded to the owner. This covenant shall include: (1) The legal description of the Property; (2) A statement explaining that the site is in an area of potential instability; of the risks associated with development on the site, of any conditions or prohibitions on development, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes; A statement waiving any claims the owner or his /her successors or assigns may have against the City of Tukwila for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site; (4) The date of issuance and number of the permit authorizing the development. 6. Assurance Devices: Whenever the City determines that the public interest would not be served by the issuance of a permit in an area of potential geologic instability without assurance of a means of providing for restoration of areas disturbed by and repair of property damage caused by slides arising out of or occurring during construction, the DCD Director may require assurance devices pursuant to Section 18.45.135. 7. Construction Monitoring: a. The applicant shall retain a Geotechnical Engineer to monitor the site during construction. The applicant shall preferably retain the Geotechnical Engineer who prepared the final Geotechnical recommendations and reviewed the plans and specifications. If a different consultant is retained by the owner, the new Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a letter to the City stating whether or not he /she agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the original Geotechnical Engineer. Further recommendations, signed and sealed by the Geotechnical Engineer, and supporting data shall be provided should there be exceptions to the original recommendations. b. The Geotechnical Engineer shall monitor, during construction, compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, particularly site excavation, shoring, soil support for foundations including piles, subdrainage installations, soil compaction and any other geotechnical aspects of the construction. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The Geotechnical Engineer shall make written, dated monitoring reports on the progress of the construction to the City at such timely intervals as shall be specified. Omissions or deviations from the approved plans and specifications shall be immediately reported to the City. The final construction monitoring report shall contain a statement from the Geotechnical Engineer that, based upon his or her professional opinion, site observations and testing during the monitoring of the construction, the completed development substantially complies with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report and with all geotechnical- related permit requirements. Occupancy of the project will not be approved until the report has been reviewed and accepted by the DCD Director. Conditioning and Denial of Use or Developments: a. Substantial weight shall be given to ensuring continued slope stability and the resulting public health, safety and welfare in determining whether a development should be allowed. b. The City may impose conditions that address site work problems; which could include but are not limited to limiting all excavation and drainage installation to the dryer season, or sequencing activities such as installing erosion control and drainage systems well in advance of construction. (3) EXPANDED METAL DECKING 5/8" DIA. BOLTS GALVANIZED STEEL (TYP.4) CD M 3" Z't WOOD HANDRAIL PLAN . VIEW (TYP. ) NTS WOOD HANDRAIL (TYP.) EXPANDED METAL DECKING PLATFORM TYPE I CHAIN LINK FENCE STAIRWAY LANDING DETAIL PP STA. 18 +20.90 TO STA. 18 +24.90 NTS aNiaatON 10 0(1611467 Sircig_, 42eAr Koy) etwApAtun zftl 1 Sallt T[ PLAN H- EXISTINI GROUND EXISTING GROUND- / PP Q CHAIN LINK FENCE, TYPE I x 6 WOOD RAIL 8d NAILS AT 18" ON CENTER 2 x 4, TYP. 3 WOOD RAILS 4 x 4 WOOD POST -M 0 5 FT. ON CENTER EXPANDING METAL DECKING 12 WOOD STIFFENER,' FT. ON CENTER).. 18" DIA. DRILLED CONCRETE FOOTING (10' ON CENTER) 1/4 x 12x I2 GALVANIZED STEEL BACKING PLATE x 12 WOOD EDGE BEAM 6 x 6 WOOD POST. . EMBEDDED; IN. FOOTING EXISTING GROUND. TYPICAL PEDESTRIAN PATH SECTION PP STA.10 +00 TO STA22 +25 NTS CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONANTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC: Z. PROJECTCpe' , / �j� Avc ADDRESS Avve/ l DATE TRANSMITTED S STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (p DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED IB chec envtitinmentat cheddtst was received regarding.'thIs-prole s ctt„ Pease raview and cm t below to advise the responsibte officia[ regarding the thrshtc deter'mtnatlorr4 The' environmental reyiew file isavailabte in the Planning. Department through' he'above staf,' cord nator... Comments regarrding •the project you Wish carried. to. the planning Qommissron .. Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted inrthe comment sectroa. betpw. ITEM COMMENT Argtafhi (,41r1 1evavcd, ie4t 4i iak faith , ( ieki "jr.) v �� " f:41' __ Comments prepared by: !