Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0001 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PUBLIC WORKS - SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITYSOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY FACILITY TO ACCEPT & DECANT VACTOR WASTES & COMPOSTING MATERIALS - PROCESS AS TOPSOIL 4501 S. 134T" PLACE E98-0001 APPLICANT: LOCATION: • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director SUMMARY OF REQUEST: PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TUKWILA FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS April 23, 1998 Public Works Department, City of Tukwila Randy Berg, Project Manager L98-0003 (Conditional Use) L98-0002 (Design Review) 4501 South 134th Place Conditional Use Permit with Design Review to construct a vactor waste facility, presented before the Planning Commission on March 26, 1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONCLUSIONS The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter on March 26, 1998. The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's Conditional Use permit criteria (TMC 18.64.050). Conditional Use Permit Criteria: 1. The proposed use will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity of the proposed use or in the district in which the subject property is situated. Testimony indicated that the proposed vactor waste facility will generate noise, dust and odors which cannot be completely eliminated. The proposal does not provide mechanisms to monitor noise, dust and odors which may negatively impact nearby residential uses. Testing procedures for hazardous materials at the facility have not been completely developed and appear to be inadequate based on public testimony provided at the March 26, 1998 hearing. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Planning Commission Report and Decision April 23, 1998 Page 2 2. The proposed use shall meet or exceed the performance standards that are required in the district it will occupy. The Planning Commission recognizes that the design of the proposed facility will meet, and in some cases, exceed the development standards for the Commercial/Light Industrial Zone. However, significant uncertainty remains regarding whether performance standards for odor, dust, noise and hazardous materials can be met. 3. The proposed development shall be compatible generally with the surrounding land uses in terms of traffic and pedestrian circulation, building and site design. Although the proposed facility would be located in a Commercial/Light Industrial Zone, its siting and proximity to residential uses (within 300 feet) makes the proposed development incompatible with residential uses. This incompatibility is further magnified by the facility's likely generation of noise, potential generation of dust and odor as well as the possible presence of hazardous materials. 4. The proposed use shall be in keeping with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed project will meet performance standards for odor, dust, noise and hazardous materials. Due to these potential negative impacts, the siting of the proposed project within 300 feet of residential uses makes the proposed development incompatible with those uses. For these reasons, the following Comprehensive Plan Goals are not met: Goal 7.3 (Overall Land Use Pattern) A land use pattern that encourages a strong sense of community by grouping compatible and mutually supportive uses and separating incompatible uses. Goal 7.8 (Neighborhood Vitality) Continuing enhancement and revitalization of residential neighborhoods. 1 • Planning Commission Report and Decision April 23, 1998 Page 3 5. All measures have been taken to minimize the possible adverse impacts which the proposed use may have on the area in which it is located. Testing procedures for hazardous materials at the facility have not been completely developed and appear to be inadequate based on public testimony provided at the March 26, 1998 hearing. As stated above, the proposed facility will generate noise, and potentially dust and odors which cannot be completely contained on the site to protect nearby residential uses. Conditional Use Permit Decision: The request for a Conditional Use Permit is denied. DESIGN REVIEW CONCLUSIONS The Planning Commission, pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.108.040, hereby makes the following findings and conclusions under the City's Design Review criteria (TMC 18.60.050). Design Review Criteria: Conditional Use Permit approval must occur prior to the review of any Design Review criteria by the Planning Commission. Because the Conditional Use Permit is denied, the Design Review criteria for the proposal will not be reviewed. Design Review Decision: The request for Design Review is denied. • A ! MEMORANDUM TO: Deb Ritter FROM: Randy Berg DATE: March 16,1998 RE: Summary of Steep Slope Report for Soil Reclamation Site Landau & Associates was hired by the City to do a field reconnaissance of the steep slope portion of the proposed Soil Reclamation Facility site. He also reviewed available geotechnical information including the two Shannon & Wilson reports prepared for the subject site. The field reconnaissance was completed on March 5, 1998. Following is a summary of the Landau report. The steep slope portion of the site is along the southern property line of the subject site. The slope height is 25 to 30 feet above the flat portion of the site. The slope includes a rockery along the eastern half of the steep slope area. The inclination of the slope varies between 2.5H:1 V to nearly vertical at the rockery. Vegetation on the face of the hillside is mainly grasses and small diameter alders. The rockery is up to 18 feet in height, and is within 8 to 12 degrees of vertical. This is on the very upper end of recommended face slopes for rockery retainage (10 to 15 degrees). The center portion of the rockery failed over 4 years ago. No other sign of rockery movement can be found. Soil types at the rockery failure are hard silty clays. Visual observation of the failed rockery area does not show any signs of soil slump. However, the small diameter alders growing on the slope are butt bowed, which is an indication of surface soil creep. A sagging fence along the top of the slope is the result of a near vertical cut just below Macadam Road. The steep slope area itself shows signs of cut along the eastern side where the rockery has been placed, and fill along the western side. Other than the rockery failure and the bowed small alders on the face of the hill, no signs of instability were noted. No slumping or tension cracks were observed. Surface water appears to be collecting at the bottom of the slope, but no seepage was observed. Geotech Evaluation: It appears that the slope is stable and the past rockery failure is the result of improper construction along with he possibility of hydrostatic pressure and deterioration due to past runoff from Macadam Road. The Macadam Road runoff has since been diverted from running down the slope. Failure of the remaining rockery sections can not be ruled out. Such a failure would constitute a risk of injuries or property damage. A failure of the rockery would likely be localized with debris moving a maximum 40 to 50 feet from the existing rockery toe: Replacing the rockery with a structural retainage system would solve the problem (but is outside of the projects budget options). Containment of the debris from a potential rockery failure using jersey barriers or ecology blocks and setting the proposed buildings 40 to 50 feet from the toe of the rockery is offered as an alternate means of protection from onsite injuries or damage. Proposed Solution To protect against on-site injury or property damage the proposed development will maintain a 45 foot setback between all structures and the toe of the rockery. This will minimize the possibility of debris from a rockery failure damaging any structures. In addition ecology blocks will be placed between the toe of the rockery and the developed portions of the site. This will contain debris from any slope movement, and keep the debris from moving on to the developed portion of the site. Since no public access is to be provided to the site, the applicant does not propose placing fencing below the slope to limit access to the slope area. cc Phil Fraser Gary Schulz MEMORANDUM TO: Phil Fraser Deb Ritter FROM: Randy Berg DATE: March 10, 1998 RE: Summary of Findings in Snohomish County Street Waste Study In 1995 Snohomish County retained Landau Associates, Inc. to study the contaminates present in vactor wastes. The conclusions of the report are less than definite. The report looked specifically for heavy metals, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). All three contaminates are found in street waste samples. Amounts found were compared to criteria identified by the Snohomish Health District and compared with regulations governing solid wastes, toxic cleanup requirements and water quality. Risked based estimates of exposure to contaminates at the concentrations detected were developed to evaluate possible reuse of street wastes. Conclusions: • Vactor wastes are not typically dangerous. • Ecology and Health District regulations support reuse of these materials. • - Metal contaminates are not found in reportable or regulated amounts. • - Analysis results for TPH in all samples exceed Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA) method A cleanup levels for TPH in soil. • Measurements of TPH in samples is skewed by presence of organics. WTPH-418.1 Testing Method using acid wash before analysis to minimize organics resulted in lower TPH levels and should increase management and reuse options. • PAH and carcinogenic PAH (CPAH) levels found may exceed MTCA criteria for residential soil cleanup requirements, limiting reuse options to solid waste landfill, or reuse in non-residential settings, particularly commercial, industrial and recreational settings. • Composting contributes to decreases in detected TPH concentrations. The longer the composting the greater the expected reduction in TPH. It is anticipated that composting will also reduce the CPAH levels, but this was not part of this study. My personal conclusions drawn from this report are that vactor wastes do contain contaminates. That the level of contaminates present do not pose a health threat to neighbors or'on site workers. That contamination of TPH and CPAH may be found in regulated amounts, but only in Model A cleanup and reporting amounts, not in the more serious Model B cleanup and reporting amounts, and as such may not be appropriate for use in residential settings, but may be used in other settings. That composting the street waste material will result in lower levels of TPH and CPAH. Based on these conclusions I recommend that all vactor soils be tested when collected and be composted and retested for contaminates. Soils found to exceed Model A levels of TPH and CPAH after composting be disposed of at solid waste disposal site (not a hazardous materials site) although this material can be used in non-residential settings. Soils tested and found to exceed Model B levels be disposed of at a hazardous materials dump site, and should not be taken to the vactor waste site at all. Soils found to be contaminated below the Model A levels should be mixed with composted organics and used in non-residential settings. Based on the findings of this report I see no risk of exposure to surrounding properties. TO: John McFarland FROM: Steve Lancaster DATE: March 9, 1998 RE: c4 " l is -,,p £Q A • )\kS 0/QMEMO CoPilc . is evoon7. (al 4.4 11-e 1 Proposed Public Works Project Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place L98-0003 (CUP) L98-0002 (Design Review) E98-0001 (SEPA) sc2-1/(. As you may know, the Public Works Department is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval with Design Review to construct a vactor waste facility. The proposed facility will be used to accept and decant vactor wastes and combine them with vegetative materials (from the Parks Department) via a composting process. These recycled soil materials will be used on other City properties. To date, we have received four comment letters (attached) from property owners along Macadam Road, above the proposed site. In general, the letters focus on issues concerning conflicting land uses, noise, dust, odor and hazardous waste. Staff in Planning and Public Works contacted the property owners and discussed these concerns either by phone or in person. Staff responses were reflected in the March 3, 1998 Determination of Non -Significance. The Planning Commission will consider the applications for this facility at a public hearing on Thursday, March 26th. We believe that these property owners will attend this hearing. cc: Ross Earnst Randy Berg I, AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 11)7,41 50/ \Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting IlBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: Notice of. Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit. Determination of Non- significance Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and'Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Action Official Notice Other 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on L's-qg .5ee a-flf%cched: Name of Project// it7e2,01q717a0 Signature R(.0 -// d/ File Number l-- 9B-'QO(IL Lcig-000,5 �G1 g-D0bl • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MARCH 9, 1998 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION The City of Tukwila Public Works Department has filed an application for an Environmental Review (Number E98-0001), a Conditional Use Permit (Number L98- 0003) and a Design Review (L98-0002) to construct a facility to accept and decant vactor wastes and composting materials, subsequently processing them as topsoil at 4501 South 134th Place. You are invited to comment on the project at the public hearing scheduled for March 26, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. before the Planning Commission. The hearing will take place at City Hall in City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Deborah Ritter at 431-3663 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Permits applied for include: • Environmental Review • Conditional Use Permit • Design Review Other known required permits include: • Development Permit FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Application Filed: Notice of Completeness Issued: Notice of Application Issued: SEPA Determination Made: January 23, 1998 February 9, 1998 February 10, 1998 March 3, 1998 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 OT/09/98 17:51 FAY 2 28 1880 RCA CITY OF TUKWILA 0001 RICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES, LTD. 514 Essr PLice SIR= ■ SEATTLE, WA 98122 VOICE 206/-5500 s FAM 206/325-1880 TRANSMITTAL PROJECT NAME ■ Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility PgoJEcr Num= • 94092 =� ^ R ndy Be bES AGENCY: • Crty of Tukwila By Fax 433-1833 P FRoNC ■ Carl Stixrood DA= ■ March 9. 1998 c = Phil Fraser rA.pG (rx 4 E- Foz DlFb Electrical fixtures fcdr the soil reclamation facility WE ARE FORWARDING THE FOLLOWING DRAWING No_ COPEES Trrr.E ORDE.scRIP17ON DATE 1 1 Fee -request to Abacus 3 page IGm lighting catalog cuts of passible fixture choices (not yet reviewed by City) 11/8197 Si 24x 36 8.5x11 Randy: I am working on a fee estimate for Phil which provided an opportunity to look for an exterior light fixture as we discussed for the Conditional Use Permit hearing. I found two possible light fixtures which 1 have attached. Please review and comment on the fixtures: • Do you need a. better copy of a catalog excerpt? • Did you have a different type of fixture in mind? Please also look over the scope: • Does the City want lighting in the buildings as I have indicated? • What kind of electrical outlets will the Crty need in the buildings? Please call with comments or any other electrical needs we should address. Thanks. Carl Stixrood 01209/98 17:51 FAX 2028 1880 RCA 110- CITY OF TUKWIL-1 0002 Adjustability `f�S _ .T `" Or.L.-f...::-...?....2.-9.--:-=•-,, T-__�`^�-�^=•--- !j rr1�%a•i 7,.. -'i ='� _ : ,fir _•�7 1. —f�=t:—vi] Via, ',Zs 'te �.�_:�J ?.� ' :.ts tic.-s.ZJ =-r / '7'- - " ':VAN\\\ \ -.' s•...r-',1.—.!•s•—,.rh.Y.,=..--.-_.. �-y Since the reflector systel for the Wall Dire.ctcr throw richt away from the wall. only a sm-Iitar; bunt of adjust -ability is needed fr fine Coning, The adjustment f - ltzure is integrated between the reflector and ballast housings. a • can be accomplished with the fixture cn. Two stainless steel scr s are loosened cn either side of the ballast housing- This allo.vs th . sflector housing to rotate up :a 10` while visually observing the gni throw. When the screws are reticntened. the reflector housing locked and resealed to the ballast housing. Degree markers are cast into the reflector ho::sine as shown in the, photograph abov The ability to rine tune the forward light throw is lady useful in lighting large overhangs in c itng canopies. Sometimes the additional fon, - - thro will be needed simply be -mouse th ing is curved or sloped. e type (V distribution will be used for this application. and a few degrees of fixture. adjustment is all th-TT may be necessary. Z{o IlJA1Z Lehi-LPE AVAtLat&t.F. - In down lighting applications. fixture adjustment can bridge the differences between types 11. lit and (V light disiibuaons. For example. suppose you are lighting a narrow area between a building and property line using a type 11 distribution. The type lI distribution covers the ground area. but more light is desired on the perimeter wzJI. A few degrees of fixture adjustment will accomplish the desired increase in forward throw with minimal increase in fixture r brightness Optional 5° Shield Sometimes the advantages cf fixture adjustment may need balancing to retain total cutoff. An optional shield is available for this purpose. aliow.ving .5' of fixture ad- justment while keeping the cutoff edge of the lumi- naire horizontal. This shield can be used in any up or down application. ' 03/09/98 17:32 FAX 2r1328 1880 Specifications: .. Arm Mounts and Options 213 Twin Arm Mount for flush mounted fixtures only. Consists of two prewired arrn assemblies. Arm and riser are aluminum extrusions welded and blended together. Pale cleat automatic- ally aligns and levels arm. Bottom cap is cast aluminum mounted with asingle screw. TGIC thermoset polyester powder coat paint only. 1W Wall Mount for flush mounted fixtures only. - -vy cast aluminum wall pl, . - with arm cleat and splic-,2ccess cover, Prewired a Pend riser are aluminum ext sions welded and blended tog her. Bottom cap is cast alumi um mounted with a single screw_ TGIC thermoset Oplyester powder coat paintonly. R C • may CITY OF TUKWILA 003 _ -17711-.Ma el trn o WaJt-by others.• Nr y✓2ar�2.rr1':aa ;` byotfiers- - Retrofit Fixtures In addition to the standrd 4" sq. a O_D flush mount and 23/tenon mount. fixtures can be mo ted to a wide range at round or square poles using a special adapter casting. This casting mates with all the various size expansion mounts in the Kim inventory. This provides another means for retrofitting existing poles, or utilizing poles by others. To specify, consult Kim rep_ LS Optional Enclosure One piece injection molded clear polycarbonate. Footcandle and C.U. values must be multiplied by 0.92 for light loss over standard clear acrylic. CAUTION: Use LS only when vandalism is anticipated to be high. Useful Gfe is limited by dis- coloration caused by UV from sunlight mercury vapor and metal halide lamps. A-25 Optional Photocell Receptacle for all fixtures. Unit is factory mounted at center of top cover and accepts NEMA base photocells (by others). For twin arm mount. each fixture will be supplied with its own photocell receptacle. Photocells shall be furnished by others. The following pole information must be provided to insure proper fixture mounting: t Round or Square 2. Pole top O.D.. I.D. and wall `hickness. -round or squa 3. An condition. 4. Top 6" of pole tree of internal obstructions. Structural integrity of all non -Km poles must lie with others. Mar .1 1 st . r ;,Adapte cas'tingwi ��_ - .: groans— - ,Poletop must be cut sq_Uare' = her..,..::::•67--s?• �ti�r•:,;-.,�= �;:,. . 070,07-- 4+ O.o;'•:. a:sQ mss,. o i�-5;,,,D: em` 1. .^,:„.4.75'1,,,S0':•. *? y-.tirai +�srap. ..h�`..i-;.-• -.....71--4? ' ” iTei: �rr.•:- HS Optional Houseside Shield for Type III distribution fixtures only (SBC300 and SSC.�O1). Consists of of two shielding com- ponents installed at the factory. One component restricts direct lamp light and the other reduces reflected fight (For clear amps only, see page 24 for details). 43/09/98 17:54 FAX 328 1880 250 Watt Metal Halide BT28 Clear, 19,500 lumens LT.L Test No. 27384 Catalog No. SBC300 or SBC301 Type 111 Asymmetric R C A 0.4 CITY OF TUKWYILA Typical Haff, Dashed Curve = C.U. Single Mount 12'v ,: Quadrant, aimed ( `0 l 1 02 each other 4 .) 0.4 5 ) 4.9 2.5 .98 ..49 25 .10 .05 7.7 39 1.5 .77 .39 .15 .08 10 5.0 2.0 1.0 .5 2 .1. m 14 6.8 2.7 1.4 .68 .27 .14 ) I f ! 2 Initial Horizontal Footcandles at I I Listed Mounting I 1 +, 1 2 Heights y �� 20' 16' 14' 12' oNl I •Q -f p."".. -1.-- /I 4.9 7.7 10 14 �\. 3 1 1 25 3.9 5.0 6.8 I 1 \ ` t1 1� .98 1.5 20 2.7 4 I 1 2 a _77 1.0 1.4 .49 .25 .39 .5 .68 27V 0.1113 .10 .15 .2 14 0MM 4 .05 .02 .08 .04 .1 .05 .07 1 l I 1 1 2 3 4 I, 5 Longitudinal Distance in Mounting Heights Summary of Street Side: 46.35% (.r16^.) Downward House Side: 23.88% 2'19 Efficiencies (C.U.) Total: 7024% (.702) See page 24 for effect of Houseside Shield. 1.0 004 Initial Footondles Listed Heights 20' Horizontal Mounting 16' at 14' 12'v Typical Fixtures as on page 1 Quadrant, aimed ( away 3. example 2 Twin Mount from 6. 3 each other 4 .) I 5 ) 4.9 2.5 .98 ..49 25 .10 .05 7.7 39 1.5 .77 .39 .15 .08 10 5.0 2.0 1.0 .5 2 .1. m 14 6.8 2.7 1.4 .68 .27 .14 ) I f ! /1 I .! I I I 1 +, 1 2 3 -f p."".. -1.-- /I 4 I 1 2 3 4 5 Longitudinal Distance in Mounting Heights 7 VVidth of Street or /W// Pole Spacing for One -Side Arrangement Pole Spacing Chart, Single Fixture. Meets 6:1 Uniformity. Average to Minimum. Meets 3:1 Uniformity, Average to Minimum. Mounting Height Width of Street 12' 14' 16' 1.0 12' 15' 118' 20' 125' 1.5 Average 2.0 Maintained 2.5 Horizontal 3.0 Footcandles 15' 18' 20' 1 25' 1 30' 18' 20' 25' 30' 1 35' 20' 25' 20' 30] 35' 140' 1 4.0 taNt 63 58 55 5.0 55 51 47 44 58 47 72 69 1 61 54 52146 43 41 1 37 I 81 77 70 63 104 96 88 81 84 78 72 66 61 67 63 58 53 49 67 65 58 I 52 50 48 44 1 39 ittli 401 39 35 31 58 52 48 . 