Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-280-85 - THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS - MINI STORAGETUKWILA MINI STORAGE WAREHOUSE FACILITY SO.143& INTERURBAN AVE. EPIC 280 -85 A F F 01 A V I T Q Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet 0 Board of Appeals Agenda Packet J Planning Commission Agenda Packet [[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet J Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ADOENDUw/ +o Q Determination of Nonsignificance Q Mitigated Determination of Non - significance 0 Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action [J Official Notice O Other O Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 717aAzi- FEDERAL EMERGENCY MGMT ASSOC 130 - 228th S.W. Bothell, WA 98021 WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY Environmental Review Section MS PV -11 Olympia, WA 98504 -8711 WASHINGTON ST. DEPT OF FISHERIES 115 General Admin. Building Olympia, WA 98504 SEPA Information Center King Co. Building & Land Dev. 431 King Co. Admin Building Seattle, WA 98104 Name of Project File Number EPi(_',," av),.65 , 191 1/ CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS ( ) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ) ;01 Zeta/ ministration XJ FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services ( )Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division '<)Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * ( )Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department 4l�cs Department of Fisheries ( ) Offi ce of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) Dept. of Planning & Community Devel. ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) South Central School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Washington Natural Gas ( ) Water District 75 ( ) Seattle Water Department ( ) Group W Cable ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) _ Parks and Recreation ( ) - .Police ( ) - Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES ( )Puget Sound Power & Light ( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 ( )Water District 25 ( )Water District 125 ( )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES ( )Renton Planning Department ( )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: ( )- Edgar Bauch ( )- Marilyn Stoknes ( )- Joe Duffie ( )- Mabel Harris ( )- Charlie Simpson ( )- Jim McKenna ( )- Wendy Morgan OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ( )METRO Environmental Planning Division ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more MEDIA ( ) Daily Journal of Commerce ( ) Renton Record Chronicle ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times RE: TELEPHONE MEMO gdondaN PERSON CONTACTED: PERSON CALLING: r/ Akm imzi3 DATE: d /J/? %7 :ago, j7. . INFORMAATION ITEMS -,s ,1 dAbis,sed ' Vr/9-iv ak LmLJId t L'V do . i /en 3 Q 3 �,�.� ,- ti. iei/i llq ADDENDUM TO DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal: Mini - storage warehouse facility of approximately 100,000 square feet. Proponent: The Architectural Consultants Location of Proposal: Interurban Avenue and South 143rd Street Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File Number: EPIC 280 -85 Responsible Official: Rick Beeler Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 During subsequent agency review of the proposal, several conditions and changes were made on the above project. In addition several items within the checklist have been corrected as enumerated below. This additional information does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. 10(p.3) A Department of Fisheries Hydraulics Permits and state and local flood zone control permits, were required. In addition, a FEMA map revision is required. B1.f. (p.4) Erosion is possible during regrading and relandscaping. Appro- priate erosion control features will therefore be used. All grading will occur above the 13.5 -foot elevation. B3.a.1. (p.5) An open drainage ditch from South 143rd Street runs alongside the property line and spills into the Green River. • • R E D R A F T ADDENDUM TO DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 02/05/87 Page 2 B3.a.2. (p.6) In addition to what is listed, the project will require regrading, a new stormwater outfall, relandscaping, and swales for biofilter of surface runoff within the 40 -foot river environment. B3.a.3. (p.6) Current FEMA maps dated August 1981 show regrading to occur within the presently designated floodway. Based on analysis provided by the applicant, the City has petitioned FEMA for a realignment of the floodway based on data supporting the change. The amended realignment would place the floodway out of the grading area of the proposal. B3.a.4. (p.6) With a revision of the FEMA defined floodway, no surface water diversion would occur. The surface water running through the open ditch will be piped and outfall at one point into the Green River. B3.a.5. (p.6) Yes, the 100 -year flood plain as shown on the FEMA map dated August 1981 encompasses the majority of the site. B3.a.6. (p.6) Any oil collected on site will be filtered through oil /water separators and then grass -lined swales. The swales intended for treatment of surface water runoff located adjacent to the Green River in the river environment are located behind the primary top of bank, but could be inundated with flood waters and silt and debris should levels rise above the 9,000 cfs flood stage. To mitigate this impact and provide protection for the storm drainage swales, construction of a dike shall be con- sidered by the City. B3.c.1. (p.7) Storm water from the project will be collected and discharged into a new storm system and outfall into the Green River. Existing runoff being channeled in an open ditch from South 143rd Street to the Green River will be piped and a manmade outfall created. B3.c.2. (p.7) Any waste remaining after oil /water separation and in the pro- cesses of being run through grass -lined swales could be inundated with flood water rising above the 15.5 cfs level. Construction of a dike along the river's edge would protect the drainage system. • • R E D R A F T ADDENDUM TO DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE 02/05/87 Page 3 B3.d. (p.8) Swales will also be used. B4.b. (p.8) All the cottonwoods along the river bank will be removed. B4.d. (p.9) Replant with nursery stock deciduous trees 30' on center in river environment and landscaping as required per City code. B5.d. (p.9) The trees along river will not be maintained but removed and replanted with nursery stock. B8.g. (p.12) Urban. B10.b. (p.13) Development will block views to riverbank area and existing mature trees will be replaced with nursery stock trees. B11.a. (p.14) Removal of mature trees will allow sunlight to hit the river waters. This will be in effect until relandscaping matures. B14.c. (p.15) Zoning code requires 10 stalls per 1,000 of square feet. (25 /MB.ADDDNS) EYr on 3n ova /P'cts PI t Fraser .Iandar,j/' s:> 198 1 c: #` M of -r'1 L:radsh,zw of ?L. e+r? +;per 4 , ` 1 9 8 6 • 1 ,t ter of i 'ray t=tndy I.;.ave que) .of.. K1 Cocsi.tt y E3 ant on fc.tk;: r . 1 a` i'fxrii 3tor'ag The v es 1( i,e ' s ) .iec dci:ti. rival_ Monty ;,.' cr u (A Item aC;Idii:."i.ona proposed there a recant 5' as evesq Dave r 1 'a:; rrr sir (i:: i t: review ra'f the s:ternen 37. 93iS' litter~ whi -h 'haw at: car► f ream the tJeve1 Geier " frall'+ws: ti's 1 et t r r= i l:errr Na . 1 and 1 n the Er vironment, l hecI:l ist s t:? Ani:i'a 3e en pro f:. =7d r'epresentat.:i ve tes that o rtt . propC)sede some regradin+ of :!era. �� y„ }' r,i s eirien t i s t i l. tr °cte. Ij *, 1 h>, re3 some areas clrr i to wh ,re "' tw!;C ess f i 1 d and .rovzc:ietl iii i]t.her` par is o owev rr r no • ?°3nd`: . Eiivi on control c:C ?nsstruc: no w .beir n ai l f: i 11 be prrovi d el tap er whi ch rai 1 1 isE f • the dr vel opmen t: s pro JiE'c. :t - anm p1 an ..QsLon(' et:: i men ... must:: t: i s tisf: ct r 1y maim dsr: :1e is s c +mp1 cteC anF - the iJ. t'^llst7q icy the evi<"si p., •t1'�i site" ill' be r' e:, a. r'' os x on ' w . t' h i n t F'r e "'r l pod er"i::» i on g grace' '! { d rl c, r :� :s�•.I�`; . C'4 I'' i 4 i n a i , "' G =: • Ped {_[n'`:.1 potent. :.1 Y ay v 1 i Tuk La, wi11 d ' th t, ' no , ctivi could p entia11y`."ci?Ci. (Il m I.C, Andy L ,,; ; sq.(e's ; Item i .1,F' F::nviroIun -r!t, l Che The itc:i which i.r! t count s� ;t:bac t i. on study b� nk iM- has the •ff 1 c od 1 ca F' Architectu c r °eat;d the `h - x� R view ! ose ''d i n The d C. 3 pr t ?at i4°tc iptrtes at x.# the i d :.L y "f?r osi on proof and i attar..: s °'fir 1r . Sct r ugs , ?. required the dev_1 oper to provide v`di}i4:::h 4. fiacc :'Jr'• hen. the !r.'_ : �r L(5S end the 1 :�.n:d a c:a;pi. f' �.: tfle 4c,: '- r°i.v r i Sri f back: :tab k is le -Ft as t. �.::' is ab 1€� with r egar'ds to Was th scaping also. r'eg3.�.i. red the fiydreaf e din �. .iire�ct:t n to the devel.raper (1 _em 1D, A;a�i::iy L »e:.° � >qu+ iett 4r item k3. ��.;a.. (1) Envir °( �nm ntal ` I h e;k:1 is City (BAR) evhi ch ong the 40' strip . The City may wish t -. The site plan . i °ras devel ctp ii t i t c:tr-'rn ac c:ommoda1 through' an this •requir fill. germi t . e urtt: p e-q. t 1 is star + drainage 'f•ern �E.+nd star on s :i. ay he appr-c pri dri riageyt� ern» e dr ai'naC]E' system to :South 1.4 !. d . J r'•e t, f s the author ent. met :ir e or -i em nc y: E r:sv :sque 1 et ter) Item r3. 3. a. ( ^) rtvi r-onmen - 1 . Chet:: ;: tat nttwrtt It tit ' The .�ta't`.ement: under` r - .i. L goes. The ad j<tcerit .pur wio sect .Sri" ? ipro,-(ii e tx l rt ctt :i fill.' The'...: ; the t'i `ra. e appropr g' In th? ft0 dwayif at stab. l i. impac_t,. non (Item Andy: fringe cal :u1.: per c e, vc c xv . a. 3) Er3vi •onment. 1 Chet. F 1 i atel.,y t„ the. .f l oadway' l!'1 (n Ow s!_!rf &C'e ws:af er wat;r- ar,,, ,a" can be chare c 't: answer of "NO" (Andy l...!sv It Th howl ver a Engi,r.�€ er•a enganeers - natural:- r" f 1 odd. w. res • ::r - :t'b the flood p1":4,.i.:': identi.fi.ed in map) as'"{ l ini ch ng al the l= Mt^a r -a "a This is not v wei ds , r3 t;he normal t ense of "thy weird, fir i. std a n` that )4 n— , . acid there "wetland 'on-1 y the f 1 ood! ay: re the o-igir)a,l &U, ,. ;.. , ci " a (4 1 t:!.m i, 3ic:)t n veered i.n the the. answer4:. whictr s!::bsegc. €ent1y c flow anaysi after m+i 4 that the '1i vers.•i r !�! r e" had n in icgr•3i,ficant r � ;n terms of depth r .��rection- l..eve que'I letter CJ+ 1N.3 Item ,. E3. (Andy The nvx ro-orf -rnei me frrarr €rtee t i r•) g to 1 i�:P7 the ... :i t: h t ; , r.. cod wa t a hcs.. the f 1 or-c-' _ .... t ,meat ,. pr lie a(b) ithi!1 •%"ifiat ood plain?" Th , tl•io faocid r of :r.:)nc: ern Mr . 1„.ev'esyu _ J€ -. to t t t c:! •f 1 r " f 1 i=i!1dway 44 ted. a ;nod i , ,I ay rt p w h ch wi l:1 t 4=:r tt)i! develop tr� _tit . • f yv the ans prcavi$;iet:ci11 revised thwM f 1 +:odw y map. S'Lill year florid plain. 9. (Andy Le tal - letter' of - 1343.a. ( ) E nvi., onmer....._ ti.! F 1" t a prc posa1 wi I . 1 not b can the r 1 c o00 . y The developer can modify his of i /water° separators into the river i fu17.y protected. of th1s item. 10. (Andy Level. qu s letter item 1 . Item : ( 1 ) The p tl'iat the drainage <;o i°;c • et the requirements Ado .a-cid-reas the local tributary flows. noted in item 1D in Andy L.,evesq�te's 1etter, and, thrwre4cfre, the statement is uprnent iodate the pi.rbli<d storm waters tributary to the <. i to and di. 3rlarge to in thr*c ugh the new rut 'f al l into r...,;. r i ver r This "C.pr] e LCi r several years ago tender the err'i. gin 1 ; 5 i to development f i l l permit. incorrect drainage sys Th devel c3pmen'h of their a request i glade 12. (Andy L.evesgc.te ' e 1 10.b Andy Levesqu ? 1 m 4.b1 4•.ri, 5. di , H. hl river" means " s main -fain Lr �:.; -es :, t......._r intair i.ng the original tre F'ht wever, the ,t -.t:. of this - s tatement per the dev i] oper .,,as-,to maintain a lis i s ;. i r::I s:4 c: a p. requirements to provide. inc:luciind meeting .t.'' + "; devel epinen __$r. 1.:-c:,: p 'ements and /nor nain 't::a.:i.. same arxiount and meet the . € equir ement to the P1 _snn i rTg nt it the proposal pr ides m appropriate species' c:crrit.e:�;: C_ terms o+ spec i es'e'?. Now • than exist today. vide T..Tt_. H owevT r -, the et4ed this infni``matit:r'T t in which Mr. Lease (:tue waS not• the the GJr( vidf d irefcarmatiroi 13. (Andy : i_.evesqu 's :toter•` 1 . I ) This Item is-the building's far ment i i r"Yai:::cu stucco,. to .fish lnt Environmental * are no wInt the raver sage : Lhe this .development. which do 41) f ?et under not pr The water. toper, t hi. ate- ncr"ete panels and ide arty di•_:ernibie+ glare.. Plus, i mpar-teant trees Are proposed under' the approved BAR.. 12. (Andy Levesque' Per the develop tre ....._> are .provi dec ••tot::.,ai r than, .e g. ter" :3sented to tM'h ?` O !p;c rtme Item 11.a , t:. went:. s end additional ••»iT }a 7 I y w ill p r- o v i, c!_+:k? _ i Tt+. r c bank. T h e site found no problem with t°he fo1iache onfiguratison. 13. (Ands Levesque s 1. According to he par; gr. Item letter, "King Cot 16..0- be ernplayed Also, -face' p ky . a E :nv1 r onmental. m 1(1 Of' Cindy L..e?vix< +:'. "..le''.s has pr-ev:i c3usl y ti'lr end that the. e pt »tr°p City' elevation cor i scirib d in Andy :ornmended the ;. l w:v at ;n .he mini star ge s:,. code set the OHW at pond 1 ng to the discharge of ?wured 1.il esvesrtl e' ??a letter the € il..iburn xferrad t. and shown 't.:; be d- iay the- P1.c,;..;rra.n!::t rte;.:;' „r.t - `lAIATa in reviewing th.a ear;e p :t ar'1 had n determined the tep section,- shc]w •the : S sect].on5 wn1ch • have b; rive ban wi tJ the MH 1 an +i . r the'MH A The 16.. men suppli .'» 5 and .the alsn t1 cipriate location applicati.on. 4 i < ( : 3 cross also • shown n th,,:p 'cross 15.:. King light the K in ( ;, saf t y and 15.5. `::a;.. The C;:.? r" that the plan• el ±vati ofS du e to `an internal ps of Engine* r' :a ....t.: r p)rts y provides calcul.a.tion within sion- t_o, provide a rence «aetsgeen 16.0 C; n u n t. ,y Gu r f .a ater Man t< Div tor, This ma. :cunt for the di+f s has walked the it and c:lc' : ?t':m.r'm :. cl the eubmi t.'i'. ed r:' "f"?•:::i'3 Ate location at the top cif the ri this, the final 15.5 is appr"opr in my opinion ordinary high' the Corps to be i ?entS. Andy L:eves to rrri n .at i on the top 0' Reiriverttinq this proc not e'st►Wish any t,ffer since i,t r,.,sr hank. the ri v r bank at, this time nt lacat.Lc n for L: ;e has al ready been conf i r-.r ed by re,`S'r t.'d in 1k? or`i`.:) % " ?:3i. d;;;+:: r, eaSurte 'the t., ,1. ev;!t i o to the fi ii" u s tbc*ck: from th does not •re 3r-r sent tt?e app e•t S C:.. can 16 opeiate e1 also-neglect C:} nto?.Sr ”, Thie i6. asldr'emen1C, The l'0 ;hO Dam gate to the r: not y` -`' up :':. by thraa 1S �...,0t suppcar-t County •S u apef inc' ,er•eby 4 last Howard leased 10 to 11,,C)0 t. C.... r: "?':: .... .. .... 