� " 47. . Jc5 s Icy mo. � � I / I\ O} I I "- 1 11 I I 1 1 I F' ^,'\ ATTACHMENT B: Site Plan CITY OF TUKWILA - DEPARTMENT OP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONt► ; =NTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM } Pub Wks4 � ': ►f EPIC: 27 "i 1 PROJECT I <%la- AT VR14 Att. 4. 16/0 gileaf 1 mPo .� t ADDRESS ADS/ DATE TRANSMITTED �j70, /�,► / STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (0 /Ver DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ff . fK f cfc °, C J• �Z° F},rfoY 9" �„K"7F,r}} �c jf k ,!.? ,gOtr'^. �;'•< y rva »'�w'�^'i< �r °` , ,b• .c ^fa k < >• ... 4v °e a f , 5 "S•: y:%' r •yL v '�A b 10F>'b � �,. � :'d. shed enji. nmentat checklist was mceived :regardiftg.`thls projec Pteass review a mme It below a advise the }responsible officialregerding thethre holcf`detsrmlhation, Tt rnyir rimeinta�l revlew:file [s avelablg inthe :Planning Qepartnment'thrcu h abov et . orditaetor. Comments regarding the project you wish'carded }to the Ta'feltt�tn§ CCommTss 3oard of Adjustment and City {Council ehouid be submitted tit the comment. section bei .. '.:H 5..• it »<Y74 iG, i/ ITEM COMMENT Amnia (65.r 9 1v4 , 4W ia.a 4 Ml (R1 if r.) et "4.64)1 • . .. 1.44. ,'' ' G'd/r•ih `'' / ebvtirocivii -e t/ Date: Comments prepared by: , • ENVIRONNONTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EPIC: 2711 ..(11 " • ..•"" • 'arkIRf Avec./. 1 &tit 476K limte.0 PROJECT ADDRESS ileevc/ DATE 'TRANSMITTED 5:APA RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT _Marra al1/41(41 4r: 1eva)fe4 74otrieun (gliekittk PA..) wiamitur ref-tut/dill wekti wrAwiy,s (.11c{,e16314/i66). /AO A-671A2P Date: - t— Comments prepared by;, 09J14/89 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONIONTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM EPIC: Z7 "1I • • lannin a:Pub::. �,�: FETv O(tce �• j PROJECT � �C '�" •� Avc �. 1 (DO4=1 4T( [ mtromia0 ADDRESS bow/ DATE TRANSMITTED rjAP) RESPONSE REQUESTED BY (p /7 /cr STAFF COORDINATOR 1 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM T Gilt (4•1 Dr: t) tevakd •ulOi►iau afh (Klie(u 4t,4- -br.) e ain' COMMENT 4 2:07,ritex- -er2� .�. Date: 45,o /a/ Comments prepared by: ,era- OpltuBf A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Improvements to Klickitat Drive from I -5 to 53rd Avenue South including signalization of the 53rd Avenue intersection; Improvements to 53rd Avenue South from Klickitat Drive to South 160th Street; • And improvements to South 160th Street from 53rd Avenue South to 51st Avenue South. 2. Name of applicant: • City of Tukwila 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Ron Cameron, P.E. City Engineer Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206) 433 -0179 4. Date checklist prepared: • May 1991 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): • Construction is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1991 and be completed by the winter of 1991. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes, South 160th Street between 42nd Avenue South and 51st Avenue South is scheduled to be improved within the next few years. Improvements are planned during the summer of 1991 for Crystal Springs Park north and west of the intersection of South 160th Street and 51st Avenue South. Those improvements are not related to the current street projects. 2 S�Zt/et I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST RCW 197.4-900 Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.210 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal if it can be done), and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you, describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental Impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts: If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as z+u,shcline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or, its environmental its. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. . 1 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Several geotechnical studies have been done in the project area and environs. Those studies are on file with the City Engineer. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. • No applications are known to be pending. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • City of Tukwila City Council approval. • Washington State Department of Transportation approval. • Federal Highway Administration approval. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The street improvements along Klickitat Drive will include widening the pavement from 26 feet to 36+ feet (the pavement width varies); widening the turn lane and improving the geometry of the intersection to the I -5 access ramp; intersection improvements at 53rd Avenue South: and providing a separated walkway along the west and south side of the street. • The intersection improvements on Klickitat Drive will include widening the existing pavement to allow left -turn channelization for Klickitat westbound left turns to 53rd Avenue South and signalization of the intersection. • The street improvements along 53rd Avenue South will include widening the pavement from 22 feet to 26 feet and providing a sidewalk along one side, alternating from side to side. 53rd Avenue South will continue through to South 160th Street and left turn channelization will be provided for the intersection with Slade Way. Also included are retaining walls, illumination, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities. • The street improvements along South 160th Street will include widening the pavement from 22 feet to 28 feet and providing a sidewalk along the south side of the street. The intersection with 51st Avenue South will be altered to make it more nearly at a 90° angle. Also included are retaining walls, illumination, storm drainage and undergrounding of utilities. 3 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. • See "Name of proposed project," item 1. above. The improvements are located in portions of the north half of Section 26, the south half of Section 23, in Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map designated as environmentally sensitive? Yes, see B. Environmental Elements, Number 8h. 4 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest grade on both 53rd Avenue South and South 160th Street is approximately 10 %. The steepest existing side slope along 53rd Avenue is 67% and is located on the west side of the street between South 160th and South 158th Streets. The steepest existing side slope along South 160th Street is 100% and is located along both sides of the road midway between 51st and 53rd Avenues. 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. Gravelly sandy loam. Several geotechnical reports have been prepared for projects in this area and are on file with the City Engineer. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. The slopes east of the roadway along 53rd Avenue have experienced settlement and failure over the past two decades. During I -5 construction, WSDOT installed horizontal drains to stabilize the hillside. There is an area of road embankment failure on the north side of South 160th Street, approximately 300 feet east of 51st Avenue. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. • The South 160th Street improvements will require approximately 2,800 cu. yd. of material to be removed from the roadway and approximately 400 cu. yd. of granular fill material will need to be imported. 5 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT The 53rd Avenue improvements will require approximately 1,400 cu. yd. of material to be removed from the roadway and approximately 400 cu. yd. of granular fill material will need to be imported. The Klickitat Drive improvements will require approximately 1,000 cu. yd. of material to be removed from the roadway and approximately 1,000 cu. yd. of granular fill material will need to be imported. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. • Some erosion could occur as a result of site preparation and clearing of vegetation during construction. Temporary erosion control techniques will be employed during construction. The potential for erosion will be minimized after the completion of the project by seeding, sodding and/or planting as necessary. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? • Approximately 40% of the right -of -way is now covered with impervious surfaces (street); after widening the roadways and intersections and adding retaining wall and sidewalks, approximately 65% of the right -of -way will be impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: • The geotechnical consultant stated that fill slopes should not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, cut slopes should not exceed 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical and that new fill will require benching of the hillside to provide slope stability. Temporary erosion control techniques will be employed during construction and seeding of exposed areas will be completed as soon after construction as reasonably possible. A closed storm drainage system will be used in the completed projects. Storm drainage will be carried down the steep slopes in pipes reducing the potential for erosion. A portion of an existing undersized storm drainage pipe serving South 158th Street will be replaced with a larger pipe, reducing storm impacts in the immediate area. 6 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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. During construction there will be dust and exhaust emissions from construction activities and equipment. After construction there will be no new sources of emissions and the quantity of emissions should not increase over current conditions. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: • None beyond normal construction techniques. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. • No. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? 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. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? if so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. . b. Ground: No. Storm drainage from the improvement projects will carry grit and oils from the roadways. Catch basins should remove most of the grit and heavy materials from the storm water. Oils and other contaminants will be partially filtered by downstream ditches and swales. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. • Does not apply. 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. • Rainfall in the project area and upstream basins will be collected in a closed system connected to the SR 518 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY. USE ONLY and I -5 interchange area storm drainage system. The system discharges into the Green River further downstream. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. • Does not apply. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, -if any: • The proposed storm drainage system should control surface water impacts. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other: oak x evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other x shrubs x grass _ pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? • Some trees and brush will have to be removed and two or more acres of grass will be removed or altered. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. • None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: • After construction, the side slopes will be seeded and or restored as necessary. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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: Starlings= sparrows, robins and other upland meadow species. • mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Squirrels and other small upland species. • fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. • No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: • None. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. • Electrical energy will be used for street and walkway lighting along the length of the improvements. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. • No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: • None. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 7. Environmental Health EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.. • No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No additional emergency services will be required because of this project. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: • None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? • None. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. The operation of construction equipment generally between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. will generate noise on a short-term basis. Existing traffic noise will continue for the long -term. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: • None required. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the site is a public two -land paved roadway in an approximately 60 foot right -of -way. The surrounding area is predominantly residential. I -5 is located to the north and east of the project area. 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. • No. c. Describe any structures on the site. • There are no buildings within the right -of -way. The existing road occupies the right -of -way along with structures for utilities such as manholes, catch basins, utility poles and similar items. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? • No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? • The adjacent properties are zoned RS -1, Single Family Residential. The right -of -way is not zoned. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? • The adjacent properties are designated low density residential. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? • Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. • Yes. Both South 160th Street and 53rd Avenue South are located in an area designated for special development considerations because of steep slopes. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Does not apply. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: • None. 12 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY i. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. • None. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. • None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: • None. 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? • Both South 160th Street and 53rd Avenue will be stabilized by a combination of rockeries and concrete retaining walls. South 160th Street will have several rockery walls 6 to 8 feet tall and several concrete retaining walls 4 to 6 feet tall. 53rd Avenue will have one 6 feet tall rockery at its intersection with South 160th Street and several concrete retaining walls 4 to 5 feet tall. There will be 2 to 3 feet tall rockery on a short portion of the walkway along Klickitat Drive, but no retaining wall structures along the roadway. 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. 