44 41 42 39 34 31 36 33 31 29_ 27 24 Or,lo Cna - r c rj.s r\ • L vL £1.'11.r'11..L RICHARD CAROTHERS ASSOCIATES, LTD. 814 Easr PEE STREET s SEArrt.E, WA 98121 Votc>~ 2.o6/324-55oo s FAx 206/328-i880 TRANSMITTAL PROJECT norm= Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility PRomc-r NUMBER: 11 94092 Amir. rd Troy Oestreich CoMPA1vy: 1 ABACUS FRoac ■ Carl Stixrood DAME 1 March.9,1998 • c • Fran Wall WE ARE FORWARDING TtSM Por1.QWII3I DRAWING Na COMM TrimoRDEscar no DALE 1 1 T 1 Survey Landscape/Lighting Plan 7 page building information package 3 page }Gm fighting catalog cuts of possible fixture choices (not yet reviewed by City) 11/8/97 11/8/97 11/21/97 SrZE .24x36 2446 8.5x11 8.5x11 Troy- Please provide a fee estimate for the following scope of work: Design of: • Service to the site including providing a panel with capacity for an irrigation controller and capacity for future service to the restroom/office building. • Lighting. inside buildings A and B. • Lighting of exterior areas (see attached plan for Conditional Use Permit Submittal.) • Miring and conduit • Outlets in Building A and B breakdown needed_ • Pre Design phase -advice on fixture selection • Construction Documents -Electrical plans and details, drafted stamped sheets for 90% revie'v and bidding • Specifications (WSDOT format) • Cost Estimates for pre design. 90% and bidding phase. • Construction Phase -review of contractor submittals, two site visits with inspection repot, review of two pay requests. Please let us know of any additional electrical items we might need. Thanks, Carl Stixrood City of Tukwila Fire Department March 6, 1998 Mr. Randy Berg Project Manager City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 Re: Vactor Waste Buildings, Waiver Request Dear Randy: John W. Rants, Mayor AR 0 6 .1998 COMMUNITY DFVEL OPMft .NT Thomas P. Keefe, Fire Chief It is my understanding, based upon your letter and our previous conversations, both buildings at the vactor recycling facility will be non combustible, open air buildings. The purpose of these structures is to store and recycle non combustible materials. Further, it is the city's intention to provide a fire hydrant within 150 feet of these structures, and provide a fire department approved turn around. With these factors in mind, I approve your request for an exception to the requirements of Tukwila City Ordinance #1742; the requirement for a sprinkler and fire alarm system is waived. In closing, I reserve the right to modify of withdraw the waiver approval if the design or use of either structure changes. If you have any additional comments or questions pertaining to this issue, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Nick Olivas Assistant Chief cc: Phil Fraser Deb Ritter Headquarters Station: 444 Andover Park East • Tukwila, Washington 98188 u Phone: (206) 575-4404 o Fax (206) 575-4439 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION 1,c�o,.q'i G O Notice of Public Hearing n Notice of Public Meeting IlBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet J Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of. Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit hereby declare that: A etermination of Non- significance LJ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action 0 Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 3 —10-Cig .A.,A e 11-41 ,e. z , % ., i c LA, Name of Project File Number qR -cQ) 1 CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: FACILITY TO ACCEPT & DECANT VACTOR WASTES AND COMPOSTING MATERIALS - PROCESS AS TOPSOIL PROPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS LOCATION OF PROPOSAL,:NLLUD'INt;STREET \ADCPEaS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: PARCEL NiY` SEC/TWN/RNG, LEAD AGENCY: The City has determined : that the p'r'oposal does not "have 'a probable significant adver~se impact' .on the:; environment . ' ;An environmental impact statement (EIS)is not,,required under RCW 4J.2]c::03't 2) (c) . Thi ,decision was made;atter``�r,eview;of a completed environmeictal checklist and ;other information on file with the lead/agency. This information i,s avai;lableto`';the pu_bl is ,on, request. n it ***;4'4*:l•*******:***:i*•k4'****.hk:riszFk'Ak•;k:kk4 •;**:A*:4****** *it;4:t:t*k ts •k*** ******* This. determination is t,'ina1..,and �_.i.gned this ;dav of4rcL 1992. ^'e Steve 'Lancaster, Responsible Official City 6f;Tukwila, (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcente.r Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Copies of th <procedures fore ,SEPA-appea 1 s. are ava i t b'l e with the Department of Cowmun i ty Deve 1,opment : ; • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: Steve Lancaster From: Deborah Ritter Date: March 2, 1998 Re: E98-0001 City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place Project Description: This SEPA review is for the construction of a facility to accept and decant vactor wastes and composting materials subsequently processing the materials as top soil. The facility will include two large open pole buildings (Bldg. A = 13,500 s.f. and Bldg. B = 4,000 s.f.) with planned improvements for a 400 s.f. office and restroom facility. The project will include on-site parking for six cars with screening and perimeter landscaping and fencing. The 2.3 acre site is owned by the City of Tukwila. Agencies with Jurisdiction: None SEPA Related Comments: Comment letters were received from four property owners: Dale Shawley, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Merkle, David Hussey and John Thompson. The concerns of these property owners focused on conflicting land uses, noise, dust, odor and hazardous waste issues. Staff in Planning and Public Works contacted the four property owners and discussed these concerns either by phone or in person. Staff responses are reflected in the applicable sections below. Copies of the property owners' letters are attached. Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth The site is very steep along the southern property line with maximum slopes at approximately 80%. The proposed building site, in the central portion of the property, is relatively flat. Along the northern edge of the property, the slopes average approximately 20%. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • E98-0001 Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place March 2, 1998 Page 2 A geotechnical report was prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. in November, 1997. The report focused on the central area of the site which will be under construction. Test pits indicated that this portion of the site was underlain by fill. In the northern portion of the site, the fill contains kiln ash contaminated with heavy metals (see Environmental Health Section of this memo). There are indications of past earth movement at the base of the steep slopes along the southern property line. Per the Sensitive Areas requirements of TMC 18.45, another geotechnical report will be prepared addressing this issue. Its recommendations will be tied to the issuance of any development permits on the site. Approximately 35% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. The project is designed to have a balance between cut and fill. Earthwork will expose the soil to erosion, particularly along the northern portion of the site. A temporary erosion control plan will be submitted by the Applicant. • Air Dust and exhaust emissions will be generated during construction, with watering as necessary to control dust. During operation of the facility, minimal odor from composting materials is possible, but not expected. The site will be monitored for odors and steps will be taken to reduce or eliminate them as they occur. • Water The site is bordered on the north by a water course located in a drainage swale which has been classified as Type 3, but may qualify as a Type 2 stream. The maximum (35 foot) buffers for a Type 2 watercourse have been incorporated into the site design. Underground utilities may pass below it. Storm water will be gathered into a catch basin, run through an oil/water separator, bio -filtration swale and detention pond, then discharged into the drainage swale. The storm water drainage system will meet King County design standards. • Plants Various deciduous and evergreen trees are scattered along the northern and southern portions of the site as well as some small shrubs and grasses. Brush and grass will be removed to accommodate the construction of buildings and site • E98-0001 Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place March 2, 1998 Page 3 • improvements. The proposal will not require removal of any existing trees on the property. Property restoration will include seeding and planting of complementary trees and shrubs. Animals No threatened or endangered species. Energy/Natural Resources The structures on site will use electricity and will comply with the Washington State Energy Code. Environmental Health Per the July, 1996 Level I Environmental Assessment by Shannon & Wilson performed on the site, kiln ash contaminated with heavy metals is present in fill materials below the ground surface. The report indicates that this material is stable and the contaminated substances are not migrating. The proposed development will avoid disturbance of this soil, leaving it sealed below the surface. No hazardous materials will be deposited at the proposed facility. However, when material is pumped from storm drainage systems around the City of Tukwila, some hazardous materials may be present. These hazardous materials will be identified through a testing process before transfer to the site and will be disposed of at an approved hazardous waste materials dump. Proper handling of these materials will require staff training and testing procedures. Noise generated by construction equipment will occur on a short term basis. Heavy machinery noise is likely on an incidental basis during operation of the facility. Additionally, some soil materials will be sorted using a screening process. Noise generated by this activity will be incidental with a duration of approximately 4 hours or less. The hours of construction and facility operation will comply with the City's noise ordinance. Operation of machinery will occur only between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. • • E98-0001 Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place March 2, 1998 Page 4 • Land/Shoreline Use • The property is currently vacant and zoned Commercial/Light Industrial. The surrounding land uses are primarily industrial with a few single family uses (zoned Low Density Residential) on the slope above the western property line. These residential uses are buffered from the proposed site by Macadam Road, by a 30 foot grade separation and by existing vegetation along the site perimeter. Approximately two to three employees will work on a part-time basis at the facility when it is in operation. Approval by the Planning Commission is required for a Conditional Use Permit and design review is required by the Architectural Board of Review. These approvals are required prior to issuance of the building permit. Housing No housing is proposed nor will any residential structures be removed. Aesthetics The maximum proposed building height is 32 feet. The primary exterior building material is a 24 gauge standing seam metal roof with a factory finished color applied. The roof and associated beam and trim colors will be muted earth tones. No views in the immediate vicinity will be altered or obstructed. As referenced above, design review by the Architectural Board of Review is required. • Light and Glare It is not anticipated that any Tight or glare will be produced by the project. • Recreation No impact. • Historic and Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. • • E98-0001 Soil Reclamation Facility 4501 South 134th Place March 2, 1998 Page 5 • Transportation • • Access to the facility will be from South 134th Place using an existing driveway easement adjoining the site along the eastern property line. The project will have six on-site parking spaces. The project may generate up to 20 trips per day. However, on average, there will be no trips on most days. Public Services No increase in public services is expected. Utilities Water and sewer services are provided by the City of Tukwila and electrical service is provided by Seattle City Light. Telephone service will be supplied by U.S. West. Recommendation: Determination of Non -Significance. MEMORANDUM TO: Deb Ritter FROM: Randy Berg DATE: February 27, 1998 RE: Status of the Proposed Geotech Steep Slope Study at the Soil Reclamation Site Landau and Associates, Inc. of Tacoma has been hired to conduct the geotechnical work relating to the steep slope area of the Soil Reclamation Site. The Scope of work for Landau and Associates is as follows: 1. Compile and review available geologic information in the project vicinity. 