14. (Andy L.€ ve_ the 9,000 c: -.,f . s., the river... bank did a r ►.! t��r�re+ raf; the •hi rah Uf v<ai. a tact 1-herefure, e e v a t i c� - • r' qu W ear ihanG��;k. mrar►t I °►as nc -tgyc s sq ±:re' ; Lt•.er` 1NN!i 1i et 1 h -€ river bank esSi ted i e l.. d r: +hzser: ation <:; do try that t'.nii, i::i e , »n'vironment ►1 In Arnciy • Mr . Willi gar L ?vr3?'s: que'` letter he 5ptirtc k:. 's Augc.st. "...it is apparent from 19F36 ietter- to Miss Janet �•rs'r'".1. c.f DOE : : the f i l 1 i.ng invo l ed may rest e base ftdod,, el ion of th wL 11 r a ct both the c ns tr�acticar increase' A n • th. • i. ►c:.r ease - requ rstent:s for tl-x xi.stinq Engineer's -flow arta1 vs is. s increase ease tci the. ay:.�t all properties to tl i s found that of the Tukwila to Aub t.rn p. -fill -within the -Flo red -.plain. The in incremental ver. Any such and mai. nt;n<a.,?::°:r -a M..." n through their b ac:k::uv- t-.. r ill be no . i.g nifi<:.: +.; . Tukwila Mini Storage and ide the same amount t !.toast. 13 does nc :?'t:: specifically analyze the impact of the fill , but -at er :1 _ ot. :..: the maxi mpact fill co al maintenance' the c c nstr uc- t-i �. . ; 4.ty - L.."zav i "h.;'.:a it: •: ;m of the :f :i civic w y c r'i ref this gave.. (1pmet't ent is 4tn adei4 .to a,id .app here•f .re no add., t. .... cid p1a"i -n is anticipated ,.: t -and Item 15.a it' 'opr:iate ,• t_.,:..c•car' : >:. rues 1r tter :l?:t} t`! coin A. 1 ;► Env:i is; c :or recrt,,,,cept Item- 101- "FE onMen }::.-:.,i. A fs'.cx cate "- men ticned ir•1 f i ri 1 step - 11ppr {lpri at* (�3x 16. ( ;•dy 1 :? to obta g Q V G ling of h t,, i t y ` w=w FZ gce's :letter 2AY ': a .ppre)va1. s is b si :a.l. I y the appropriate pri at permits. - Also, 4.11. have been obtained, With. regards site wii i irtterfe bank stabi1izatio th the rtaati. :udy,. the Corps. of twngin :ers backwater fl ..;.:., Statee F]. ood Zc ne Control sq;..ie where by 't +i elf •f.l.00i waters"; the analysis and the LYl1E ' s ssuran Permit r elutes this claim. 17. ( l 1_ m 2P of Andy, Lev sque's letter) , Refer to And',: • Levesque's .letter. of Atari]. 30, i9;:36, The gt~,testion an the site p1 n anal elevati SS n ;plan i 1 and' -. . bank: arm shown clearly } terms of access of public right -of -lay north of the dewy l««rpment and also by the attached' hed e seements from the d vet oper.. All +n1 ,ti "r"eason le accts rrequireen n+s of Prang County's Item 3 pi' Levesque 's Apr• i : of drank that has :1.8. (It 19136 1 Ptt in was a restatement en addressed under It This paragraph 16. G. To].l.ef5O n. theJ: ?vin:_,.:,; deals with accreted lands. due to : ,,e bank channel change over the and quotes FCW 16.12 "gives, tgrcii King County.. Flts extended tq cc those p or t .i o n xs ( i and • convey' abandoned c..hanrtei , bed, and tc1 r3. 'f7 :ion inf.1ic t]ng that. uncle .earlier ;.: :SC-1. sit :e . proposed not been �� ccr W_%edrt i.n allow `Lich AttaC r� 2t i Cfli ' or.. ! "' ant t: 'forth, .. ' .d provided by the Sta.te . to the lud;inq accretions wI-ii::h h;::tve zone control permit t ?1nd DOE channel. real i not be filled t:., property t:)itner° y:accur r e0 , DOE tia5..i,s5L, red has thr: responsibility c:rvwr the r -If : Ki ny County feels that it through their Prosecuting Attorney, enough information the iS7 the Flood Z an obstacle. 19. (Andy Lev To gr.AC7te existing •flog d pl . SU but 1 they tar t.ak:._ the .City larified to the point that this bec•oininq per ti =an,. "Frnpris; i filling fi.11 ,within the rec*:a'• sfi<':r..y, freeboard and olicy get zero rise in the+ r'a:vi ¥reeboarei di ke rai'irig in the the at'.ta c hed a ement. If `the ght of the need n p r ; :} •Y date future drain.: qa ;;- i.tten)" attempting to inch providing the ;_ locating a pr °oyi dr d •f reehoard rer ui r the d i k_e elevation, development t o honor the ion that the ea5emei°7t a. l:1.;.:;,..:s .1 to .6 rise in the ;r-:i.ver.. Corps'b -t r flow a.;l a1ysir_ 7ha for all r ri {wr ria that have been is appr . r i applied •si.mui taneou!s1 y. Ho t ?ver-,, the dike recommended .is :appropriate thin the e. -t :> Also, the de ve'l.per has provi.l e + r any building min imutt floor .evert: i bw 21, 2 . h:i ch pro des for the 2 of fr. board or mare, depnd:i.iq used, so x:111. tr 1..cturt!s can :the 10') ya;� are the i•00 year flood j:1rYOvid in� ,she q t.iva..:1er 6 t::i &r-d dike el ev•at i on , .20„ (Andy Levi squr sa 1 et ter 3: The dis:u si covered in '? t_ lcoo! ,: levat.ion _.... • or More higher than the .$ c r' ,.,r}e- cement of trees has been iiaye will he pro 1ded line wi 11 be preserved by ng of trees in keeping of Management Agreement, than taken c)ut and the f i rn a :t d Sect i.On 2,t.4 Of th 21. (Andy Lcvesq - fh1 s csapacity r€ v i µt ry ir (1t:em 3D To paraph channel i mpr ovem 1 and use - approva: velopme p: hich letter It+e t 3C) ere to a decree not occur acc•ordi rw i n the Breen een Ft i. ;. ter.. :' e.v he Carps of Engineers tts rnpt obtain right••-•of- ay 'storage t..hr.•.. ,:revel opmeni appropriate 'l ha::. encumber _ In the the operty 1 et•ter 3E) r vi ron-rn 27. .(Andy Lr- :eveeque • tlr "No pr..o' periods has. obligated tho ent.. setback, in t t "•:::� and therefore the L :.'l'.'y' e 411y entitled t:.. i has been made tcatar r in the 100 year, ver exceed In ressponse, no has occurred by E?E rs. Therefoi'' , t i rise lent t;; h re t or'' g e r a •f '!.:. ..., e ac- cord:i. nr to t. ' e Cor p = level c:twrient ) cc ar c: t ud¢ not appl i c::abl e to the signi.ficcan, impaL..t t0 the r i•. r- rise is anticipated gay the Corps by, :.••,-,i -s Andy I..eveasque 's 7 -day .'term • cr i. ter i a is opasal . The pp l cy• of the- City when criteria d(, es not-apply, to llcaw fiar direct dx• c:h rge i.r.to -that the likelihood c f ith local star m f l caws and the discharge cad the river asp quickly as : possibl interference b the seven days cif. Howard Hanson Dam i. the de elc::tpme ?rat storm dr.aina a non-storage aapl icatian. 24. Andy c ev sque's letter item 3F). The 1.S SU oil/ r1i>-simir-:ed. In concla_csion„ appropriate in terms of er separator mnhol e ra-ii sic_ *d at -Jr the •,.tr() year flcant:f elevation to 1:irevr r t f1ush:i.c' q of c : :umui.ai..ed petroleum products will be adcirec; ed in a final de_ si. rtrf a storm drainage :cyst; »m, as previ. cat.tsi.y is ndi crated in th c -,per. t a.-':;. (r"-+ridy Levesque 's 1 ?t t:er g Item 'G) "'The r "iprap protection wit tae eaten €fed into the bed of the river with a 'key section' stabilize aq insat flows and rapid drew down..:," The pl a;;::,, t`~h. e of the slope to pr•ope will be accommodates i equirr me+nt� caf 1.-(i County. Tbi. ss_ response i to the December 29,' 1986 letter ,t. Levesque of King COL nt y s r'f c :e Wate Management, ,,,;,•i i r:°.: requested by-. City ?t iff, i.ndi cat ? : that by.. and large there many =.:::onc::er-Os fr °pm ring County whi:c. :h haves wire ac:iy been through the There are fe accommodated nts which are d plan reviews. s i 1 1 n.c t s t an d i. n cj which (::: <, : r'? 'in r•11r.&n .171(d • t1ons. However, q . fr'cm my review c f Mr. L e Department modification ter" recommend. to the Planning it '.he wlvir"(arim nta.I Chet:kl1st unneces- sary as. the U:i.sCr•ep3fcies found i.r the ariyir .1 checklist w.e -Fet,, Lli number,' mi ncr and - not ronsseOu nt i.al. to the final impacts of this ,_ievelopin( It ,on the envir'anment fr°am the 41iarad -p1-in 1, ... ?: pranf 1. r q aspect r`1ttachments: STATE OF WASHINGTON D 11,44041 Redeueteed t�t w June 15, 1977 OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON 98504 Mr. Hugh A. Degler /., International Sales 505 S. Lander Street Seattle, Washington 98134 Dear Mr. Degler: coMNI UIOmEn BERT COLE DON L[( ►RAECA •ura•vuo• As a follow up to our telephone conversation here is the requested information we discussed. When a river forms the boundary of properties and the location of the bed moves by the process of accretion. it is a long established rule that the upland owner ga;ns land by accretion and loses land by erosion. The State of Washington, as owner of the beds and shores of navigable rivers, abides by this rule. In cases of accretion, the State does not claim any ownership landward of the ordinary high water mark. As long as the river forms the property boundary, any uplands created accretively would belong to the adjacent upland owner according to legal precedent. As owner of the accreted lands, the adjacent upland owner may use this property subject to local regulations. It has been our experience that obtaining title insurance to this accreted property may be difficult without having _gone through a quiet title action in the courts. This appears to be more a matter of the policy of title companies than one c :i legal inference. Sincerely, BERT L. COLE Cannissioner of Public Lands RONALD J. HOLTCAMP Division of Marine Land Management RJH /n r cc: ,:54110 tc v173 • rr•.. i 4 I i'.nn• ".J TI ■AIIT1, 1110. •"1■1-h sci, 3 •19ri• ..SEP 31981 • • 'C( srr Z P. 1.:46 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY FRANK TODD, JOAN A. TODD, GERALD C. KNUDSON, DEBIIA;16.0011 c:'Uf' .'..RK KNUDSON, NOEL R. PARSHALL, SEATTI E. •• %. ) DIANE PARSH4L, INTERNATIONAL • ) SALES CORPORATION,.a Washington ) No: 81 -2- 05910 -4 corporation, and MABEL MAE CONNELL, ) Plaintiffs, ) • vs. • ) JUDGMENT TO QUIET TITLE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, the heirs )• of H.O. BLANKENSHIP, aka Hiram O. ) Blankenship, and HENRY VANDER POL and ) ANNA VANDER POL, his wife, dba ) OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, PEOPLES ) NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON, and ) the CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal ) corporation of the State of ) Washington, ) 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • Defendants.. THIS CAUSE, having come on for hearing before the undersigned, one of the Judges of the above - entitled Court, the plaintiffs appearing by Wayne R. Parker, their attorney of record; plaintiff Frank Todd appearing in person, an Order of Default having been entered against defendants Henry. Vander Pol and Anna Vander Pol,.his wife, dba Oak Harbor Freight Lines on June 19, 1981, and an Order of Default having been entered against the defendants The Heirs of H. O. Blankenship, aka Hiram O. Blankenship, on June 22, 1981, the defendant City of Tukwila appearing through LeSourd, Patten, Fleming, Hartung i Emory, its attorneys of record; the defendant Peoples National 27 Bank of Washington appearing through Karr, Tuttle, Koch, 28 Campbell, Mawer i Morrow, its attorneys of record; and the State 29 of Washington appearing by Kenneth O. Eikenberry, attorney 30 General and by Theodore O. Torve, Assistant Attorney General; 1 - JUDGMENT TO QUIET TITLE WAYNE R. PARKER W ,LOP OM,4LLOa P.O. X 02201 WNW, M• MD21 11b4:0014,wp1 N sS o 1I7 the Court having considered the files and records herein and the 2 I testimony of Frank Todd,and having made and entered its Findings 3 of Fact and Conclusions of Law, now therefore, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the S plaintiffs, Frank Todd, and Joan A. Todd,his wife; Gerald C. 6 Knudson and,Debra J. Knudson, hia wife; Noel R. Parshall and 7 Diane Parshall, his wife; International Sales Cozporation,a 8 Washington corporation; and'Mabel'Mae Connell are the owners free 9 of any claim of right, title or interest by the defendants, The 10 State of Washington; the City of TUkwila; Peoples National Bank 11 of Washington; Henry Vander Pol and Anna Vander Pol, his wife, 12 dba Oak Harbor Freight Lines; and the Heirs of H. O. Blankenship, 13 aka Hiram O. Blankenship of the following described real property: 14 A portion of Lot 1'and all of Lots 5 6 and 7 Block 18, Hillmans Seattle Garden Tracts, as re- corded in Vol. 11 c! Plats, P. 24, Records of King County, Washington, and that accreted land ad- joining in the SE Quarter of Sec. 14, Twp. "23 N., R 4 E. W.M., in King County, all described as follows: • Beginning at the SE corner of said Lot 7,. thence northerly along the easterly line thereof, 315 feet to the left bank of the Duwamish River as originally platted; thence continuing on a northerly production of said easterly line, 220 feet more or les's to the left bank of said river; thence westerly along said bank to an intersection with the northeasterly production of the southeasterly line of the northwesterly 72 feet of said Lot 1; thence southwesterly along said line production 200 feet more or leas to the left bank of the Duwamish River as platted in the original plat;• thence continuing in a line southwesterly ofthenorthwesterly172gfeet southeasterly 55 feet more or leas to the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence southeasterly along said line to an intersection with the North margin of S 143rd St. (First Avenue); thence easterly along d eg n the point of beginning. h be Judgment for costs against any efendanta. DATED; 27 28 29 30 C1�Ju¢ /jG`7�1v.• 2 - JUDGMENT TO QUIET TITLE ER WAYNE R. PARKER Are wt. war same s w ate P.O. SOX 3107 Mdr�Y, w w01 wort: 00000401 PRESENTED BY: 2I Attorney for Plaintif a 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM 5 NOTICE OF PRESENTATION WAIVED: 6 I LeSOU •, PJ,TTEN. FLEMING, HARTUNG i EMORY 7 By I A torneys or Caty o u wa 9 10 KARR, TUTTLE, KOCH, CAMPBELL, MAWER i MORROW 11 12 13 14 15 16 By 17 Assia t Attoz y eral 18 Attorneys for State Washington By At 1 orneys LZ or Peop KENN O. EIKENBERRY Attorney General es Natrona Ban o was ington= 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 WAYNIM PARKI own mugs so ao Kpp. PO.,*3207 mercer. w�MOii Wry* 001110/0443s 3 - JUDGMENT TO QUIET TITLE ! Ica 310'# City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor January 14, 1987 Architectural Consultants 720 Industry Drive Seattle, WA 98188 RE: EPIC - 280 -85 - Tukwila Mini - storage Dear Messrs. Tollefson and Scruggs: Several letters and plans have been brought to our attention. These would indicate that additional information regarding your proposal has been developed which was not contained in the environmental checklist. The City would like to have a set of plans which detail the development, including existing and proposed contours, amount and location of fill, significant trees - both existing and trees to be saved, existing and proposed drainage and proposed structures. The responsible official, based upon a review of the updated documents /plans may choose to either let the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) remain or to rescind the DNS and issue an altered determination. It is important that the environmental records are clear and that all the information regarding the impacts of the development are disclosed. We assume this information is currently available and can be transmitted to us by Thursday, January 22, 1987. We wish to expeditiously conclude any outstanding concerns. If you have any questions, please call me at 433 -1848. Sincerely, Moira Carr Bradshaw Planning Department dzo)' • OFFICE MEMO CITY OF TUKWILA TO: --b76me_ F R " a/WIC.,01 DATE: 71/A44t/e/ /Pc17 SUBJECT: 7060/1-~ og /6/./("dak Afre 7:e6 diY? CAt-AWA70Y Y/114.W 02 n5 /0/. • 1K1Y) 600 rv& jilt ae/17.