13 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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? Street lighting will be improved to provide a safer roads and walkways. Light and glare from traffic during winter morning and evening peak hours will remain the same. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? • No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? • None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: • None. Shielding of street lighting will be available, if needed, to reduce impacts on adjoining residences. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Crest View Park and Crystal Springs Park are both in the immediate vicinity. 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. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. • None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. • None known. 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 access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposal is for improvements to the public street system. See the project description and improvement plans. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? • Yes. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? • The completed project will not create or eliminate any parking spaces. 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). • The proposal is to improve an existing public roadway. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. • Does not apply. 15 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT f: How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. This project will not generate additional trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation 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. • No. b Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. • None. 16. Utilities a Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: cable. bi Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. • None. 16 EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 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: gepVdockitPcnviist.hrc 17 ATTACHMENT B: Site Plan SL =L: i s nE %TH ST Ill T:►i I II 01_ :1[-1 ATTACHMENT B: Site Plan CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD. TUKWYILA. WASHINGTON 98188 PROJECT: PETITIONER: NE tt"`_ 161433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor STAFF REPORT o t CITY COUNCIL 91- 10 -SPE: Klickitat Drive /53rd /160th Improvements Waiver Request Tukwila Dept. of Public Works LOCATION: Klickitat Drive (from I -5 to 53rd Ave. So.), 53rd Avenue South (from Klickitat Dr. to S. 160th), and South 160th (between 53rd and 51st Ave. So.). PROPOSAL DESCRIP'T'ION: Petitioner requests approval to apply for and obtain a SEPA determination and any necessary permits for construction of a pedestrian path aiv minor street widening, including retaining walls and rockeries, along the above streets. DATE PREPARED: 5/13/91 E1114 ECT OF MORATORIUM: The Moratorium (Ord. 1544 -1582) prohibits issuance of land -use applications in sensitive areas. As the project area contains slopes in excess of 15 %, the applicant (Tukwila Public Works) cannot proceed with environmental review, obtain permits for retaining walls if necessary, or begin construction. This project is scheduled to be advertised in June 1991, with bid award scheduled for July 1991. The applicant requests a waiver of the Moratorium in order to stay on schedule for completion of the project. IMPACT OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE: All roads included in the project area abut steep slopes, which vary from approximately 67 percent to 100 percent. The proposed work will occur adjacent to, and over these slopes (see Minutes - Regular Meeting May 20, 1991 Page 5 Public Hearings (con't) Hearing Closed 8:48 p.m. NEW BUSINESS Ordinance Providing for the Takeover of W.D. #25 Ordinance to Acquire Permanent Levee Easement for Lower Green River Flood Control Project MOVED BY EKBERG, SECONDED BY HE ANDEZ, TO. ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO APPLY FO AND OBTAIN SEPA DETERMINATION.* Speaking to the motion Council Preside ' obertson stated that the hardship involved was obvious. If the . oject slides, the potential for accidents at the I -5 intersection will c ,ntinue. Councilmembers Lawrence and Hernandez concurr •. Councilmember Ekberg added that although the jersey barrier h•.. provided a level of safety for the ped path in the past, protection increase with the improvements. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY D PROPOSED 0 MOTION CARRIED. , SECONDED BY LAWRENCE, THAT THE ANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. Attorney Colgrove read an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tukwila, Washington, assuming jurisdiction of the territory of Water District No. 25, and establishing an effective date. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT ORDINANCE NO. 1597 BE ADOPTED AS READ.