2. Complete detailed geologic reconnaissance of the steep slope on the site to identify significant features such as underlying geology, soil types composing the slope, limits of current slope instability, and zones of ground water seepage. 3. Analyze information gathered in steps above and use the information as the basis for analyzing the processes operation on the slope and to develop conceptual geotechnical recommendations for improvements to the slope stability. 4. Summarize field study and analyses into a geotechnical report to include: A. Drawing of the slope showing significant features; B. A discussion of slope geology and geomorphology; C. A discussion of slope processes to include types of slope failure and potential impact to site of such failures; D. Recommendations for additional studies if appropriate. The exact timing of the additional geotech work has not been finalized since the authorization to the consultant to proceed was not issued until yesterday. The best guess is that the site work will be completed next week, and the report will be finished by about March 15th. • • • February 24, 1998 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: Deborah Ritter Re: Soil Reclamation Facility Dear Deborah: In the past few years there has been a general positive improvement to the area where the proposed soil reclamation facility is planned to be located. There has been new residential construction and the existing houses have also been making improvements. The existing residential area and commercial -industrial area seem to be co -existing. In a community there should be a transition between residential uses and heavy industrial uses (i.e. low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, office, commercial, light industry, and heavy industry). In this area of the City there is no such transition. With this proposal the City has proposed a heavy industrial use almost next to a low density residential zone. The proposed soil reclamation project also does not conform to the existing City zoning, as evidenced by the need for a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed facility also goes directly against the 1995 Comprehensive Plan which states, "The Council's new plan sets out several major goals; Number one is to improve and sustain residential neighborhood quality and livability." The proposed reclamation facility does not improve or sustain the residential neighborhood's quality or livability. In fact, it adds extensive pollution, smell, and noise problems to the neighborhood. There is also the concern that now that the City has allowed this reclamation facility through the Conditional Use Permit process, the door is open for similar facilities in the area, by private industry. This facility is moving the community in the wrong direction and would cause deterioration to our neighborhood, a neighborhood that is making positive improvements. This type of facility would be better located in the area where the Metro sewer treatment plant is located. There are other existing reclamation type facilities near the sewer treatment plant and along Monster Road. I would appreciate the City taking into consideration our concerns and consider locating the reclamation facility in a more suitable location. L00001%1.405 Page 1 of 1 HGG Inc. February 24, 1998 Very truly yours, ?—se John Thompson Owner of 4503 South 136th 4o' 55 48/5 So" -77i /704= Zol. z.44 -5377 work- 41,S-- • • February 22, 1998 David F. Hussey III 13457 Macadam Rd. South Tukwila, Wash. 98168 206-243-4305 The City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Dear Mr Randy Berg, and Ms Deborah Ritter: I am strongly opposed to the city's plan to locate and operate a soil reclamation facility on the property at 4501 South 134th Place. This property is north across the street from my residence on Macadam Rd. South, (south 135th street per your notice of application) and will have a negative impact on my property value, health, and quality of living. While the property in question is located in an area zoned for commercial/industrial use, the noise, dust, and odors will most certainly not respect the boundary, to my detriment. My neighborhood has suffered and endured the presence of the existing industries to our north with the increased noise, air, and light pollution they bring, along with increased traffic. Our complaints to the city have gone unanswered. Do not ask us to accept more inconvenience. Surely a more suitable area for such a facility exists elsewhere. Sincerely, David F. Hussey III • RECEIVED To: City of Tukwila FEB 2 3 1998 Department of Community Development Subj.: E98-0001 (SEPA) L98-0002 (DESIGN Review) L98-0003 (conditional use permit) COMMON TV DEVELOMENT 22 Feb 1998. Currently I'm opposed to this project. In discussions with D. Ritter and my neighbor, this project will create dust and odor problems. Bothof which will lower my property value. I have always thought that this land was zoned light industrial. As a Ceramic Engineer, material processing has always been a heavy industry due to the nature of material handling. As a Sales Engineer for a clay company, even the wet processing has caused dust problems (even within an enclosed building). The decomposition process has always caused odors. If in doubt visit the transfer station on 188th and Military Rd, the odor is the decomposition process. Please find a different location. I suggest the land near the Metro Processing Plant I formally request a copy of any Planning Commission Decision Robert !! r Shirley J. Merkle 13515 Macadam.Rd. So Tukwila, Wa 98168 206 243-5731 TO: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REFER: PROPOSED SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY FROM: DALE A. SHAWLEY 13467 MACADAM RD. SO. TUKWILA WASH. 98168 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: 2-15-98 RECENED FEB 1 7 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Being a member of the community surrounding the proposed site for the new Soil Reclamation Facility I must say this does not appear to be something that will enhance m.community. I can foresee arf odor from this facility, noise that would add to the already high noise level, and perhaps many more items that would have a detrimental effect on the quality of life and the property values in this community. I have information about this facility from the City of Tukwila and on the surface it appears that the City of Tukwila is concerned with being a good neighbor. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no toxic soil allowed at this facility but how will the community be guaranteed of this. It is stated in the documentation that there will be no traffic at this facility except during normal City business hours. Is this guaranteed? It is stated in the documentation that the odor level of decomposing organic materials will be monitored and if the odor is migrating off-site the organic material will be reduced. Is there any guarantee? It is stated in the documentation that the City is aggressively searching for other organizations to use this facility. If other organizations are found will the activity at this facility be increased to meet this added use level? What if anything is guaranteed? It is quite obvious that the members. of the Department of Community Development do not live in the community that would be effected by this facility. It is also quite obvious that the City of Tukwila has had this in mind for a period of time since they have already purchased the property. With all of this in mind I am sure this is a project that will in fact be constructed. I. understand this project will bring the City of Tukwila into compliances with adopted ordnances. As an affected community member, I also understand that I must be very active to see that the construction and use of this facility adheres to all statements in the documents presented to the City of Tukwila and the community where "I" live. RESPECTFULLY YOUR i.." /,7/ DA A. LE • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED FEBRUARY 10, 1998 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT:. Public Works Department, City of Tukwila LOCATION: 4501 South 134th Place, Tukwila, Washington FILE NUMBERS: L98-0001 (SEPA) L98-0002 (Design Review) L98-0003 (Conditional Use Permit) PROPOSAL: To construct a Soil Reclamation Facility OTHER REQUIRED Development Permit PERMITS: Building Permit Sign Permit Utility Permit These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #'.100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on February 24, 1998. This matter is also scheduled for a public hearing on March 26, 1998. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: January 23, 1997 February 9, 1997 February 10, 1997 6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax /2061431-3665 WAA CT MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director Deborah Ritter, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: February 10, 1998 RE: Request for a Waiver of Sensitive Areas Ordinance - Sensitive Areas Studies: Public Works Soil Reclamation Facility, SEPAE98-0001 / Design Review L98-0002. This memo is written to respond to Randy Berg's waiver request in a letter dated 2/4/98. The reclamation project does not propose any sensitive area impacts. There are a couple of details in the letter that I would like to address. First, the Sensitive Areas Overlay shows the steep slope area below Macadam Road as a Class 3 rating. ,This area was not addressed in the geotechnical study conducted by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (Vactor Waste Facility Project, 4501 S. 134th Street, Tukwila, WA 11/26/97). A large rock, rockery was installed years ago along this portion of the steep slope. I observed a failed portion of the slope's rockery located about 40 feet away from the corner of Building B. This is the closest point of the proposed building structure relative to the slope. Because the slope was altered and stabilized from previous development, the geologic class may not be an issue. However, the City may need to repair the slope area in the future to maintain this facility. The watercourse bordering the site along S. 134th is likely to be rated a Type 2 because it has salmonid fish. It has been converted to a straight ditch but would still have a standard buffer setback of 35 feet. The setback has been provided on the site plan. Buffer enhancement is not required for this project' s site plan, however, the buffer area and drainage channel could be enhanced. In -stream structures and additional overhanging vegetation could be considered for fish enhancements. Because there are no impacts to sensitive areas on the site, I can recommend that an SAO waiver be granted and not require sensitive areas studies. The altered steep slope area and associated instability is located directly below City ROW of Macadam Road and may be considered a Public Works review issue. As a safety precaution, the activity around the toe of the steep slope should be limited and restricted. I cannot make a professional recommendation on the adequacy of the current setback from the slope and those site features , located within it. Please let me know if there are questions concerning this memo. cc: Randy Berg, Project Manager Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator February 9, 1998 • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Randy Berg, Project Manager Public Works Department Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RE: SEPA (E98-0001) Application for Design Review (L98-0002) Application for Conditional Use Permit (L98-0003) Dear Randy: Your application, on behalf of the Public Works Department, for a Soil Reclamation Facility located at 45th Avenue South and South 134th Place has been found to be complete on February 9, 1998. for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. As you know, the project has been assigned to Deborah Ritter and is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 26, 1998. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site and obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. This notice is also available at DCD. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to the our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I' will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431- 3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner cc: Chief Olivas, Fire Department Joanna Spencer, Public Works Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director February 4, 1998 Mr. Steve Lancaster Planning Director City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Waiver of Sensitive Areas Ordinance Requirements Dear Mr. Lancaster: As the applicant for development permits for the City of Tukwila's proposed Soil Reclamation Facility, I am formally requesting a waiver from the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. The proposed development site includes two areas designated as environmentally sensitive due to steep slopes, one along the uphill portion of the site (southern property line), and the other along the downhill portion of the site '(northeastern property line). The site is also bordered by a Class 2 watercourse along the northeastern property line. Specifically I am requesting a waiver of the requirement for Sensitive Areas Special Studies as required under section 18.45.020F, and as allowed under section 18.45.020F.2. I am also requesting a waiver of requirements listed under 18.45.060 paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5. This waiver is allowed under 18.45.060. The requested waiver is allowed under the City of Tukwila Zoning Code based on the following three criteria: 1. Agreement on the classification of the sensitive area. I would offer that the very steep portion of the site, below Macadam Road, which shows signs of instability is a Class 4 area of potential geologic instability, and that the area along the northeastern property line is a Class 1 area of potential geologic instability. If the applicant and the Planning Department can agree on this, the requirement for special studies can be waived. 2. The development does not detrimentally impact the sensitive areas. The design of the proposed facility has avoided any disturbance of these areas. The steep slope areas 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Mr. Steve Lancaster February 4, 1998 page 2 are already heavily vegetated with trees and ground covers. All vegetation on the steep slope portions of the site will be left undisturbed. The area along the southern property line drops very steeply from Macadam Road. This area does show definite signs of areas of unstable hillside. Past property owners have attempted to level the site by building a large rockery to retain the hill. A portion of this rockery has slumped. It is well beyond the scope of this project to stabilize this hillside. Instead the development has pulled back from this area to allow the hillside to move without damage to the facility. Since the development does not disturb any of these designated areas there will be no detrimental impact to these areas from this project. The development proposes a minimum setback of 35 feet from the Class 3 watercourse to any construction disturbance with the exception of trenching for utilities. The setback from the watercourse to the nearest on site paving is over 100 feet. The buffer area is already heavily planted with trees, and according to the City of Tukwila Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schulz, will require no further buffer enhancement. The proposed development is meeting the setback requirements of a Class 2 watercourse based on the fact that fish may be present now or in the future in this watercourse. 3. That the goals, purposes and objectives of the sensitive areas chapter be followed. This project in general, and the proposed site plan specifically, do not run counter to any of the nine standards listed as goals of this chapter. It is important to keep in mind that this facility is proposed to improve the quality of surface water within the Tukwila region. As such, it is very much in keeping with goals 1, 2, and 3 of the sensitive areas chapter. By avoiding disturbance of the steep hillsides, it is also in keeping with goals 4 and 5. Goals 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not apply to this development Due to the fact that the project is underfunded, any requirements to do additional studies, or to mitigate with site improvements will result in a reduction in the amount spent to construct the facility. This will in turn reduce the functionality of the facility, and so will in fact lessen the potential beneficial impacts on improved surface water quality. I have met with Gary Schulz to discuss this project and he is in agreement that this project should not require any special studies related to the presence of the sensitive areas. He also mentioned that the Class 3 watercourse may qualify as a Class 2 watercourse. For that reason, the development has met the standards of a Class 2 watercourse. • • Mr. Steve Lancaster February 4, 1998 page 3 I have attached a reduced development site plan showing the areas under discussion. This site plan shows the very large setbacks proposed to avoid the sensitive areas. I have also attached photos of the steep slope areas showing the vegetative cover to remain. I hope this letter and the attachments clearly show what is being proposed, and why a waiver should be granted. If you have any questions or require further information, please call (1644). Sincerely, RandfBerg cc: Deborah Ritter Phil Fraser Gary Schulz PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONCURRENCE BY: DATE: • • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works Ross A. Earnst P. E., Director February 3, 1998 Mr. Steve Lancaster Planning Director City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Environmental Permit Requirements on the Soils Reclamation Project Dear Mr. Lancaster: The Conditional Use Permit Application, Board of Architectural Approval Application and SEPA Checklist for the proposed City of Tukwila Soils Reclamation Facility have been completed and turned in to the City for processing. Three areas of environmental concern remain unresolved. These areas of concern are as follows: 1. Areas along the northern and southern property lines of the site shown on the sensitive areas overlay due to steep slopes. 2. The presence of a Type 2 watercourse on the northern property line of the site. 3. The presence of contaminated soil below the surface of the site. The project has tried to avoid disturbance of all three areas of concern. The steep slope portions of the subject site are located along the northern and southern property lines. The site slopes from the southwest towards the northeast. The steepest portion of the site is along the southern property line where the site borders Macadam Road. Macadam Road runs past the site at about an elevation of 75 feet. The site falls steeply to approximately an elevation of 43 feet. At the steepest, the site falls about 30 feet vertically in about 30 feet horizontally. There is evidence of 'unstable hillside in this area, and the area should be considered a Class 4 slope. - 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433-0179 • Fax (206) 431.3665 • • Mr. Steve Lancaster Feb. 3, 1998 page 2 This very steep portion of the site is the area of greatest concern. The development avoids disturbing this area. The project can not structurally address the unstable hillside. As a result, the project recognizes a risk of movement and has pulled the structuresaway from this area to avoid future damage if the hillside does move. The minimum setback to site improvements (paving) is 50 feet along this property line, and the minimum setback to a structure in this area is over 90 feet. The area of the hillside is heavily treed, and this landscaping is to remain undisturbed. Moving away from the steep slope area along Macadam Road at the southern end of the site, most of the remaining site is fairly flat, falling gently toward the northeast. However, the site gets steeper at the northern property line where the slope drops to 134th Place. This area has a maximum slope of about 20% and shows no signs of instability. This area is probably a Class 1, or possibly a Class 2 slope. This is also the area of the Class 2 watercourse which runs in a drainage swale within the 134th Place right of way. This watercourse may qualify as a Class 3 watercourse. To address the environmentally sensitive nature of this area the proposed development has again practiced avoidance. The development maintains a minimum construction setback of 35 feet along 134th Place. This is wide enough to encompass all of the steep slope area in this portion of the site. This also guarantees a 35 foot minimum setback from the watercourse which runs in a drainage swale along the 134th Place right of way. The project will require some trenching in this area for required utility connections. In addition, the proposal includes discharge of storm water into the Class 2 watercourse. The last area of concern is the presence of contaminated fill dirt below the surface of the site. This "dirty" dirt was first identified in the level one hazardous materials site survey conducted at the time the City purchased the property. This material, referred to in the study as "kiln dust," was