-.1--561.it, tv/ kt 401 Dki (weal cetwoKiitur " riewit (I- )6 \beedasi___ 44 -gY 0:en* oiWiJK-1(1"W& / 7-4 n //oeVh/ -file44,061>6/ eiv /IL& )07 (AL trAS WILSocd /1vF lea \him ,(.))/t 009? c*r 57/EL /zz/eeo &Id c3 1 `PSIiU�( ( 4tesc_ )914-7e% O..s31-N/ (S SLY tci>e -grs \t ee 101 60 1/L� \SLv is a ,�� T�l`1 cV v'oIraOkW r ba--szre_ itsuffal)?3?sw25uL.›t " ckolLsQL, fsoottsLs , 173 - 20-760 Location Section Name (6) T38N -R4E 7 -E /F (7) T39N -RIE 16 (8) T39N -R2E 21 -S1/2 (9) T39N -R2E 32 -A /B (10) T39N -R3E 6 -NWI /4 (11)T39N -R3E 13-L /P (12) T39N -R6E 30-R (13) T4ON -R6E 7 -R (14) T4IN -R4E 31 -W1 /2 (15) T41N-RIE 34 -NI /2 Squalicum Lk. Terrell Lk. (Res.) Barrett Lk. Tennant Lk. Wiser Lk. Faxon Lk. Canyon Lk. Silver Lk. Judson Lk. Beaver Lk. Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Department of Area (Acres) Use 33.0 R 438.0 R 40.0 R 43.0 R 123.0 R 32.0 R 45.0 R 172.8 R 112.0 R 21.0 R [Order DE 76-16, § 173 -20 -760, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -760, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 - 20-770 Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW — Whatcom County lakes of state- wide significance. Location Section Name Area (Acres) Use (1) T38N -R3E 28 -A Whatcom Lk. (Res.) 5003.0 PS,R (2) T37N -R9E 31 Baker Lk. (Res.) 3616.0 PS,R [Order DE 76-16, § 173 -20 -770, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -770, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173-20 -780 Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW — Whitman County lakes. Location Section Name Area (Acrd) Use (1) T18N -R39E 26-A /B (2) TI8N -R4OE 17 -A /B (3) TI9N -R4OE 1 -SEI /4 (4) TI9N -R4OE 13 -SEI /4 (5) TI9N -R4OE 23 -NW1/4 (6) TI9N -R4OE 34-H /J (7) T2ON -R39E 6-El/2 (8) T2ON -R39E 8 -SEI /4 (9) T2ON -R39E 15 -S1/2 (10) T2ON -R39E 16 -NE1 /4 (11) T2ON -R39E 16-F /L (12) T2ON -R4OE 36-SEI/4 (13) T2ON -R4IE 12 -NEI /4 Texas Lk. Intermittant Lk. Miller Lk. (Alkali) Lavista Lk. Unnamed Lk. Stevens Lk. Snyder Slough Sheep Lk. Folsom Lk. Crooked Knee Lk. Unnamed Lk. Tule Lk. Bonnie Lk. (14) TI8N -R4OE 3 -B /C Duck Lk. 23.8 R 24.8 R 25.2 R 20.7 R 32.4 R 27.0 R 42.0 R 56.7 R 85.5 R 83.8 R 20.7 R 21.6 R 81.8 Whitman Co. 284.3 Spokane Co. 366.1 Total R 23.4 R [Order DE 76 -16, § 173 -20 -780, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -780, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 -20 -790 Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW-- Whitman County lakes of state- wide significance. Location Section Name Area (Acrd) Use (1) TI9N -R4OE 13 -N Rock Lk. 2147.1 [Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -790, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 - 20-800 Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW — Yakima County lakes. Location Section Name Area (Acrd) R (I) T8N -R23E 12 -E (2) T9N -R22E 22 -M (3) T9N -R22E 25 -F (4) T9N -R22E 26-B (5) T9N -R23E 7-S1/2 (6) TI3N -RI9E 7 -M (7) T14N -R19E 31 -L /P (8) TI5N -RI7E 2 -N (9) TI3N -R18E 11 -S1/2, S1/2 (10) TI3N -RI8E 11 S1/2 SEI /4 [Title 173 WAC—p 128] Byron Ponds (Res.) Horseshoe Pond Morgan Pond Giffin Lk. Oleys Lk. Freeway Lk. Unnamed Lk. Wenas Lk. (Res.) Unnamed Lake Unnamed Lake 50.0 R 59.0 R 24.6 R 104.8 R 35.4 R 23.2 R 22.3 R 61.4 R,1 21.4 R 21.3 R [Order DE 76-16, § 173 -20 -800, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -800, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 - 20-810 Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW— Yakima County lakes of state- wide significance. Location Section Name Area (Areas) Use (I) T13N -R23E 2/3 Priest Rapids Dam (Res.) 1080.0 Yakima Co. 4540.0 Grant Co. 2080.0 Kittitas Co. 7700.0 Total P,R [Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -810, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 - 20-820 Private lands within the confines of federal lands. In addition to the delimitations con- tained herein, lakes or portions thereof which are located on nonfederal lands within the exterior boundaries of federal lands, which lakes fall within the definitions of lakes and lakes of state -wide significance, as stated in WAC 173- 20-030, shall be likewise subject to the juris- diction of chapter 90.58 RCW. [Order DE 72 -14, § 173 -20 -820, filed 6/30/72.] Chapter 173 -22 WAC ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE WAC 173 -22 -010 173 -22 -015 173 -22 -020 173 -22 -030 173 -22 -040 173 -22 -050 173 -22 -055 173 -22 -060 173 -22 -070 Purpose. Relationship to National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Applicability. Definitions. Designation criteria. Review of designations. Conflicts between designations and criteria. Designation maps. Lands within federal boundaries. Reviser's note: Order 73 -24, filed 8/28/73 amends maps of wetlands associated with shorelines of the state of Washington and are to be used in conjunction with Administrative Order 73 -11, filed 7/20/73. Sections within this chapter filed will show this date where applicable. The maps are listed by county and are entitled "Shoreline Manage- ment Act of 1971, chapter 90.58 RCW amendment to the•wetland designations of the state of Washington —chapter 173 -22 WAC - Department of ecology— September 1973." Order DE 77 -18, filed 9/20/77 amends chapter 173 -22 WAC, regarding designations of associated wetlands which constitute shore- lines of the state and are subject to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 as defined by RCW 90.58.030 (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Order DE 78 -15, filed 8/15/78 designating associated wetlands in San Juan County, consists of maps omitted from publication in the Washington Administrative Code under the authority of RCW 34.04.050(3) as being unduly cumbersome to publish. Copies of the maps may be obtained from the Department of Ecology, St. Martin's College, Lacey, Washington 98504. WAC 173 -22 -010 Purpose. Pursuant to RCW 90- .58.030 (2)(f), the department of ecology herein desig- nates the wetland areas associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW: [Order DE 72 -15, § 173 -22- 010, filed 6/30/72.] (1983 Ed.) Shorelines— Designation of Wetlands 173 -22 -050 WAC 173-22 -015 Relationship to National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Insofar as state law al- lows, the following designations are in conformance with the National Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. [Order DE 73 -11, § 173- 22 -015, filed 7/20/73.] WAC 173-22 -020 Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply state -wide. [Order DE 72 -15, § 173- 22 -020, filed 6/30/721 WAC 173 -22 -030 Definitions. As used herein, the `following words have the following meanings: (1) "Wetlands" or "wetland areas" means those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high -water mark; and all marshes, bogs, swamps, flood - ways, river deltas and flood plains associated with the streams, lakes and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. (2) "Associated wetlands" means those wetlands or wetland areas which either influence or are influenced by and are in proximity to any stream, river, lake, or tidal water, or combination thereof, subject to chapter 90.58 RCW. (3) The definitions set forth in chapter 90.58 RCW shall also apply as used herein. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (2)(f), 90.58.120, and 90.58.200. 80- 08 -086 (Order DE 80 -22), § 173- 22 -030, filed 7/2/80; Order DE 73 -11, § 173- 22 -030, filed 7/20/73; Order DE 72 -15, § 173- 22 -030, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 -22 -040 Designation criteria. (1) Salt- water areas and lakes. The wetlands shall be measured on -a horizontal plane two hundred:.feet,,in all directions from the line of vegetation. If there is no vegetative cover, 'the measurement will be, wherever possible, from a line connecting the lines of vegetation on either side of an area; otherwise, the measurement will be from the mean higher high tide on salt water, and the mean high water on fresh water. (2) Riverine flood plains. (a) The wetland area within the flood plains shall be not less than those lands extending landward for two hundred feet in all directions as measured on a horizon- tal plane from the ordinary high water mark or floodway pursuant to subsection (bY below, whichever is greater. The wetland area shall not be greater than the 100 -year flood plain boundary as established by acceptable' methods. (b) Wetlandrboundariestshall *remain: as -the 14210÷-year flood- plaiin sbooundary _ass define42by chapter =1.73 -22v \WAC;_unlessrlocad government `chooses +to change the4 wetland boundaries.ilf the boundaries are changed, those chilies-shall be according to one of the following methods: (i) Appropriate surface soil type boundaries. • (ii) Changes in type, quantity or quality of vegetative ground cover. (iii) Readily identifiable natural barriers or perma- nent flood control devices such as levees, dikes or revetments. (1983 Ed.) (iv) Any reasonable method which meets the objec- tives of the Shoreline Management Act. (c) The proposed revision of wetland boundaries by any of the above methods must be submitted to the de- partment of ecology for review. Prior to submittal to the department of ecology, a decision as to the relative envi- ronmental significance of the revision shall be made pursuant to chapter 197 -10 WAC, the SEPA guidelines. If the department of ecology is satisfied that the pro- posal conforms to the criteria contained herein, the local shoreline master program shall be revised to reflect the boundary changes. The department of ecology shall amend chapter 173 -19 WAC (state master program) at a reasonable interval following amendment of the local shoreline master program. (3) Marshes, bogs and swamps. If marshes, bogs and swamps which constitute associated wetlands extend more than two hundred feet beyond the ordinary high - water mark of the body of water with which they are associated, their perimeters shall be the outer limit of the wetland designation. Such marshes, bogs and swamps shall be defined and designated according, but not limited to, the following definitions: (a) Marsh - A low flat area on which the vegetation consists mainly of herbaceous plants such as cattails, bulrushes, tules, sedges, skunk cabbage, and other aquatic or semi - aquatic plant. Shallow water usually stands on a marsh, at least during a considerable part of the year. The surface is commonly soft mud or muck. (b) Bog - A depression or other undrained or poorly drained area containing, or covered with, peat (usually more that one layer) on which characteristic kinds of sedges, reeds, rushes, mosses, and other similar plants grow. In the early stages of development the vegetation is herbaceous and the peat is very wet. In middle stages the dominant vegetation is brush. In mature stages trees are usually the dominant vegetation, and the peat, at least near the surface, may be comparatively dry. (c) Swamp - A swamp .is similar to a marsh except that reeds and shrubs comprise the characteristic vege- tation. Marshes and swamps merge into each other, and both tend to merge into bogs. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (2)(f), 90.58.120, and 90.58.200. 80- 08 -086 (Order. DE 80 -22), § 173 -22 -040, filed 7/2/80; Order DE 76 -30, § 173 -22 -040, filed 7/27/76; Order DE 73-11, § 173 -22 -040, filed 7/20/73; Order DE 72- 15, § 173 -22 -040, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173 -22 -050 Review of designations. The de- partment shall review all the designations made herein at least once in every five -year period following the ef- fective date of chapter 90.58 RCW or as frequently be- fore then as is deemed advisable by the department, and prepare the necessary revisions to ensure that the desig- nations conform to the policies of chapter 90.58 RCW and of chapter 173 -22 WAC in the manner and form prescribed for adopting and amending rules and regula- tions in chapter 34.04 RCW (the Administrative Proce- dure Act). [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (2)(f), 90.58.120, and 90.58.200. 80 -08 -086 (Order DE 80- 22), § 173 -22 -050, filed 7/2/80; Order DE 73 -11, § [Title 173 WAC —p 1291 173-22 -050 Title 173 WAC: Ecology, Department of public for inspection in the Code Reviser's Office. Legislative Building, Olympia, WA, and can be purchased by writing the Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA 98504. WAC 173-22 -070 Lands within federal boundaries. In addition to those designations contained in the ap- pendix, those nonfederal lands Tying within the exterior boundaries of federal lands and those federal lands leased by the federal government to other persons, which lands fall within the definition of wetlands contained herein, shall also be subject to the jurisdiction of chapter led 90.58 RCW. [Order DE 73 -11, § 173-22-070, 173- 2 - 7 filed 7/20/73; Order DE 72 -15, § 6/30/72.] 173- 22 -050, filed 7/20/73; Order DE 72 -15, § 173- 22-050, filed 6/30/72.] WAC 173-22 -055 Conflicts between designations and criteria. In the event that any of the wetland desig- nations shown on the maps conflict with the criteria set forth in this chapter the criteria shall control. The boundary of the designated wetland areas shall be gov- erned by the criteria as follows: (1) Saltwater areas and lakes. The wetland boundary for saltwater areas and lakes shall be designated as set forth in WAC 173- 22 -040. (2) Riverine flood plains. The wetland boundary in riverine flood plain areas shall be designated Gain set forth in WAC 173 -22 -040. The 100 —year flood plain shown on the designation maps shall control except, where this boundary has been established and mapped by others using acceptable methods. As to the 100—year b floodway, the flood insurance study maps published by the Federal Insurance Administration shall, when adopted by the local government, be used to ascertain the 100 —year floodway location, provided that these cri- teria not affect the designations nor the criteria for des- ignation of marshes, bogs or swamps which lie within the floodplain or floodways. (3) Marshes, bogs, and swamps. The wetland bound- ary for marshes, bogs, and swamps shall be designated as set forth in WAC 173- 22 -040. [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030 (2)(f), 90.58.120, and 90.58.200. 