* Ross Earnst explained that at the present time the City is taking over the whole of W.D. #25. The City has begun discussions with Seattle - regarding future plans for the areas east of I -5, which includes part of W.D. #25; however, those plans have not been finalized. Negotiations will also take place with W.D. #125 which includes some Foster Point areas. Councilmember Lawrence noted his concern about the City making expensive upgrades to these districts in advance of the negotiations when it likely the service areas may by turned over to another district. Earnst stated that the decision to upgrade these systems will be made prior to turning them over. He added that if they are not upgraded, the City may have to pay another district to take them over. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY MORIWAKI, SECONDED BY ROBERTSON, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE READ BY TITLE ONLY. MOTION CARRIED. Attorney Colgrove read an Ordinance authorizing the acquisition by negotiation or condemnation of permanent levee easements on property described below, as described below, to be used for the purposes of and in connection with the construction, maintenance, reparation and operation of the 1991 Section 205 Project, CWIS 91634, also known as the Lower Green River Flood Control Project. MOVED BY DUFFLE, SECONDED BY EKBERG, THAT —ORDINANCE-NO. 1598 BE ADOPT-ED-AS READ. *__ _ Councilmember Hernandez, Utilities Committee member, explained that there were 28 property owners asked to provide an easement to the City for the dike project. Of the 28 only one property owner refused. The City may be forced to condemn the property (the easement land only) if an agreement cannot be negotiated. Funding has been set aside for the project; postponement could threaten its completion this year. Nolan Gilbrow, project manager for the Corps, noted there will be no CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 January 17, 1991 Mr. Don Hoffman ATTN: Mr. John Herron Washington State Department of Transportation 15325 Southeast 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 Dear John: PHONE N (2061433.1800 Gnry L. V anDusen, dlnrw Re: Klickitat Pedestrian and Left -Turn Safety Improvement Project No. 86 -RWO2 The channelization plan is enclosed for approval of the pedestrian path; the channelization was previously approved. As before, your kind and thoughtful consideration to participate more in the funding is requested. The cost estimate to construct the left turn channelization to correct that safety problem, provide a safe location for pedestrians, and improve the drainage is $345,000. We have provided the design and revisions at City cost. Your help and interest in the project - getting approvals, coordinating reviews and financial help is really appreciated. Sincerely, ,Q4j,„.„ Ron Cameron, P.E. City Engineer RC /kjp Enclosure File: 86- RW02 -1 • January 11, 1991 File No. 21 -89- 033 - 001 -01 Mr. Ronald M. Cameron, P.E. City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Klickitat Drive, Project No. 86 -RWO2 Channelization Plan Dear Mr. Cameron: JAN i 1 1391 Enclosed are prints of the current channelization plan for the subject project. As WSDOT requested, this version provides the necessary 10 -foot wide shoulder along the west side of Klickitat Drive for maintenance of the drainage pipes which penetrate the retaining wall. Otherwise the plan is consistent conceptually with the earlier version approved by WSDOT (see enclosed copy of letter dated June 14, 1990). This plan also includes the current design alignment for the pedestrian trail. We will include with the final PS &E a more detailed plan and profile for the trail with appropriate stationing and alignment information. Also enclosed with this letter is a copy of the proposed typical section for that portion of the trail which will be constructed within the WSDOT right -of -way above the retaining wall. The estimated construction cost and construction engineering cost for the street and channelization improvements for the left turn lane and the pedestrian trail is approximately $345,000. We understand that the City of Tukwila would like to construct these improvements in 1991. The expeditious review and approval by WSDOT of the current channelization plan and pedestrian path detail will facilitate the development of construction documents to meet the construction schedule. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me. Sincerely, REID MIDDLETON, Inc. William D. Goodwin, P.E. Project Manager jlh: h: \doc\gep\tukwila\klickitt \wsdot 111.wdg Enclosures T10031 33rd 301 P.O. 6o ce Lynnwood, A \:A ?SU.o -c.�_. 19031 -33rd Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 (206) 775-3434 (206) 775 -3439 FAX too e) ,ffnsG Job No. Client Project 2/- Si-033 G /7� of Tvk ,ti�,1 / GG /cr 174-7- 677 «9P�oV '-f-E T1 /3 -a.ez )u//g'G!e_. Sheet / of 4- Design by: __2f/-* Dite: ¢ -90 Checked by: Date: c r/.4iW , YGr X 70 '44M ss /l7re Gf�taa y-) 4Lx /2 Sr7G'E�� Gd .'