80- 08-086 (Order DE 80 -22), § 173 -22 -055, filed 7/2/80; Order DE 73 -11, § 173- 22 -055, filed 7/20/73.] WAC 173 -22 -060 Designation maps. [Due to the bulk of the maps designating the wetland areas, they are not included in the text of this chapter, but rather are incorporated herein as an appendix hereto, having full legal force and effect as if published herein. Copies of the appendix are available to the public at all reasonable times for inspection in the headquarters of the depart- ment of ecology in Olymopinathe e countyWashington audit rstate andccrty reviser's office, the app appropriate Copies of portions thereof, or of the complete set, will be available from the department at the expense of the party requesting the same.] [Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120, 90.58.200 and §90.5 8 022 -0GUf). f81- 13-034 (Order DE 81 -18), § 173 -22 -060, filed 6/15/81; Order DE 72 -15, 6/30/72.] Reviser's note: The designation maps filed with this rule are not ca- pable of being reproduced in the Washington Administrative Code and are therefore omitted pursuant to RCW 34.04.050(3). Copies of the It1,pOlymp a, WAt98504, or may Dbea spectedfatt the ooffice ails ofthe code reviser. Reviser's note: RCW 34.04.058 requires the use of underlining and deletion existing ineffectual changes not filed by the agency in this manner. The brack- eted material in the above section does not appear to conform to the statutory requirement. Reviser's note: Volumes I, II, Ill entitled "Shorelines under the Shorelines Management Act of 1971" (chapter 90.58 RCW, chapter 286, Laws of 1971 1st ex. sess.) were adopted by reference on June 30, 1972, Order DE 72 -15, WAC 1.73 -22 -060 and filed July 27, 1972, in the code reviser's office. The volumes of maps are available to the {Title 173 WAC—p 1301 Chapter 173 -24 WAC REGULATION RELATING TO TAX EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES WAC 173 - 24-010 173 -24-020 173-24-030 173 -24-040 173 -24-050 173 -24-060 173- 24-070 173 -24-080 173 -24-090 173 - 24-100 173 -24 -110 173- 24-120 173 - 24-125 173 - 24-130 173 - 24-140 173 - 24-150 Introduction and purpose. Authority. Definitions. Applications submitted to the department of revenue. Applications reviewed by the department. Action by the department within thirty days —Re- quest for further information. Identification and classification of facilities. Approval of a facility. Installation for the purpose of pollution control. Operation for the purpose of pollution control. Meeting the intent and purposes of chapters 70.94 and 90.48 RCW. Treatment prior to connection to utilities. Revision of prior findings. Administrative appeal of department decision. Delegation. Delegation of state responsibilities under federal program. WAC 173 -24 -010 Introduction and purpose. Chap- ter 82.34 RCW provides for tax credits and exemptions for pollution control facilities approved by the appropri- ate control agency. The purpose of this regulation is to establish a procedure for reviewing applications for tax benefits received from the department of revenue for re- view by the department of ecology, including the estab- lishment of criteria for identifying the individual facilities within each application and, for each facility, approving the facility, approving the facility as a "dual purpose pollution control facility," or denying the facil- ity. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21A.080 — 43.21A- .090 and chapter 82.34 RCW. 78- 04-015 (Order DE 78 -2), § 173 -24 -010, filed 3/14/78; Order DE 70-7, § 173- 24 -010, filed 8/4/71.] WAC 173 -24 -020 Authority. This regulation is adopted pursuant to the authority granted the director of the department of ecology by RC § 1 3.21 A4. -00800 and filed d .21 A.090. [Order DE 70-7, 8/4/71.] WAC 173 -24 -030 Definitions. Unless a different meaning is plainly required by the context, the following (1983 Ed.) King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104, (206) 344 -2517 December 29, 1986 Mr. Phil Fraser Senior Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Tukwila Mini- Storage Development; Site Plan Review Dear Mr. Fraser: rJAN 5 1987 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS In reply to your December 10, 1986 memorandum, this letter states King County's concerns with the Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates site development proposal in Tukwila. To place these comments in the context of our earlier discussions, I have attached copies of both my April 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Carleton G. Tollefson, and also Mr. Donald J. LaBelle's September 5, 1986 letter to Mr. Herman Huggins of the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). King County's main concerns with this project can be summarized under three headings: 1) incremental filling of the floodplain, and t_he inaccuracy of the environmen ;-ta1 checklist- items dealing-with- this problem; 2) securing King County's River Protection Easement rights at the site, including questions of legal title and access; and 3) stormwater engineering problems, especially those governed by the Green River Management Agreement (GRMA). These concerns are detailed below. 1. Topographic mapping of the site shows that existing fills conform closely to those authorized under Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 3605 -2, issued by DOE on September 18, 1979: 'Item B- l:e —of -the Environmental- Checklist for_ the Mini_ - Storage project- clearly -- states-= that -no additional-filling [proposed: _ __ a) On the contrary, both the site plans and cross sections provided show placement of additional fill within the existing floodplain areas'at the site. As drawn, these plans also show the toe of this fill '( extending from 5' to 10' into Tukwila's 40' -wide river Environment set- back area. b) Item B.l.f. of the Environmental Checklist states that no erosion could occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use. Considering that the face of the new fills shown in the existing floodplain will be inundated to depths of up to 5' by the floodwaters they displace, this finding is grossly inaccurate. c) Item B.1.h. confirms that grading is proposed within the 40' River Environment setback area; moreover, the hydroseeding proposed is not a sufficient stabilization measure for fills exposed to floodwaters. Mr. Phil Fraser December 29, 1986 Page Two d) Item B.3.a.(1) fails to note that the site functions as the historical discharge location for local flaws tributary to the Duwamish River. The July 18, 1979 letter to Mr. William B. Gillespie from Mr. Kjell Stoknes notes that issues relating to King County's concerns with easements to accomodate this drainage would be resolved "at such time as a proposed building or other improvements are proposed on this property." e) Item B.3.a.(2) neglects the proposed placement of fill within existing floodplain areas at the site, including filling and grading within the 40' River Environment setback area as noted_above. f) Item B.3.a.(3) is also grossly inaccurate in misstating the proposed placement of fill within the flood plain areas present at the site. g) Item B.3.a.(4) does not reflect the proposed diversion of floodwaters fran their natural course of flow within the affected floodplain areas at the site. h) Item B.3.a.(5) is also grossly inaccurate. At present, the entire site is mapped as lying within the 100 -year flood plain by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Filling already accomplished at the site under State Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 3605 -2 has altered this condition, but remaining portions of the site are presently mapped as floodway by FEMA. In ignoring this condition, the Environmental Checklist has failed to announce the City of Tukwila's subsequent actions petitioning FEMA to revise the floodway mapping at the site in order to facilitate the additional filling proposed in this area. i) Item B.3.a.(6) ignores the fact that both the drainage swale and oil - water separator manhole proposed to filter runoff within the River Environment setback area will be fully inundated by floodwaters, effec- tively flushing petroleum products and entrained urban pollutants into the river. The open grate shown for placement on the oil -water separa- tor manhole will only exacerbate this problem.. Items B.3.c.(2) and B.3.d. also ignore this situation. j) Item B.3.c.(1) fails to describe the local tributary flows noted in comment 1.d, above. The drainage plans presently show commingling of these flows with the storm water originating on -site. k) Items 4.b, 4.d, 5.d, 8.h, and 10.b,' taken. together, convey a false Impression that the project will "maintain trees along (the) river." Based on the site development plans, it appears that possibly 2 out of approximately 23 existing large Cottonwood trees will be "maintained ". A11 other trees will be removed, to be replaced, apparently, with "specimen landscape" trees. These responses are especially misleading, insofar as both items 4.d and 5.d are concerned with "measures to pre- serve or enhance" vegetation and/or wildlife. The misleading character of the responses given to these items is further reflected in a straightforward reading of the 2nd paragraph on page 2 of Terra Associates February 14, 1986 River Bank Stability Evaluation for the project. Obviously, even the appplicant's own consultants have Mr. Phil Fraser December 29, 1986 Page Three concluded that the existing large Cottonwood trees were within the River Environment setback, beyond "the area of the planned development ". 1) Item 11.a. fails to address additional insolation and glare produced by removal of the trees in question. This is of concern due to its dele- terious impacts on already elevated summer water temperatures in the river, with resulting impacts on the fisheries resources present. m) Item 12.a describes the proposed 40' wide River Environment setback required by the City of Tukwila. It is my understanding that this set -. back is required to be measured from the "ordinary high water" (OHW) mark at the site, and that-the City's codes set the OHW at the water surface profile elevation corresponding to a discharge of 9,000 cfs in the river, as measured at the Auburn gauge. King County has previously .recommended that elevation 16.0' be employed for this purpose at the Mini- Storage site. Setbacks shown on sheet A -S, showing existing site topography, do not conform to. this requirement. Sheet C -1 also neglects to measure the setback from the elevation 16' contour, not- withstanding the fact that the development shown also proposes to relo- cate this elevation.riverward through the ,additional filling proposed within the floodplain and River Environment Setback areas. n) Item 15.a overlooks the fact that additional flood control maintenance may be required as a result of the fill placed within the floodplain present at the site. Not only is the fill inadequately protected against erosion by floodwaters, but it is apparent from Mr. William J. Spurlock's August 13, 1986 letter to Ms. Janet Jong of DOE that the filling involved may result in an incremental increase in the base flood elevation for the river. Any such increase will impact both construction and maintenance requirements for the existing levee system, including the ongoing construction in the vicinity of the Foster Golf Course downstream of the Mini- Storage site. o) Item A.10 fails to note requirements for a State Flood Control Zone Permit, FEMA's map revision to the floodway, Tukwila's own Flood Control Zone Permit, and a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington State Department of Fisheries. 2. On October 26, 1961, King County secured a River Protection Fasement at this site (recording number 5356334, attached). This easement grants to the County "the right to construct and maintain a rip -rap bank protection and remove debris along the left bank of Green River" at the site; "Also any reasonable access necessary for River Improvement work." River Improvement work is defined in Section 86.12.020 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which authorizes the County to obtain such easement rights "for the prosecution of such works or to preserve any floodplain or regular or intermittent stream channel fram any interference to the free or natural flow of flood or storm water." a) The proposed fill within the floodplain at this site will interfere with the natural flow of floodwaters, and therefore is in violation of Mr. Phil Fraser December 29, 1986 Page Four King County's authority to preserve the floodplain from such inter- ference under these easement rights. b) The site development plans show both a fence and tree plantings along the riverward margins of the property. Such provisions preclude "reasonable access necessary for River Improvement work." King County's requirements for "reasonable access" are clearly stated in item 3 of my April 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Carleton G. Tollefson. Please note that King County continues to consider the existing land- ward extent of the 100 -year floodplain to constitute the "top -of- bank ". This location differs both from the "approximate top -of- bank" shown on sheets A -S and C -1 of the site plans, and from the "top of the primary bank" referenced by Mr. Spurlock in his August 13, 1986 letter, and as shown on the cross sections provided. c) The property described in the attached River Protection Easement _ includes a number of Tracts in Block 18 of Hillman's Seattle Garden Tracts. The legal description of the property covered by Flood Control Zone Permit No. 1- 3605 -2 agrees with this description. 1) The legal description of the Tukwila Mini- Storage site provided on sheet A -S of the site plans includes these lands "and accreted lands adjoining." There has, however, been no accretion of lands adjoining these lots, except possibly that associated with the existing fills authorized under FCZ Permit No. 1- 3605 -2 in 1979. Terra Associates River Bank Stability Evaluation states the opinion "that the river bank has been relatively untouched through the years, other than for dredge spoil material placement" when the river was "dredged many years ago." 2) Moreover, had the river actually changed its course due to dredging, RCW 16.12.034 would appear to "give, grant, and convey" the abandoned channel, bed, and bank to King County. Clarification of title to "accreted lands" adjoining the tracts in question would appear to be in order. 3) Should this clarification indicate that title has extended to cover lands filled under the earlier SFCZ Permit, those portions of the site proposed for additional filling have not "accreted" in any case, and should notbe filled to allow such "accretion" for the reasons set forth herein above. • 3. Stormwater engineering measures shown are inconsistent with the provisions of the Green River Management Agreement (GRMA), and with good engineering • practice. a) The proposed fill within the existing floodplain is improper in light_ of the need to provide necessary freeboard and to accomodate future drainage inflows as recognized in Section 2.1.1 of the GRMA. b) The wholesale removal of the existing large Cottonwoods at the site is inconsistant with the provisions of.the River of Green report, incor- porated by reference under Section 2.1.4 of the GRMA. Item 4.of Donald J. LaBelle's September 5, 1986 letter to Herman Huggins details King County's concerns with these measures. . Mr. Phil Fraser December 29, 1986 Page Five c) Insofar as the proposed filling may incrementally decrease Green River levee capacity, the proposal does not comply with the provisions of Section 2.3.4 of the GRMA. d) Under Section 2.3.6, Tukwila has agreed "to attempt to obtain rights -of way for channel improvements and any designated floodway storage through land use appprovals." Requiring the 40' River Environment set- back to be measured fran the existing 16' elevation contour at the site would have this effect. e) No provision has been made to store the 100 -year, 7-day storm for periods when flows in the Green River exceed 9,000 cfs. f) Both the outfall drainage swale and the oil -water separator manhole grate need to be raised above the 100 -year flood elevation to prevent "flushing" of accumulated petroleum products intosthe river during flood events. g) Outfall rip -rap protection must extend into the bed of the river with a "key" section at the toe -of -slope in order to be properly stabilized against flood flaws and rapid drawdown. The lateral extent of the rock upstream and downstream of the outfall should be stated, as should the overall volume of rock to be placed. Properly graded filter blanket materials should be provided beneath the rock for a sufficient depth to prevent migration of fines and sloughing of the rock. Backfill in the outfall pipe trench should be properly compacted. All these measures should be called out on the plans. King County would recommend a mini- mum 15' width of rock in this location, placed in,accordance with the design and specifications employed downstream in the ETS -4B construc- tion at the Foster Golf Course. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. For the reasons noted above, I hereby respectfully request that the Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) issued for this project by Brad Collins on June 6, 1985, pursuant to Section 197 -11 -970 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) be reconsidered. This is especially appropriate in view of the inaccurate and misleading responses to the Environmental Checklist accompanying the subject DNS. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call me at 344 -2619. Sincerely, ave "Clark Manager River and Water Resource Section Surface Water Management Division DC:AL:ds Enclosures cc: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River and Water Resource Section, Surface Water Management Division City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor 2 1987 j CITY OF TUKWiLA PLANNING DEPT DECEMBER 29, 1986 MR. MONTY SCRUGGS THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS, INC. P.S. 720 INDUSTRY DRIVE. SEATTLE, WA 98188 RE: FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT PROCESS - CITY OF TUKWILA MINI STORAGE DEAR MR. SCRUGGS: AS THE FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PROCESS HAS BEEN CONTINUED ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, TO PROVIDE THE STATUS OF THIS PROCESS NOW, I PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING: ON OCTOBER 14, 1986 . THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR THE PROJECT. THE OCTOBER 22, 1986 MEMORANDUM DIRECTIVE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WAS NOT TO ISSUE A FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT. FOR THE 30 DAYS PROGRESSING SINCE THE APPLICATION THE CITY STAFF WAS IN CONTINUOUS REVIEW OF THE FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT AND PROVIDING THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO DETERMINE IF THE FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT COULD BE ISSUED. ON NOVEMBER 18, 1986 THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REQUESTED A REVI- SION OF THE FLOODWAY MAP TO FEMA. AT THE REQUEST OF FEMA, ON NOVEMBER 21, 1986 THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY FEMA, FOR MODIFICATION OF THE FLOOD MAP. FEMA SINCE HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WILL NEED 30 TO 60 DAYS TO REVIEW THE FLOOD MAP REVISION. SINCE OCTOBER 14, 1986, AND BEFORE, THE CITY HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH D.O.E. AND KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN TERMS OF AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. TRYING TO RECONCILE CONCERNS OF THE VARIOUS AGENCIES, AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT, THE STAFF HAS ALSO RECENTLY ASKED KING COUNTY TO SUMMARIZE THEIR CONCERNS. THE COUNTY WAS GIVEN UNTIL DECEMBER 15 TO PROVIDE THEIR COMMENTS. KING COUNTY HAS PROVIDED PRELIMINARY INPUT AT THIS TIME, WHICH PUBLIC. WORKS STAFF IS REVIEWING. THE CITY .IS STILL AWAITING A FINAL INPUT FROM KING COUNTY WHICH WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO YOUR- SELF UPON ITS RECEIPT. MR. MONTY SCRUGGS DECs;.29, 1986 PAGE 2 IN SUMMARY, THE CITY OF TUKWILA IS WAITING FOR THE FINAL INPUT FROM KING COUNTY AND FEMA SO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN DETERMINE IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MODIFY HIS ORIGINAL DIRECTIVE (NON— ISSUANCE OF THE FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT). THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS I HAVE REMINDED YOU SEVERAL TIMES, AS I HAVE BEEN REMINDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THE C1TY ENGINEER, THAT THE CITY CANNOT ISSUE THIS FLOOD ZONE CONTROL PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. HOWEVER, IF IT IS LATER FOUND TO BE APPROPRIATE AFTER THE FLOOD WAY MAP IS REVISED, IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CITY TO ISSUE IT. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE THIS MATTER UNTIL A FURTHER DETER- MINATION CAN BE SUPPLIED, AFTER THE FLOODWAY MAP HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY FEMA. YOUR CONTINUED COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER WILL BE MOST HELPFUL TO THE CITY. SINCERELY, PHIL FRASER SENIOR ENGINEER /CD XC: PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR P ANN�ING D,,�I RREEcTOR, CITY ENGINEER CITY ATTORNEY FILE: 2.55.51 i King County Department of Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director 900 King County Administration Bldg. 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -2517 September 8, 1986 Mr. Herman Huggins State of Washington Department of Ecology 4350 - 150th Avenue Northeast Redmond, WA 98052 ATTN: Ms. Janet Jorg M bI t3WASStfrcvV MOM gg EP 15 19861 PLANNING OF iili�`,iVILA PLANNING DEPT. • RE: Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates Flood Control Zone Application Number 2 -1609 Dear Mr. Huggins: In response to Ms. Jorg's August 26, 1986 request, I am sending you a copy of Dave Clark's April 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Carleton G. Tollefson concerning the subject application. To date, Mr. Tollef- son has made no response to items outlined in that letter. I must therefore respectfully request that you deny the State Flood Control Zone Permit pending for this project, until response to these items has been found satisfactory by King County's Surface Water Management (SWM) Division. In your handling of this request, I ask you to consider the following: 1. In Chapter 21.55.030 of the King County Code, King County assumes responsibility to administer the Flood Control Zone Permit Program established by RCW 86.16 for unincorporated areas throughout the County. In addition, for the past 20 years, King County has also reviewed applications for such permits in those incorporated areas such as Tukwila, which have not yet been delegated authority to administer this Program under RCW 86.16.085. In this broader review, King County employs the same standards as are applied in its regular processing of permits throughout unincorporated areas of the County. a) Such review is consistent with the authority to administer the affairs of Flood Control Zones vested in the County Engineer under RCW 86.15.060. Mr. Herman Huggins September 8, 1986 Page Two b) Throughout this review, King County has attempted to guarantee that private development in the Flood Control Zones will proceed in a manner compatible with that additional authority granted the County under RCW 86.12.020. This includes a responsibility to control flood waters and to construct, operate, and maintain improvements for flood protection. With respect to the subject application, this authority includes the right to "preserve any flood plain or regular or intermittent stream channels from any interference to the free or natural flow of flood or storm water." c) King County's responsibility for flood protection on the lower Green River has been acknowledged in the role of technical leadership and administrative direction assigned the County under Section 3 of the July 18, 1985 Green River Management Agreement (GRMA). My request that you deny the subject application is consistent with Section 3.2 of that Agreement, stating that "in providing technical support, King County may perform the necessary work" through "arrangements with other governmental bodies." 2. On September 18, 1979, Flood Control Zone Permit Number 1- 3605 -2 was issued in perpetuity for placement of 43,400 cubic yards of fill materials at this site. In its review of the present application, King County has considered the top -of -bank created along the riverward margins of this fill as the minimum acceptable for establishment of the 30- foot -wide Flood Control Maintenance Access Easement required in item 3 of the April 30, 1986 letter. a) Aerial photographs of flooding at the site, taken by King County on December 3, 1977, clearly show that even prior to placement of the existing fills, flood waters at the site attained sufficient depths and velocities to qualify as part of the floodway under the definition set forth in King County Code Chapter 21.54.148.B. Consistent with WAC 508 -60- 010(2), remaining "portions of the flood plain adjoining the channel are reasonably required to carry and discharge the flood waters" of the Green River. b) Policy E -334 of the 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan states that "100 -year flood plains should be protected by (...) requiring new development to replace existing flood storage capacity lost due to filling." The additional incremental filling proposed under the current application is inconsistent with this policy. Mr. Herman Huggins September 8, 1986 Page Three c) Policy E -333 of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan directs that "non - structural methods should be emphasized in planning for flood prevention and damage reduction." This is consistent with King County Code Chapter 21.54.040 (d) (1), declaring that one purpose of the County's administration of Flood Hazard Areas is "to protect the general public against avoidable losses from maintenance and replacement cost of public facilities." Structural measures required for stabilization of the additional fills proposed will incur such costs to King County. d) King County Code Chapter 21.54.050 (3) prohibits any grading which would "raise the elevation of the one - hundred -year flood." As such, this requirement should be recognized as being more restrictive than the one -foot rise currently contemplated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as referenced in Mr. William J. Spurlock's August 13, 1986 letter to Ms. Janet Jorg. The costs associated with any rise in the water - surface elevation would be incurred by King County. Again, this is contrary to the purpose referenced in item 2.c), above. e) The USACE considers only existing discharge in the Green River. Sections 2.1.1., 2.2.2., and 2.3.1. of the GRMA recognize a need to accommodate future drainage inflows into the River. These include discharge from the Mill Creek tributary area in Auburn, currently under study for the Green River Management Program by Northwest Hydraulic Consul- tants (NHC). According to these consultants, even those flood- surface elevations employed by the USACE for existing conditions may be based upon an assumption that flows from this tributary will not be present in the River at times of peak discharge resulting from operation of Howard Hanson Dam. Given the history of flooding in the Mill Creek area, any such assumption is highly questionable. Consideration of these tributary flows would in it- self materially affect flood -stage elevations throughout the lower River. 3. Items 4, 5, 6, and 6.B.c. (1), (2) in the April 30, 1986 letter deal with on -site stormwater control and storage standards, which are based upon recommendations from the USACE, dating from 1977. The measures requested have been formulated by the Green River Basin Technical Committee �4 Mr. Herman Huggins September 8, 1986 Page Four (BTC) as a standard for implementation throughout the Green River Program area. The BTC is composed of the Directors of the Public Works Departments for the Cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila, and representatives from the King County Department of Public Works. The measures in question have previously been circulated to your attention in a draft of the Pump Operations Procedures Plan (POPP) currently in preparation. Issuance of the subject permit prior to demonstration of these measures would exempt this one project from a uniform standard currently applied throughout the lower Green River Valley. 4. The fill previously authorized under Flood Control Zone Permit Number 1- 3605 -2 terminates upland of (a) large grove(s) of cottonwood trees whose presence is addressed in items 8.B.4.b, d; and 8.B.10.b in the letter to Mr. Tollef- son. These trees presently provide both bank stability and shade cover for the River. a) Policy E -322 of the 1985 Comprehensive Plan directs that "new development adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes, and Puget Sound should preserve a corridor wide enough to maintain natural functions." b) Water quality and other environmental factors set forth in the River of Green report are incorporated by reference in Section 2.1.4 of the GRMA. The discussion of Terrestrial Habitat on Page 2 -9 of that report recommends that "the few remaining riverside groves and wooded banks should be preserved for the future. Below Horsehead Bend, riverside 'natural areas° are rare enough to be described as 'fossil' resources of extreme value." Recommendation 5 of that same report notes that "Lack of shading contributes to high summer temperatures, hence low oxygen levels." Section 5.c. of this recommendation proposes "retaining existing woody vege- tation on the shoreline (...) through set back diking (if new diking is proposed), developmental controls, tree - cutting ordinances, or improved public works policy" (emphasis added). Similar concerns are stated in Recommendation 5. of METRO's July 1983 Duwamish Clean Water Plan. This plan proposes a Riverbank Shade Program "to reduce river temperature and improve aesthetics and habitat." Concerns with high summer water temperatures in the lower River are more fully described in METRO's 1982 Green River Resource Inventory. Measures outlined in the April 30, 1986 letter fully incorporate these recommendations. 