-o " 6.x /2 -2PtsrE,669/j cx i / �T � �o) • - 6� /61 (7 77'A 4 ∎1 -T`/P<c4c, cek,¢ y CGWG. TLS • • ■-•oon.V( G/-0' -0, ' Y //as, / V 7471 '464 / \/ : £ Ae/A4 /UooD i 1 PEDESTRIAN TRAIL STA. 106 +25 6, =I50• THERMAL PLI END LEFT TUF STA. 108 +75, TYP THERMAL PLASTI STA. 107 +75, TYPE 2L .WI THERMAL PLASTIC ARRC 5' WIDE SHOULDER STA. 106 +75, BEGIN LEFT TURN POCKET TYPE 2L WHITE THERMAL PLASTIC ARROW EDGE OF SHOULDER PT. STA. I05 +68.49 • STA. 105 +35 SOLID 4" WHITE EDGE STRIPE DOUBLE SOLID 4" YELLOW STRIPES, TYPE 2d RPM's 4010.C. DETAIL B White Gory Type 2e RP? 20'O.C. tir =Tr 1 DETA 40' ._.iyton State ..epartment of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue, Washington 98007 -6538 (206) 562 -4000 William Goodwin Reid Middleton, Inc. 19031 - 33rd Ave. W. Suite 301 P. 0. Box 6638 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear Mr. Goodwin: Your preliminary channelization named project. Please submit 2 SR /nv sr2 -39 cc: Ron Cameron, June 14, 1990 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation rat-- Qv/ afrie,ron 1361a 6i19640-Y116/0/1 cu ws (.05ftA appfrourAt p1 codu,dZs ac 1--Ance, v► Rsy s 926 siAti4 a 6h id HI's' dvn LC 1/114 , City of Tukwila Klickitat DRIVES I -5 On Ramp Channelization Review plans are approved for the above - mylars for signature approval. Sincerely, Ct— DON HOFFMAN, P.E. District State Aid Engineer City of Tukwila GRORM JUN 10 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA.. PLANNING DEPT. VIIWashington State Department of Transportation . District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Place Bellevue. Washington 98007 May 1, 1989 Ron Cameron City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 City of Tukwila C.S. 17 SR -5 Klickitat Avenue Pedestrian Access Trail Project '86 -RW02 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation RECEVED mite ° 5 1989 PUBIJC wuu -1K3 Dear Mr. Cameron: Subsequent to our field review of your proposed pedestrian trail within the Limited Access Right -of -Way (L /A R /W) of Interstate 5, John Herron of my office and Pat O'Neil, FHWA Area Engineer, reviewed the proposal. If approved, the trail will have to be paved and fenced on both sides with chain link fence. We will need a plan showing the horizontal and vertical profile and some survey ties between the center line of the trail and the existing retaining wall. We are enclosing copies of plans of a pedestrian trail constructed similarly by the City of Bellevue within L/A R/W of SR -405. As a consideration of your request, the State would like to convey the right -of -way of the "cistern ", "pond ", or "water reservoir" located west of the V -line and shown in "Insert A" on the attached L/A R/W plan. It is our understanding the City plans to construct Stage II of their park development and it will abut this parcel on all sides. It is in the mutual interests of both the State and the City to convey to the City. Pat O'Neil indicates FHWA is very receptive to this transfer of title. Please submit your plans for the pedestrian trail at your earliest convenience and we shall attempt to get an expedient informal approval to accommodate your schedule. Please advise if there are further questions. JHH /nlv 34/37 Encl. cerely, \; 7.R. Caring, P.E. 'strict State Aid Engineer cc: Pat O'Neil - FHWA Jim Olson M.S. 44 Tim Smith /Kenneth Zentner. M.S. 29 glitag-rrAT axis 1717pAA4g a, -fret, 0 - ' �v 7 31 ' IN toisioVIEMIEMMINEINIE RIGHT -OF -WAY RIGHT- OF.•WAY ALIGNMENT CURVE DATA CURVE P.I. STA. - A R. T L 2 103+50.20 57- 51 -59 LT. 477.46 263.94 482.22 24 COTT0NW000 ktatemc 128 126 0 6 .v-- �L�`54 /03 +CO GENERAL W0TE5:'. 1. ALL PEDESTRIAN ) ATH.(SEE CO 83-RUCTION NOTES) AND ROADWAY OFFSETS MEASURED FROM. RIGHtE0F -WAY t. . * -10 FT. NININU SHOULDER WIDTH IN FRONT OF EXISTING RETAINING WALL. • " ' - 3. SEE SHEET 38F0 CHANNELIZATION PLAN. 4- SEE SHEET 34 EC R'PEDESTRIAN PATH DETAILS. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN PATH SHALL BE THE ....- FIRST ORDER.. OF WORK... - SECTION LINE ZOMETER PLAN 1' =20 TOP OF EXISTING CONCRETE 105 - - 0 _ Ct DRAINAGE + CENTERLINE, O8 SHOULDER TURNPIKE F SECTION-, 0) 41 z J EXISTING 3`"- - - - WEEP HOLEITYPIrAL) 3.56 rV IIQ EXISTING H I j' l- --I 1I I I-71I I2' OIA. CMP 1 1 I_I LJ I.. -inr- 1,111 - "I 1,11 EXISTING EXISTING MANHOLES 60• DIA. MAN - -- .. - - -- PIPELINE -.- DRAINAGE - PROFILE: - - - SCALE. HOR. I • • 20', VER. I' . 5 SHOULDER .TURNPIKE 92.57 93.38 94.19 I 35.00 95.82 ELEV. ... ( 100+00 1 +25 +50 +75 101 +00 93- 105 85 195 96.56 : 97.25 97.95 98.65 99.45 i • +25 I +50 I +751 ..:1©2 +00 102.00 103.02 104.05 105.05 ' 106.05 -r 107 I_I WSDOT DATUM I 4`" °i : 4 ... CALL 48 HOURS 1 'r 1�. BEFORE YOU:DIG -I -- :1.8.Q0 424_5555_ = - 109.35 • 110.55 . , 111.72: 112.90 +75. 105 +00 - , +25 • • +501] +75 103 +00 : +25 •ENOINEERINO.13TREETt3• WATER•BEWER•PARKB• BUILDING. ;,; dosignad drawn PLAN AND PROFILE STA.100 +00 TO STA. 105+50 Prof eog prel dP field kkro 19031 33111 Ave. W... S0i16 301 Lynndood. WA 98036 -6638 206/773 -3434 KLICKITAT DRIVE '(53RD AVE. S. TO I -5 OVERPASS) IMZEZIE ® date revisions • 40) f 11e no 21- 88 -033 scale v`11 ":DSO late 5/ 91 22215