1 Mr. Herman Huggins September 8, 1986 Page Five Again, for the reasons set forth above, I respectfully request that you deny the subject application until such time as the concerns outlined in the April 30, 1986 letter to Mr. Tollefson are addressed to the satisfaction of the King County SWM Division. If you have any questions concerning these items, please call Dave Clark at 344 -2619. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Dl''J , LaBelle Director DL:AL:bn (A- 0573 - 090286) Enclosure cc: Joseph J. Simmler, Manager, SWM Division ATTN: Dave Clark, Manager, River and Water Resource Section Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, River and Water Resource Section Moira Bradshaw, City of Tukwila William Spurlock, USACE Carleton G. Tollefson, Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates TO ION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX C -3755 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124 -2255 AUG 13 1986 Hydrology and Hydraulics Branch Ms. Janet Jorg State of Washington Department of Ecology 4350 150th Avenue Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 -5301 Dear Ms. Jorg: , rt l.t� • Bch PLAi'i^:!NG DEPT • This is in response to your July 14, 1986 letter requesting a flood hazard evaluation for a proposed self- storage facility, Tukwila, Washington - Flood Control Zone Application No. 1- 5874 -2. We have completed a floodway analysis for the Duwamish River at Tukwila, in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Our study shows that the existing City of Tukwila floodway maps for the Duwamish River are in error. In the extreme case where all overbank flows are confined to the Duwamish River channel, the increase in river stage is well within the FEMA criteria of 1.0 foot or less for hydraulic floodways. This analysis shows that the floodway should terminate at the top of the primary bank, rather than extending landward from that point. Based on this analysis, the proposed self- storage facility is not located within the floodway of the Duwamish River. If you have further questions, please call me at telephone (206) 764 -3660. Sincerely, William J. Flood P1 Copies Furnished: Mr. Bob Freitag Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Regional Center 130 228th Street Southwest Bothell, Washington 98011 Mr. Dave Clark King County Department of Public Works Surface Water Management Division King County Administration Building 500 4th Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 , P. E. Management Services King County Executive Tim 11111 Department ot Public Works Donald J. LaBelle, Director April 30, 1986 Mr. Carleton G. Tollefson Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates 720 Industry Drive Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Surface Water Management Division State Flood Control Zone Application Number 2 -1609 Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates Dear Mr. Tollefson: The'Surf ace Water Management (SWM) Division has reviewed the above - referenced application. Marked copies of the construction drawings and related exhibits are ready to be picked up from the SWM office (Room 701, Dexter Horton Building, 710 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104; Telephone: 344- 2619). These marked copies and letter should be brought to any subsequent meeting with SWM Division staff. Please note that all comments in this letter or those marked in red on the construction drawings must be addressed and resolved before the SWM Division can approve this application. The application is inadequate or incomplete as follows: 1. Storm drainage structures, building construction, and fill for parking areas are shown within the floodway channel. Please provide existing site topography based on field survey, or use 1981 Corps of Engineers aerial topography to determine the floodway edge and the existing top of bank. 2. Revise the plans to show removal of all fills, structures, and obstructions from the floodway channel. 3. Revise the plans to show a flood control and public access easement measuring a minimum distance of 30 feet landward of the existing top of bank as determined per item number 1 above. Relocate the pedestrian pathway landward of this top of bank. Provide access through the property to the flood protection and public access easement, measuring a minimum distance of 15 feet wide. Execute and record an easement to King County showing these provisions. 900 King County Administration Building 500 Fourth Avenue Seattle, Washington 88104 (206) 344-2517 Carleton G. Tollefson April 30, 1986 Page Two 4. Relocate the oil -water separator and manhole outside the floodway channel, and provide flood protection by raising the rim above the 100 -year flood elevation. 5. Raise the outfall from the onsite storm drainage system so that the flapgate (or other control) prevents discharge of flows into the river when flows exceed the "9,000 cubic - feet -per- second" discharge for the 100 -year storm event, as measured at the Auburn gage. This will require a separate system for the offsite drainage (unless you decide to store that water for the 100 -year storm also). 6. Provide storage on the site for the equivalent of ten inches of rainfall over the impervious -site area, to function whenever the flapgate is fully closed. This will provide 100 -year flood storage for onsite runoff for the duration of controlled releases in the river in excess of the 9,000 cubic feet per second elevation. 7. Address all comments marked in red on the plans. 8. The Environmental Checklist accompanying this application is inaccurate and misleading; it should be revised to reflect the foregoing requirements. In particular, the following items need to be addressed: A.10. The State Flood Control Zone Permit requirement should be stated. B.1.e. Additional fill is apparently proposed within the existing floodway channel; the "existing" top of bank shown on the plans does not agree with existing site conditions. This is not merely regrading of the existing fills on the site. B.1.h. Same comment as above: B.1.e. No filling will be permitted in the floodway channel. B.3.a.(2) Same as above. B.3.a.(3) Same as above. B.3.a.(5) The entire site area is within the 100 -year floodplain of the river, based' both on Federal Emergency Management Agency and Corps of Engineers mapping. B.3.c.(1) Offsite runoff passing through the existing ditch along the last property line must also be addressed. B.3.c.(2) The oil -water separator will go under water and be "flooded out" at the 100 -year flood elevation, which is above the grate elevation shown. Carleton G. Tollefson April 30, 1986 Page Three B.4.b. Trees within the floodway channel and those within the 30 -foot -wide flood protection and public access easement to be determined from the existing top of bank, based on field survey of existing conditions, shall not be permitted to be removed. B.5.d. The existing trees are not proposed to be maintained as stated but, rather, removed and replaced. Please see item above-. B.10.b. B.12.a. Same comment as above. Please relocate the trail shown landward of the existing top of bank, based on field survey, and provide a.public- access easement to King County. Please resubmit the plans after all comments have been addressed. We will contact you about the outcome of the review of your resubmitted plans and calculations. Although a plan- review meeting may not be required by the SWM Division, you may schedule a meeting by calling Andy Levesque, the reviewing engineer, at 344 -2619, between the hours of 1:00 and 4:00 PM. He may also be of assistance if you have any questions about this letter. Dave Clark Manager River and Water Resource Section Surface Water Management Division DGC:ATL:bkn /A0174 cc: Leonard I. Schroeter, The Architectural Consultants, Inc. ATTN: Monte Scruggs WAC 197 -11 -970 Description of Proposal square feet DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE mini - storage warehouse facility of approximately 100,000 Proponent The Architectural Consultants Location of Proposal, including street address, if any So. 143rd Interurban Avenue and Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 28085 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. 12 There is no comment period for this DNS Q 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 Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date 6- 27 - 85- Signature (:&e.. 6.. 0 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 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: PROJECT LOCATION z] BLDG Q PLNG Q P.W. --06:0!44' PI1011i i' goi L‘c • ca EPIC 0,26) -as" FILE D7-3 Cc,Z n FIRE 0 POLICE Q P & R DATE TRANSMITTED • STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. Aso RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ("- DATE 6. COMMENTS PREPARE64;217-- �;1 2 C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • CN EPIC a% 06 FILE -- 1?-8'5 TO: 0 BLDG PLNG C/ P.W. ( ( FIRE (i POLICE El P & R PROJECT 6j/ 4/00_,/ LOCATION �� �D piY �,I � DATE TRANSMITTED cO STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT ct-j -1 s .11v ,L w44(cA is �M T ?N , -i N� tL T C-6rNI\r\n s 1M-E1 . u r►O u t 1CS DATE ( /ZS -78•C COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 3z2 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM III CN EPIC ,01� F I LE )? -8 2 41 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTI G'FORM tJti'j2,L12 TO: D BLDG QI PLNG P.W. 0 FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R -1vt u /r- X Iit1.( -1 / LOCATION iP-b _liqrarU1710071 FILE N0. ,A,g0 ---'U RESPONSE REQUESTED BY o, 6 /A----- l RESPONSE RECEIVED PROJECT DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT. lie: 6 06 ,6gS4r gds a-i t0? u)4, bovt/- Azg DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. ,Form 11 `' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANIII • 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? The object of the proposal is to provide convenient self - storage facilities for both the individual household as well as businesses in the Tukwila area. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? There is no practical alternative available to provide this service. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: The preferred course of action is to provide the facility as proposed. -22- JUN 2 5 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. V)�z V) Z.0 Z o'- 0 - V) - I - W I•- O < 0 • 7 - b J 1- < H > W V) W W z - •e - 0 in K 1- W W N - 1- 0 < W 3 U' 1- O < V) z Z - w o < K o O V) CO V) V) W Z W - O - O - 0 1- a I- V) 0 N W >- V) 0 W < - > Z J Z < CO - - 0 < J 1- w < V) 0 a' - 7 J I- w V)0 a o z N J V) J V) V) '0 z W K O - H O Z 1- o 0 1- C) W (r) a b N z - z U' 0 V) 1- w Z Z O O W - 1- Y 1- W CC U CC O 3 CC X I- IX 1- in W Z / - < 0 < w U 3 * * * 0 V) 0 Z Z J - O W W I- LL. W < z w - 0 U' J CO Z a < W X J W Z Z W - �O U 1- - < N I- U W <CC1-. O Z_ V) J 7 CO - o O • La- N (1) * * * HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATE CLIENT ADDRESS REFERENCE SUBJECT PROJECT NUMBER 1019 : 22 June, 1985 : TUKWILA MINI STORAGE ASSOCIATION c/o THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS INC. 720 Industry Drive Seattle, WA 98188 :.Proposed Tukwilla Mini Storage Development : Geotechnical investigation On 29 May, 1985, at the request of Carleton Tollefson of THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS, INC., Dale Hemphill of HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (HEMPHILL) visited the site of the proposed Tukwila Mini Storage Development to be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Interurban Avenue and S. 143rd Street in Tukwila. The purpose of the visit to the site was to determine the subsurface conditions for the placement of storage buildings. The purpose of this report is to present preliminary data for the purpose of evaluating the property for the proposed mini storage buildings. Further studies must be conducted to determine foundation, floor slab, paving, and drainage design. HEMPHILL conducted visual classifications, penetration tests, and probing within 15 test pits located on the site. The subsurface investigation revealed that 2 different layers of fill had been placed at the site. The lower fill did not cover the entire site, and was composed of various combinations of brown silt, sand, and cobbles that had been compacted to a dense condition that was difficult to excavate in some locations. 1 JUN 2 51985 CITY OF TONILA PLANNING "DEPT. 12813 N.E. 36th STREET• BELLEVUE, WA. 98005 • (206) 883 3924 The upper fill that covered nearly the entire site, except for a section adjacent to Green River, was composed of various combinations of ,clay, silt, sand, and gravel, and sometimes cobbles, that had been compacted to a dense condition. HEMPHILL determined that the original ground surface had been stripped and organic materials had been removed prior to the placement of either fill. HEMPHILL determined that most of the dense fill that presently exists at the site is capable of supporting minimum loads of 2000 psf with minimal settlement. Further studies should be conducted to design foundations, and the presumed conditions should be verified at the time of construction. Dale C. Hemphill P.E. Registered Engineer State of Washington No. 14777 2 HEMPHILL • • THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS INC. 7 2 0 1 N O U B T R V OR. • B E A T T L E WASHINGTON . 9 8 1 0 8 1205)•575•1313 June 21, 1985 City of Tukwila Tukwila, Washington Re: File No. DR -12 -85 8525 SMP Environmental Review Tukwila Mini-Storage Gentlemen: 1 JUN 251985f f CITY OF 1-' `:C',MLA PLANN:1 purr. j The following items are submitted in answer to your review comments: 1. Building Letter from Soils Engineer is herewith submitted. 2. Planning a) 12, P.3. The subject site is located on the northerly side of Interurban Avenue between the Riverside Inn and Oak Harbdr Freight Lines terminal. The legal description is Lots 1 thru 7, Block 18, Seattle Garden Tracts plus tax lot 1. Plans are submitted separately. b) 3. C.2. Contracts for self storage spaces provide that no hazardous materials are stored. No work, including mixing, packaging or utilizing hazardous materials in any manner will be allowed. Such activity is also a violation of the self - storage contract. The.site will be monitored 24 -hours a day, everyday. Activities in violation of leases will be able to be observed. c) 7. Answered in 3.C.2 above. d) Contracts for self- storage spaces provide that no hazardous materials are stored. No work, including mixing, packaging or utilizing hazardous materials in any manner will be allowed: Such activity is also a violation of the self- storage contract. The site will be monitored 24 -hours a day, everyday. 3. Public Works a) Drainage will conform to requirements. b) Traffic •access will be coordinated with SR 181 plans. c) R/W at riverside will be reserved and improved. d) A letter from Soil Engineer relative to soils is herewith submitted. • 4. Fire Fi•No. DR -12 -85 8525 SMP City of Tukwila June 21, 1985 Page 2 a) Sprinkler protection, 20 ft. wide fire access lanes and 35 ft. turning radius will be provided. 5. Police a) As stated in Section 14f, we estimated up to 50 vehicle.trips per day which will have a minimum impact on traffic to Interurban via 143rd. The Crime Prevention practioner will be contacted before final plans have been completed. 6. Parks & Recreation a) Some landscaping is planned on the river bank R /W. Our develop- ment plans include ivy to screen the north side of the fenced area, poplar trees and an improved pedestrian trail. b) No comment required. c) A public recreation easement will be granted for the 40 ft. of property adjoining the river. d) Sidewalks will be constructed as required. If there are any further questions, please call at 575 -1313. st The Architectural Constultants, Inc. by Carleton G. Tollefson L1t1 ER lS Q EI JUN 2 5 1985 CITY OF TUKWILA ___ PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ON 25/5, EPIC 28015- 5 FILE tQ-/ 2 -85 .i ..25651 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM For el%0Zlrz_tll,.) TO: T[ BLDG [ V(PLNG [-1 P.W. n FIRE n POLICE [j P & R PROJECT TWj,,1) //eJ L Cltinf s »./ P. LOCATION 3 /C(3,i -ci qG DATE TRANSMITTED 6.-10 '5'1 STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED 6--/Dv THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM, COMMENT DATE C . / fZ35 COMMENTS PREPARED BY % /�'� ='� • C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER - 5'(1;�YY�Z� CONTROL NUMBER 85-/�X CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTi FORM FOY 6/1.640- ,�j .7 L'G)'fl,21, TO: BLDG. [I PLNG. Q P.W. El FIRE LI POLICE J P. & R. PROJECT %./LLe1 /IQ, x-%/)'11 i i'1 n:i��7'G[C',,P ADDRESS DATE TRANSMITTED (0, —/Q RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR . RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. - INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED PLAN APPROVED ❑ PLAN CHECK DATE 6 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER _ _ = ILO CONTROL NUMBER 85-155j CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTi'fJG FORM 7' 6 $- jftp eei 'zal a -e- TO: 0 BLDG. ❑ PLNG. prp.w. FIRE Q POLICE 0 P. & R. PROJECT 77jj LU /L'Q1 477,4; a:1 YG ADDRESS o f, //1 34,-/.:6 qG %-Li'1� - Z/.�Z3(Z4-- DATE TRANSMITTED 4(0-7/,:>-F5- � -/Q -F,- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE'REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW.- INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: Aqie ZCi ? -rte DO CFri S `112. F':I -Ac( E& TLO 4) czzoin DTs A° Q . 11t1 S (81 " L r �, �L✓ ? PokL 1-Z L vE +cry' a acPes�S' �� r�lc�t� a�g% ('� 1KO� SR IB/ CrOiCioe.#6 CD -(tit, he °l L JI &: 1d 41A O QC'C�'� Jflf coo y) 0 0 D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED (] PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED jJ PLAN APPROVED D PLAN CHECK DATE CP/ '0? V-- COMMENTS PREPARED BY AO"; C.P.S. FORM 2 • CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM tCN 2,5"/ 5-8# EPIC aAi - 5 FILE P2-12 "55- g5:25-151 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM For.:- fan..' e.oanm j TO: BLDG (l PLNG n P.W. n FIRE in POLICE fl P & R PROJECT t1) /t(../ )Z!/U,5) LOCATION 34(3.1157Z/ 46 a.te.,,u,roait..) FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED �p /Q 1`5 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY l%47 RESPONSE RECEIVED STAFF COORDINATOR THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT -5016 PepoRT r:• DATE 6 11 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CIA' OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM •CN 2.5-15W EPIC d01;i5 FILE 0/2-/215- g1-,75jft TO: (i BLDG [l PLNG 1 1 P.W. n FIRE © POLICE [ P & R PROJECT l i,00,1?/1Oj (--YY)/U (?)2"/ LOCATION 3 it(.5 -f-ci qG if -6/ZCir'19i u DATE TRANSMITTED (p /Q - >1 STAFF COORDINATOR FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY [� -41-Er RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE .IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. • ITEM COMMENT THE OVERALL CONCEPT. OFFERS NO PROBLEMS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT. TRAFFIC ACCESS FROM SOUTH 143rd STREET IS PREFERABLE TO AN ACCESS POINT ALONG INTERURBAN. WITH THIS INCREASED FLOW INTO S 143 ST WOULD THERE BE ANEED FOR SOME • CONTACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER SHOULD BE INITIATED BEFORE THE FINAL PLANS APPROVAL STAGE, SECURITY IN THIS TYPE OPERATION IS • CRITICAL. 6/11/85 1 -1 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM � CN EPIC oaf -5 FILE /2/2-P215- - 5 55 .,?5 int-P. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM i-vY "MO =C'U,72,fnu,iu-,) r " TO: • (1 BLDG PLNG n P.W. I ( FIRE Q POLICE ( 1 P & R PROJECT II.(i(V /ta; LOCATION ,5 /G/,39-.5& DATE TRANSMITTED �v /Q "II RESPONSE REQUESTED BY /,f2`�''� STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED FILE NO. THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST -WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT THE OVERALL CONCEPT OFFERS NO PROBLEMS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT. TRAFFIC ACCESS FROM SOUTH 143rd STREET IS PREFERABLE TO AN ACCESS POINT ALONG INTERURBAN. WITH THIS INCREASED FLOW INTO S 143 ST WOULD THERE BE A-NEED FOR SOME CHANNELIZATION AT TIIIS- POINT. CONTACT WITH THE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER SHOULD BE INITIATED BEFORE THE FINAL PLANS APPROVAL STAGE, SECURITY IN THIS TYPE OPERATION IS CRITICAL. 4411/-85 p j l- (ft// DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM 'CN 25-15-e EPIC P8015- FILE 12/2-/215- g5.:2565n42 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM For eo�Zy�2��l'j TO: E1 BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE (j POLICE 'P & R PROJECT 74/67 -ICI /CU LOCATION S /6/351-di qG y,ttl,e6/71,1_,P-battJ FILE N0. DATE TRANSMITTED 6.-k) 11 STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE 61//r,5-- COMMENTS PREPARED BY _„ `y C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER. ��5- y,'7 CONTROL NUMBER 85 -/5 CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUIPG FORM For- 6 I J/%f7 TO: ❑ BLDG. ❑ PLNG. ❑ P.W. ❑ FIRE ❑ POLICE ❑ P. & R. PROJECT T JJ1U / /cam (- nr 0-1'e. ADDRESS f, / </3 0: DATE TRANSMITTED f-- /Q -a," RESPONSE REQUESTED BY C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW.. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED: D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I PLAN APPROVED ❑ PLAN CHECK DATE ‘ ///drr COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 OF T UKW1L&_._.... wcr:.. CENTRAL .PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUT• FORM TO: (❑. PROJECT ADDRESS Nt I NU[1t tK ,5 t;!5.3t'i2YJ LAM I KUL NUr bt.K FOr /gilt* BLDG. [I PLNG. [] P.W. ❑ FIRE E POLICE ❑ P. & R. DATE TRANSMITTED C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY, RESPONSE RECEIVED PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S)ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED :. 0 0 0 ❑� 0 f D.R.C. • n . REVIEW REQUESTED [I PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED (i• PLAN APPROVED [] PLAN CHECK DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. FORM 2 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. a) Shoreline Management Substantial Development_ Permit b) City of Tukwila Bui ldina Permit c City of Tukwila Sign Permit d State Electrical Permit e King County Plumbing Permit f FEMA Flood Certificate 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. 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. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): (Tlat rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope) ?_ [ 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. 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. No additional filling proposed; some regrading of existingssite is proposed. • g. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? pg% Evaluation for Agency Use Only ffrof )(`)x e- '64'4#G,„ )/‘ /4)3;(7b" LOIN 2)J 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'. Both building and paving work will be constructed within 200 feet of the river except for the 40 feet adjacent to the river. 3-)) Estimate the amount of fill and dred e material 1 that would be aced in or remove rom s uur ace water or *VII and indicate the area of the site thatWlou d be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. tJ , 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 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. c. 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, , 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. 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 roofs and asphalt pavement will be collected in storm water system. (1 < h� &)ob a;,)9(,es kW IDItACV4 undair" Evaluation for - Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Any minor amounts of oil and sediment will be trapped Ig'by catch basins. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Oil and sediment will be trapped in catch basins on site. 4. Plants a. Check or site: circle types of vegetation found on the x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs x grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, . skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation "b :: What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Some existing trees within the site the site area to be developed. 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: Hydro seeding of disturbed areas in 40 foot strip along river as noted previously in 1(h) above, and 5 foot wide landscaped strip along Interurban Avenue. 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, almon 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. The river is a migration route for salmon and steelhead. T) Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Maintain trees along river and improve area with grass":----- Evaluation. for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the Evaluation for Agency Use Only �r` site? Gd Irit�t €�czt -c 4i - / L -r. S 1Jr��5TCL� �c � _ /� f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation (/ of the site? 4:4114k-e424.4 ALL // -- 17 Jr.JS -t1U AL- If applicable, what is the (current shoreline master program designation of the site? Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. RLVS-2 S44rt-E-t..f % i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in.the completed project? Two. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Gzntpi. j ai rr4 z rxl i i]6c £tT) C h? t ( FL a) 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? One (1) housing unit for on -site manager at moderate or market rate. 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 required. 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? Two stories for one building What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? View of trees on river bank from Interurb will be slightly altered c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: FEnce and landscaping on Interurban Avenue. 11. Light and Glare a. What _type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior site lighting will be on during hours of darkness. Lighting of the front fence and planing on Interurban Avenue wi ► ► be indirect and aesthetically 12-leasing, 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: Exterior lighting fixtures will generally direct light downward. 12. Recreation 4. What designed and informal recreational oppor- yE) tunities are in the immediate vicinity? A small undeveloped ci y park -lies on the westerly side of the project. As designed. a 40 foot strip of the project oronerty abutting the river will be available for informal recreational use. 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: See 12(a) above. Evaluation. for Agency Use Only 1 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 required. 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. • jnterurhan AVPnuP and Snuth 143rd StrPPt Arress to the site is proposed from South 143rd Street near its juncture with Interurban Avenue. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Adjacent to site. c. How many •parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? _ • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).° No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. Evaluation. for Agency Use Only f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. We estimate up to 50 vehicle trips per day when project is completed. Peak volume would occur on weekends. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: No. 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. Fire protection may be needed. Contents stored on site are both combustible and non - combustible. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EC IVE ,s1U1V BY ..1 TUKWILA FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU CN 15 . EPIC 0Yj� -,S FILE 012-12-g5" ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM %(]i'' CC>yyj j TO: Q BLDG E} PLNG n P.W. IRE f[ POLICE (l P & R. PROJECT TW ,Ul1O,) (-)/ 4I ik7n? LOCATION 3 7e(1 /j1{,-/j8 t_.) FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 6-'10 15- STAFF COORDINATOR geico RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL G4EIKLIST WAS R= CEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT A)0 U11rO nWle,'4-4. .0 r,1 5 -- (4T — P /ec se Pt F " . . e �.r¢ f Co h Gtr K.S rei 4 ►-d i t;l j Pdk b u a d t kt3 s I( `.�o rt vt K.I �e a-- P t ,e h o h Q20 ' Gf 6 E�ss -�t re / vt�es re c2 Lu -e JQ —t1A (''O (d 4 o cit 35' fick r ✓ t n h-a e us 62c,t cv-t d 0, ►►A wttA h 1 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND Controo. 15-15g Epic File No. 1.260 -$ Fee $100.00 ReceiORECIEVED 29Lq cn MAY 2 3 1985 mum DEPT. 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Tukwila Mini - Storage 2. Name of applicant: Tukwila Mini - Storage Associates 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 720 Industry Drive Seattle, WA 98188 - Contact Person: C. G. Tollefson, Phone 575 -1313 4. Date checklist prepared: ay 20, 1985 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): G xi r . 'ra r sr °mot : l 4 S 5- Utz, q 8 6" 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. None. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Proposed Metro sewer line to be constructed in Interurban Avenue; proposed improvement to Interurban Avenue by City of Tukwila. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. a) Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit b City of Tukwila Building Permit c City of Tukwila Sign Permit d State Electrical Permit e King County Plumbing Permit f) FEMA Flood Certificate 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. 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. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? 13 211( TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, o er 11 Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? t °la 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. , 10112— ei_to- (— r—A.V — 14 1Lri2* 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. No additional filling proposed; some regrading of existing site is proposed. 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)? gg° • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Where regrading occurs in 40 foot setback at river, regraded area will be hydro vpP(: 1 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Some possible dust and exhaust odors during construc- tion; a minor amount of automobile exhaust odor after completion of project. Project exhaust will be insignificant compared with Interurban Avenue. 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: No. 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. Project abuts Green River which flows into Duwan jh River which in tern flows into Eliott Bay. • 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. Yes. Both building and paving work will be constructed within 200 feet of the river except for the 40 feet adjacent to the river. 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. No. 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. 1,) 4.5 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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 roofs and asphalt pavement will be collected in storm water system. fo IIIEvaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. Any minor amounts of oil and sediment will be trapped by catch basins. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Oil and sediment will be trapped in catch basins on site. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs 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 existing trees within the site the site area to be developed. 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: Hydro seeding of disturbed areas in 40 foot strip along river as noted previously in FOTT above,. and 5 foot wide landscaped strip along Interurban Avenue. 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, other: trout, herring, shellfish, 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. The river is a migration route for salmon and steelhead. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Maintain trees along river and improve area with grass. • 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. Electric energy will be used to heat approximately 20 percent of the storage area, plus one office and on -site manager's apartment. Electric energy will also be used for lighting. 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: Minimum lighting is incorporated in storage areas. Outside lighting will be energy efficient type. 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. None. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None.required. 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)? None. 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. No long -term noise. Noise from construction opera- tions by crane, dozer, grader, paving equipment and trucks. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None other than OSHA requirements. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is not currently used. Adjacent on east side is truck terminal and undeveloped park and Riverside Inn on northwest. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the s i te? 5 i.1[7u5 -riza At, f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? e- I$t-Eac-i j-- ,JDos-r' -' A(� If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? g. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. R-i J i2 �74-1-1011 L-1 ltd Fa . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Two. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None required. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: c► tpU w (-r4 L3 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? One (1) housing unit for on -site manager at moderate or market rate. 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 required. 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? Two stories for one building b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? View of trees on river bank from Interurban Avenue will be slightly altered. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: FEnce and landscaping on Interurban Avenue. • 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior site lighting will be on during hours of darkness. Lighting of the front tence and planing on Interurban Avenue will be indirect and aesthetically pleasing. 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: Exterior lighting fixtures will generally direct light downward. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? A small undeveloped city park lies on the westerly side.of the project. As designed, a 40 foot strip of the project property abutting the river will be available for informal recreational use. 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: See 12(a) above. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0 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 required. 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. Interurban Avenue and South 143rd Street. Access to the site is proposed from South 143rd Street near its juncture with Interurban Avenue. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Adjacent to site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 1 U g- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. We estimate up to 50 vehicle trips per day when project is completed. Peak volume would occur on weekends. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: No. 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. Fire protection may be needed. Contents stored on site are both combustible and non- combustible. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.j 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electrici y natural _gas, water t efuse service) e ephone anitary sewer, sep is system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity will be furnished by Puget Power. A trans- former may be needed in connection with the service. 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: 5/20/85 Evaluation for Agency Use Only L,,<7(.)0,ao CITY OF TUK ILA IbPla Central Permit System MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM RECEIVED cmr OF TUKWILA MAY 231985 BUILD 3 DTI • PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED IT1ON -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING. SECTION 1: GENERAL DATA TYPE OF APPLICATION: jBSIP °SHORT as�BDl \':���•: ZSHORELINE OpRD �PMUD' EAR PLAT PERMIT ,INTERURBAN 000NDITIONAL QUNCLASS. 0�.„ a ANCE CHG. OF DCOMR PLAN USE USE ZONING AMENDMENT 114 Arum ti -nJr2 -�- , ;K, �,x- ?r� Aup APPL I CANT : NAME 1-4)11+C-17.-- 2 2J TELEPHONE ( ►.j() - ADDRESS 2) PROP. OWNER: NAME ADDRESS 3) PROJECT LOCATION: 0 \VL S hTrLe- WA- zIP ef8(N TELEPHONE ( ) (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) ZIP SECTION II :. PROJECT INFORMATION ) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPQSE, a.. J`a- ,N�l"Ta_4,Z jLI_ =1-110 , Cin(ie Wan-. -% ,�, • U - J 1 .s. t L • f _ - 41. J. (/ _ ) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM tq8 ' WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? DYES " ( NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: 41e• PROJECT STATISTICS: A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET 5. 54^, GROSS 5.56 EASEMENTS �w�r✓2 B1 'FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTA FLOOR Z INCLUDES: O BASEMENT MEZZANINE TOTAL INCLUDES: O BASEMENT OMEZZANINE FLOOR AREA SITE UTILIZATION: ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD S I. ZE. - COMPACT SIZE - HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE EXISTING PROPOSED L NOTES ( 02.17g5 O 26, ooa (13 o 1 (3;1-15 } p. 1S THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? '1 YES ❑ NO PA (2.--17 AA-Li CITY OF TU ILA Central Permit System ' MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM GENERAL LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Tore- WITHIN RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAY 2 3 1985 BUILDING MT. 4-72 `D) t L (1/4 SEC.) OF SECTION 23 OF TOWNSHIP Z3' N., RANGE W.M., IN TUKWILA, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 2) NAME OF WATER AREA AND /OR WETLANDS WITHIN WHICH DEVELOPMENT 1S PROPOSED: 6zeet.! Kiva2 3) CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY .WITH EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS:- VikC„Pet7 r PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: SLR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS CONTEMPLATED BUT NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION: er r-ri ion £) -r 1 1,12 3 606 00 1) s . r CONSTRUCTION DATES (MONTH AND YEAR) FOR WHICH THIS PERMIT 1S REQUESTED: BEGIN '"7��� +�c�L )) COMPLETE M — % (4' TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE: APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXISTING AND POTENTIAL DWELLING UNITS THAT WILL HAVE A VIEW OBSTRUCTED BY ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCEEDING 35 FEET 1N HEIGHT. ONIMIWA, ■ PROP. LINE + • t. • • BLDG. A nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrinnnnnr BLDG. iiinnnrinnrinnrinrinrinrinnrionrinrir BLDG. C (BLOO. D SIMILAR) inforinnronfirinnnrinrininnnnnrinnh BLDG. E 1' PROPOSED. PROP. LINE 4 • I c.- 4.k.k. 1' : 20.0 • SHORELINE PROFILE t nnnnnnnnr Innnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrir 81.00. F (BLDG. 0 SIMILAR) PROPOSED PROP. tINE nnnnnnnnr 81.00. 11 LOW IMPACT "RIVER ENVIRONMENT I ENVIRONMENT SECTION A I I nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnrn SECTION B PROP. LINE MMWL 16.6' OREEN RIVER SECTION C innnnnn nUnnnnnnnnnn SECTION D lnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnannonnnnnnnnnn SECTION E n 'N7W.'••••=2WPCBIZS SECTION F • THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS INC. PS. .� 700 1 ■••••••1000•0•• • •0100 • 1•0•1.07••IaS3 0 0. tt 8. 0 O m id NN N I N 1 �N . .o, \ =r \ 1 -- 1 • ti ,' . 1 1 I� ■ 1 1 I11 1 1 � / . by 1 / '/d �` ,�\11 11 r 1 1 1/ r II r 1 1 1_,/ ' ,,�/ 1 r ° i 1 1 1 1 1 / / �11 1 1 r 1 • 0` I rl �/� 1r I +∎ t� 91 �'' ,�l 1 yid � • \t `\ N . - / I 1 1 , ■ ∎ i 1 1 I :f. I\ I I \ i 1 . 1 1:, f \ i' ti 1 I �,�- - -- t 1 1 .t 1' 1 i I 1 ., r I /s 1 / 1 / 1 1 I `‘ ,/ / i 1 t3 11 /' i • • it / 11 111 1 1 I 1I4 I1i 11 I' �'/ I t! Iij 1 "' 1 1 —�oJ— — — 1 N i \ • I 1 I � 1 I • 1 ■► l 11 1 N 1 11 1 1.. i i ,11 1 I /i 1 ;11 I i w', It 1 r II 1 1\ iii 1I1 # - -_% 47__. r—_,91— —_ _ Q SIN l„kN,- :100.0 VICINITY MAP RIVERSIDE INN i-d:4171:4,1 t. Ci ri (.4r1 _ CL /1 trIX:r) gaff...WC A1-4r) COM — • "10 N/1'' C4.1 mESEI,e: 15.-60 ri/CEO tycspremc. GREEN RIVER ' "40 1-000 FX/404.5 ,A6 Aq.1-19.01• • P. htled`e• r-frOWri • I MHWL --Gralk0 CDAIL TO tE. e...cJte. pm= 4.c • H5.• TUKWILA MINI PARK retccels err Tr 015 "Pr' TO TH. LiZellOrn ft:YU ftsm 1TEEF1 U-71-1 e so' C.P.mTerS • rruritA EUf.J re+-1 rOccorJeriororila-e-r.Ast-i IN tI1. weo.c. Aro CEMEJ4-0 te1i-JUM rt.E6 41•• =I I= =I I= =I • =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= MI I= =I I= =I • =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= 21 I= Ima. =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= _I I= 11= =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= =I I= =I • M11 I= =I I= =I I= =I I= '949 4 A . -v 9 k. ((` •",-1 -rt:Mk - atcr oc •.A.rtrti‘tri Vt-rfACTOLe. el s' vi Di 40 4 0. 0 HORT OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINE T:EXPeTN' S Wm-L. me-Prf SETBACK E r LANDSCA Corourfo cp...cr- 1 rX 4uNZE.,For1iT.co e.-. '1-teta•r. Helot' LANT-)Sr_INE) Di nto RIVERSIDE INN <F • TUKWILA MINI PARK O O 0 J m 0O '94'6 •Ili , 04, 1 O 0 4 NORT 1 : 40.0' J I 1 O 0 0 O 0 0 GREEN RIVER IA I I MHWL 16.6' O O m • • • • • II• • 11 11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • • ?,4 1 11 1 111 11 1111lIl1111111111111111111111111 O 0 OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINE .•SETBACK LANDSCAPE S. 143rd. .ST. RIVERSIDE INN ,SETBACK ,LANDSCAPE L[GDI'oT1vE ti 9t � eL -iE EY FIT. w; 1H$ GREEN RIVER 1$IM, TUKWILA • MINI PAR/ #### ••._ 4k. -we V 1. 1= 1= 1= 1= 1— IC I= I= I= 1� 1� I= I= 1= IC 1= IC 1= 1= IC V 4, v. =1 =I =1 =I =I =I =I 11 1= IO IC I= IC I= I= I= I= I= I= 1= 1= 1= 1= 1- I= 1- 1= 1= MN M 10'YTrO,16 LevcAert'E =I CI =I CI =1 =1 =I CI =I =I =I =I =I =I =1 =I =1 =1 =I =1 =I =I I =I =I =I =I =1 =I =I nu-id oAJEF•l, \\ A IO 1= 1= 1= IC 1= IO I= I- I= 1= I- I= I= 1= 1= 1= IO 1- 1= 1= i. 1. I= 1= 1= 1= 1= I= M MN V !e, • /NORT' ' : 40.0` w •T 11.9• A 11. 7 1 • 0 1- 4t LANDSCAPE' N SETBACK 4 D .L- • VA civics r, MI NMI =MN -!• =NM =_ =_ "M_ _ = 0 MON MIN Wit• CI• =— E!• =_ -� =NE -=I ■1 1■ ■1 1■ ■I 1■ ■I 1■ ■1 I. ■1 1■ ■1 1• ■I I■ ■1 1■ ■1 1■ IMHWL 16.6' 1 'OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINE /4.L- 1`?i.U.LL- 15‘rnMC. � M -1 gyL.LR 9-12b41i .9 1 • ?:' vo- SETBACK LANDSCAPE 1C N V�O�iO'rdYa S. 143rd. ST.'O"'�`� j-I•, tome (IMOU9j1`WL) 11052 A D 5ED arl 1 •irAcE/ 1527 Sr °t? crr'CE9 rEquIriT) dig 043•C E4 •101-1H G2 ZONE (eprYC.E C7`reC2l.) 10.CL 0 fr. t osto OIti 15f' -CG / lox) AF .949'•-CE-9 rtOuirtID /d/ - /5 c7LL 4 &WA/G- a/iTi-k k C . 69.11 / t rr. k e. /5 _ e u W 7 J. ?9/L s, J /a J NY C 7310 D IcZCL d' . / ( /A)I / _ 54426 D _ &sl•JCSZ) /ir/.C. /1/Ii CSr")i s 7 '" /66(1-b 7 M° / - /AJ eietow_ 17e-A/ 77-0 77)2.6000s hobuicy-zoW 4`31C-\' /41/9.3 -B -,tl� (. t/e Drhesa'&S /Mb /d/ - 7 R/P//S 27L s 8 t 7Z 4 aluv& i5 w. ' 7* k -'- � ' / 7 qt/ zepo/ on_ ~40 / 1?/ "if'. O s �. eei077/JOT 76 Gam - -, G. fey! TZj We:562 72/elk i°0 2. ir/ri/f IA /Ni iny9/904-.<5 PleY /ti � � 7t) 1e. .l70ee /5 r / 3/M/1¢76__ fir, K. Ln- Yo ,,i/,®y 1.4-1/e- /cues !//4/C io 5 f /S m/% +e /z6b . 7% 6'C_ 7Z oq 7 N�3 Peto6.6frtt_ p162JAJQ7an/ 2 1)/r;e5 Wig tiJ 0A/v ex/tt gytir ISM iil e o ieeb cab6Wt pb , , you cruet w'- keyg c �/� you 4306&15S7— oa/?�,6411) ? WORLY 156 61A/6 /140-D —I4