apparently placed on the neighboring property to the northwest as fill. Some of this contaminated fill spilled over onto a portion of the subject site. The contaminated fill is found at about 4 feet below existing grade. The fill material is shown to have elevated pH levels and amounts of cadmium, arsenic and lead in reportable quantities. Ground water samples taken on site and in the vicinity showed a slightly raised pH. The samples also found that the other contaminates were stable, and not migrating. Therefore the proposed development has avoided disturbing this area, and has designed the storm water system, including the bio-swale and detention pond, to avoid infiltration of ground water into this area. The bio-swale and detention pond will have sealed bottoms. Mr. Steve Lancaster Feb. 3, 1998 page 3 Because of the steps taken to avoid disturbing the designated environmentally 'sensitive areas, it is hoped that the project will be granted a waiver from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requirements. I have talked to Gary Schulz about enhancing the vegetation along the class 2 watercourse, and he has indicated that no additional vegetation is required. The watercourse buffer on the subject site has adequate vegetation already. Please consider these environmental concerns and how they are being addressed in the proposed development. I consider the steps taken in the development to be sufficient to address these concerns. If the City will require additional mitigation of these items, please let me know so I can include the mitigations in the upcoming public hearing. Thank you for your time in considering these matters. Please let me know if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Randy Berg Project Manager cc: Phil Fraser Deborah Ritter Date: 26 -Jan -98 12:40:35 From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RI14OR) To: RANDY Copies -to: DEBORAH Subject: Soil Reclamation Facility Message -id: 4384CC3401000000 Application -name: MHS Importance: HIGH I quickly reviewed the items you supplied on Friday with the 3 applications. I know you are waiting on some items. But, just to be sure we're on the same page, here's a list of the things I think are missing: 1. Color and materials board 2. Building elevations 3. PMT's 4. Sensitive areas letter (stating you'll stay out of these areas) and requesting a waiver of studies. 5. Area map showing surrounding uses within 1000 foot radius 6. Notice Board (you should plan to install this the first week in February. Will post 2/9 or 2/10...) Please let me know the status of these items (when they'll arrive, etc.). Thanks. II I C1ITY OITUKWIILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 -va RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JAN 2 3 1998 PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USEONL Y Receipt Number..: File Number: OCoO l Cross-reference files: 9.8-61.29 Z; Applicantnotified of incomplete -application: Applicant notified. of complete: application: ate Notice of application. issued:. A. NAME OF PRQJECT/DEVEL9PMENT: Grf-( 'E 1 K vJ 11,poi L B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT:. (address and accessors parcel number(s)) ';i L01- +r- Z G 13 2D - ©©-41-s Quarter: E Section: 15' Township: 23. Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: u Li --1 Li--1o1- FNZ7 C.ol-4Po57 i �I�I ISA- RJALS - P �► L . D. APPLICANT: • • Control No. Epic File No. E Fee: Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: RECEIVED City of Tukwila Soil Reclamation Facility CITY OF TUKWILA 2. Name of applicant: JAN 2 3 1998 City of Tukwila PERMIT CENTER 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 433-0179; Randy Berg 4. Date checklist prepared: December 4, 1997 5. Agency requesting checklist City of Tukwila } 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction of Phase 1 is planned to begin in the Spring of 1998. Later Phases to begin as funds become available. 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. Level one hazardous material site assessment. Geotechnical and soils investigation and report. Page 1 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Conditional Use Permit, Board of Architectural Review Approval, Building and Construction Permits, Metro Sewer Discharge Permit. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposal is to construct a new vactor waste facility. The new facility will include two large open pole buildings (Bldg. A 13,500 sq. ft, and Bldg. B. 4,000 sq. ft.) for dumjping, storing, and decanting of street sweepings, ditch and catch basin tailings and organic wastes from parks department maintenance operations (leaves and clippings). Planned improvements also include a 400 sq. ft. office and restroom facility. Site improvements will include parking for 6 cars, and screening and perimeter landscaping and fencing. The proposed site is about 2.3 acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located in the City of Tukwila, at 4501 134th Place, -all lying within the NE 1/4 of Section 15, Township 23 Range 4, W.M., King County, Washington. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The site includes an area of steep slopes designated as environmentally sensitive. No development is planned on the steep portion of the site. Additionally, a water course designated as 15-1 has been identified and inventoried along the north property line. At the time of the inventory this stream was classified as a Type 3 stream. Although the water course runs in a drainage swale, it may have fish present and may therefore be a Type 2 stream. Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other The site is very steep along the southern property line, is mostly flat falling gradually to the north in the central portion of the site and getting steeper again at the northern edge of the property. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The maximum slope is approximately about 80%. 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. The site soils are a mixture of native materials and import.;;d fill. The native soil is a dense gravelly borrow material with sandy silts and silty clay. Imported soils vary, being mostly pit run material, but include contaminated kiln dust under a portion of the site. Site soil conditions are so varied that one must read the geotechnical information to get a clear picture of the subsurface conditions. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Yes, the steep slope portion of the site shows signs of movement in the past. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The project is designed as balanced cut and fill. f Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, due to the fact that the site slopes to the north erosion is possible where bare dirt is exposed to runoff. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 35% of the site will be covered with impervious surface. Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control will be employed during construction as required. Following construction, the site will be either impervious or vegetated. Runoff from all impervious surfaces will be channeled into a storm water system. 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. There will be dust and exhaust emissions during construction. When under operation some odor from composting materials is possible. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If ::o, generally describe. No. c.. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: . Water trucks will be used as standard dust suppression during construction. The City will monitor the occurances of composting odor and will control the amount of. - composting materials delivered to the site to minimize offsite odors. 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. The site is bordered on the north by a water course located in a drainage swale which has been classified as Type 3, but may actually qualify as a Type 2 stream. 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, some work will occur in the immediate vicinity of the drainage swale. Treated runoff may be directed into the water course, underground utilities may pass below the stream. Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. 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 will be gathered into catch basins, run through an oil water separator and bio -filtration swale and detention pond, then discharged into the drainage swale which has been designated at water course 15-1. Page 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: A storm water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is proposed. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants:. cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of ye. etation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Brush and grass will be removed to accommodate contruction of buildings and site improvements. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposal will not require removal of any on-site trees. Property restoration will include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs. Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds:. hawk, songbirds, migratory water fowl, other: Mammals: raccoons, squirrels, small rodents, other: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. No. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stcve, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity. 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 t� reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None beyond what is required by the Washington State Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Yes, the level one hazardous material site assessment discovered kiln ash fill material contaminated with heavy metals. This material is stable and contaminated Page 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST substances are not migrating. The proposed development avoids disturbance of this soil Operation of the facility will require some handling of hazardous wastes. When liquids and solids are pumped from strom drainage systems, some hazardous materials may be present. These hazardous materials will be tested for, and when found, will be disposed of at an approved hazardous material waste dump. Proper handling of these materials will require staff training and testing procedures. At no time are hazardous materials to be dumped at the proposed facility. It is important to point out that the vactor operation is not producing hazardous materials, but is rather specifically intended to remove pollutants from the local water system. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Avoid disturbance of contaminated fill, leave it sealed below the surface. Institute training and testing procedures to insure the proper handling of hazardous materials encountered in the handling of vacotr wastes. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Not applicable. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise generated by the construction equipment will occur on a short term basis. Similar noises of heavy machinery are likely during operation of the facility. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Restrict hours of construction and operation of the facility to comply with the City's noise ordinance. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently vacant. Surrounding uses are mostly industrial, with single family uses to the west. Page 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECt IST b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. c. Describe any structures on the site. None. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial/Light Industrial. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Commercial/ Light Industrial. g If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, a large area of the southern portion of the property is sensitive due to steep slopes. A smaller area along the northern propety line is also designated as sensitive due to steep slopes. The northern property line also adjoins a water course designated as Type 3, but which may qualify as a Type 2 stream. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Two or three employees will work part time at the facility when completed. 1• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: N/A 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None. 9. Housing Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? • None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum proposed building height is 32 feet. Primary exterior building material is 24 gauge standing seam metal "oof with factory finished color applied. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None. Page 10 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The facility will be accessed off South 134th Place using an existing driveway easement adjoining the site along the eastern property line. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will include 6 parking spaces. Page 11 • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • 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. The project may generate up to 20 trips per day but averages will be much lower since no trips per day will be generated on most days. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No increase is expected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. 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 from Seattle City Light. Water and sewer from the City of Tukwila. Telephone from US West. Page 12 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 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: /Z 98 D. 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 foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objectives of the proposal? The vactor waste will be gathered from catch basins, street sweepings, and drainage swales in the City of Tukwila and treated on the site, or taken to a hazardous material dump site. This will result in increased water quality in the City of Tukwila surface water and storm water systems. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? The treatment of vactor wastes are required by code, the City of Tukwila is not in compliance with this requirement. Alternatives are to remain out of compliance or share a facility with other cities or with King County. No other juristictions have been found to be interested in sharing a facility. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Remaining out of compliance is not an acceptable option. A shared facility has been investigated and no acceptable shared facility alternative has been found. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? No. 5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: None. Page 13 CITY OF TUKWILA Departme of Community Development 6300 SoutTicenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 9 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 188 ENVIRONMENTAL .REVIEW (SEPA u { tf ��r. rjyity To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100. .171 17c 8 copies of the completed and signed environmental checklist. You may use the City's pre-printed form or you may re -type the questions on your computer. If you choose to re -type the form into your computer, be sure to do so accurately. Mistakes or omissions will increase the review time. 8 sets of the full size plans needed to clearly describe the proposed action. One PMT set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". Four copies of supporting studies. NI7LOne copy of the checklist application. One set of mailing labels for all properties 500' from the subject property. (See address label worksheet.) ❑ $325 filing fee. The checklist contains several pages of questions which you are asked to answer. It covers a comprehensive set of topics. As a result, several of the questions may not apply to your project. If a particular question does not apply, simply write N/A undemeath. HOWEVER, be aware that many questions apply despite appearing not to. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering the questions to ensure the appropriate response is provided. It is important that accurate and clear information be provided. You may not know all of the answers. Answer each question to the best of your ability. If we find an answer to be insufficient, the City may contact you to ask for more information. Sometimes, after reviewing the checklist, the City will ask you provide additional studies or information. Commonly requested information includes traffic analysis, site topography, soils studies and tree surveys. �'"K� ''-:....m eivd•. ..Sa�t�. 'z�.,:.c_, :.:._.: .a __....... :........ ^%,r:i...�5..s ..,..".z.'; .,.. ..._«_..- :.-'rw,. 'u:S ..:.': �J.`. ',•.r:ifi. `v:u-a ..::..;':sic.a::::.,`t«c:7117:: :.d �t�*--' ril Vactor Waste Facility Project 4501 South 134th Street • Tukwila, Washington November 1997 'City of Tukwila Public. Works De artrnent 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 W-7987-01 RECEIVED CITY OF. TUKWILA • JAN 2.31998 PERMIT. CENTER SHANNON 6WILSON, GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 400 N. 34th St. • Suite 100 P.O. Box 300303 Seattle, Washington 981'03 206.632.8020 iV-0602. M.—re , p . �.Kir:7J7'.a • • SHANNON &WILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS November 26, 1997 City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 SEATTLE RICHLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE SAINT LOUIS BOSTON Attn: Mr. Randy Berg, Project Manager RE: VACTOR WASTE FACILITY PROJECT, 4501 SOUTH 134TH STREET, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON The following geotechnicalreport includes a summary of our field observations and engineering conclusions and recommendations for the proposed Vactor Waste Facility, which is located southwest of South 134th Street and northeast of Macadam Road (South 135th Street), Figures 1 and 2. Our scope of services included observing field explorations, completing laboratory testing of soil samples, and preparing this report addressing design recommendations for the proposed buildings and associated earthwork activities. The scope of work we completed and our understanding of the project were based on our October 24, 1997, proposal to the City of Tukwila (City) and subsequent telephone conversations with Mr. Randy Berg (City). SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Vactor Waste Facility project consists of the design of two separate structures. One structure is to consist of a 90- by 150 -foot decant shed and the other a 40- by 100 -foot compost shed. The structures are to consist of pole buildings with steel beams and columns. Both proposed building sites are relatively flat and are currently vacant. The proposed locations of the buildings are shown on Figure 2. The site is a 2.35 -acre, grass- and gravel -covered, undeveloped lot located in Tukwila, Washington. Adjacent land use is primarily commercial and industrial, with a dense 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 W-7987-01 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 2 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. residential area to the south. The Duwamish River is located approximately 1/2 mile to the northeast of the site. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., completed a Modified Level I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), the results of which were presented in a July 1996 report. As part of this work, five test pits (designated as TP -1 through TP -5) were excavated along the northwest margin of the property (Figure 2). The test pits indicated that the site is underlain by fill. Below the fill wereorganic-rich sediments or silty sands and sandy silts with a trace of cobbles and wood fragments. Locally, in the northern portion of the site, the fill contained an ash/kiln dust layer at the base. As indicated in the July 1996 report, the fill observed in the test pits along the northwest margin of the property apparently originated from the area of the proposed compost shed (Figure 2). Logs of the previous test pits are included in Appendix A. Additional information regarding the results and findings of the ESA can be found in the July 1996 report. FIELD EXPLORATIONS The field exploration program consisted of 11 test pits, designated as TP -101 through TP -111. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 3.5 to 12.5 feet below the existing ground surface using a backhoe supplied and operated by the City on November 10 and 17, 1997. Approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A geologist from our firm was present to observe the test pit excavations, assist in obtaining the samples, and prepare descriptive logs of the explorations. Soils were classified in the field in accordance with the key indicated on Figure 3. Representative samples from the test pits were retained in jars for further observation and laboratory testing. Logs of the 11 test pits are presented on Figures 4 through 14. The version of the test pit logs included in this report represents our interpretation of the contents of the field logs and the results of laboratory testing. W-7987-01 • City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 3 • SHANNON FIWILSON. INC. The explorations were jointly located in the field by a Shannon & Wilson, Inc. geologist and a representative from the City. The locations of the test pits, as shown on Figure 2, were based on pacing relative to existing physical features. The approximate ground surface elevation at the exploration locations, as presented on the exploration logs, were interpolated from a November 8, 1997, topographical map prepared by Richard Carothers Associates. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. When excavation of the test pits was complete, the pits were backfilled with the excavated soil and compacted by using the bucket .of the backhoe. After completing the field explorations, the soil samples were transported to our laboratory for further classification and moisture content determinations (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] Designation: D 2216). The moisture contents are shown on the enclosed test pit logs (Figures 4 through 14). SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions were inferred from materials encountered in the current and previous test pits completed at the site. In general, the. subsurface soils in the area southwest of the proposed buildings (test pits TP -1., TP -101, TP -104, TP -105, and TP -108) consisted of one to five feet of fill underlain by native, very dense, gravelly, silty sand and medium stiff to hard, sandy, clayey silt. The fill varied in material type and consistency/relative density. Detailed descriptions of the fill are noted on the test pit logs, Figures 4 through 14. Similar conditions exist along the northeast side of the proposed compost shed at test pits TP -102 and TP -103. Near the center of the proposed compost shed (test pits TP -109, TP -110, and TP -111), a trough of soft, sandy peat bounded above and below by one to two feet of soft to stiff, sandy, clayey silt underlie the fill material. Similar soils were noted in test pits TP -106, TP -107 and TP -2. Hard/dense native soils were not observed underlying the organic -rich material in several of these test pits. Furthermore, fill thickness generally increased towards S. 134th Street. W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 4 General • SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Our engineering analyses are based on subsurface conditions encountered previous field explorations, the results of laboratory testing, our experience ertn in the with simcement and projects, and information provided by the City ilar regarding the proposed Vactor Waste Facility. The proposed facility includes two separate structures. At this time, design loads for these structures are not known. Foundation Alternatives The previous and current field explorations indicate the presence of The fill is undocumented, varies considerably in thickness over the site,tll beneath she buildings. different materials (including organics), with variable consistency and consists of the fill is underlain by dense and hard native soils in most areas nd relative density. While encountered in all the test pits. Additionally,� � such soils were not shallow depths below the fill. Peat is a highpeat encountered in several test pits at Based on our experience, loadingr g material that is very compressible. .:hese two materials with pressures induced by shallow foundations and slab -on -grade floors may result in large total and result in poor performance of the structures. differential settlement and As a result, it is our opinion that the upper soils are not suitable their current state. Better performance would be obtained byusingto support the two buildings in system (such as driven piles) that bear in native soils, or by removing the compressible soils deep foundation support and replacing them with densely compacted structural fill. We under with the City that deep foundations are not stand from discussions economically feasible for this project. Improving the subsurface conditions by replacing the undocumented fill and economically unfeasible because of the depth of overexcavation is which may also to 6 feet or more. In addition, our environmental study (Jul 1996 estimated be of contaminants in the shallow subsurface soils, which could further report) indicated the presence rther increase the cost of W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 5 SHANNON bWILSON. INC. treatment and/or disposal. We considered improvement of the soil by dynamic compaction, however, it is our opinion that it would not be effective because of the presence of peat, cohesive soils and other deleterious materials that will settle with time from the building loads regardless of the compaction effort produced by dynamic compaction techniques. Based on discussions with the City, we understand that the buildings will be flexible and can tolerate some settlement. The City also indicated that they were willing to accept some risk of such settlement to reduce foundation costs. In our opinion, one method of risk reduction is to support the buildings on a rigid mat that can span over isolated pockets of loose/soft soils and preload the site with a load equal to or greater than the load that will be imposed by the mat foundation. We do not recommend using spread footings for design because of the concentrated loads that will result in large differential settlement between adjacent footings. The purpose of the preload is to consolidate the underlying soils during the preloading phase so that consolidation settlement will be nominal during and after construction. This does not imply that settlement will not occur because preloading will not reduce the long-term settlement caused by decomposition of organics and other deleterious materials. Therefore, the City will have to accept the risks associated with post -construction settlement. The full_ preload height should be placed within the proposed building limits and to 5 feet beyond the building limits. Based on our experience, it is our opinion that about two months will be required to maintain the preload fill at the site. However, the actual preload time should be based on field measurements, as discussed in the Settlement Monitoring section of this report. Prior to preloading, we recommend overexcavating the existing soils to at least 1 foot below the base of the proposed mat, compacting the subgrade, and then backfilling and compacting structural fill to the proposed subgrade elevation. The backfilling and compaction should be in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation section of this report. W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 6 Recommended Parameters for Mat Foundation Design i SHANNON 6WILSON. INC. The mat should be embedded at least 12 inches below the final exterior grade. The mat can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure equal to the preloading pressure, but not exceeding 750 pounds per square foot (psf). A vertical coefficient of subgrade reaction of 10 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for the static design of the mat foundation. For these conditions, we estimate total settlement of the mat foundation will be about 2 inches with differential settlement along the mat less than a ratio of 1:300. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the base of the mat and the underlying soils. We recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.35, which includes a factor of safety of 1.5. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation Site grading, as described. in this section, includes all excavations and fills necessary to bring the site to the proposed elevations, including fill to support building foundations and slabs. It is recommended that site grading and earthwork be performed during the drier, warmer months of the year. Based on our experience on similar sites, significant overages in cost and delays to the project can occur if the site grading is attempted during wetter times of the year. All trees and brush be cleared and roots and stumps be removed from building areas, parking areas and all areas to be graded. The organic materials that mantle part of the site should be removed, except in landscape areas. In areas to receive fill, the exposed soil surface should be compacted in-place to a dense and unyielding condition. The compacted surface should then be proof -rolled with a fully loaded, tandem -axle, 10 -yard dump truck or equivalent. Soft, loose, or yielding areas should be further compacted, removed and reconditioned, or replaced with compacted structural fill. Areas that will require excavation to achieve subgrade elevations should be proof -rolled, as described above, after the subgrade elevation is reached. Any areas that are disturbed due to the excavation operation should be reconditioned or replaced with structural fill [1996 Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specifications 9-03.14(1)] that is compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. W-7987-01 • .: City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 7 1 • SHANNON FIWILSON, INC. Because the on-site soils contain organics and other detritus materials, we recommend that import material be planned for all fills and backfills. All fill and backfill should be compacted to 95% of the ASTM Designation: D1557 maximum dry density. Site Drainage Roof downspouts should not be permitted to discharge into foundation bearing soil. Collected water should be directed away and downslope of the building or into the storm drain system. In addition, the exterior ground surface adjacent to the proposed buildings should be sloped to promote proper drainage and to direct surface runoff away from the buildings. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Settlement Monitoring We recommend that settlement plates be installed prior to placing the preload fill placement. The main purpose of the settlement plates is to monitor settlement and determine when the preload should be removed. A settlement plate typically consists of a 3 -foot -square, 1/4 -inch - thick steel plate with a 2 -inch -diameter riser pipe attached to its center. The steel plate is placed at the prepared ground surface prior to fill placement, with the riser extending upward. The elevation of the top of the plate can be determined by extending a survey rod down the riser pipe. At least two settlement plates should be installed in the building area. The contractor should take the necessary precautions to protect settlement plates from any disturbance or damage. The settlement plates should be read initially, daily during fill placement and then weekly. A geotechnical engineer should review the results to determine when the preload should be removed. We recommend the preload be left in place for a minimum of 2 months. W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 8 Dewatering • SHANNON FIWILSON. INC. During construction it will be necessary for the contractor to control seepage, rainwater and runoff with a system of drainage ditches and swales. The site should be graded to promote drainage at all time. Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be used to control surface soil movement and erosion, as appropriate. -Pavements We recommend that all access drives and parking areas be proof -rolled as described in the Site Grading and Subgrading Preparation Section of this report. All loose, soft and yielding spots identified by proof -rolling should be further compacted, removed and reconditioned, or replaced with compacted structural fill, as defined in the Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Design of pavements should be based on a CBR of 10 for flexible pavement and a modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci for rigid pavements. Wet Weather Earthwork Construction The on-site soils contain a significant percentage of silt and clay soils that make them particularly sensitive to moisture and are easily disturbed by construction equipment. These soils may degrade when subjected to construction equipment. Therefore any grading that utilizes the on-site soils should be accomplished in dry weather and may require spreading and drying to lower the soil moisture content into a range suitable for compaction. Construction traffic should be restricted to frequently used routes. The on-site soils will likely provide a suitable working surface in dry weather conditions; however, after continual repetitions by wheel loads the material can degrade rapidly, especially in the presence of water. Gravel working surfaces are recommended once the subgrade area for building and pavements are exposed. W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 9 Loose Test Pit Backfill SHANNON &WILSON, INC. Test pits excavated during this exploration program were loosely backfilled. Special care should be taken during construction to relocate those test pits that are within the building areas and overexcavate the upper 4 to 6 feet of these pits and recompact them in accordance with the recommendations in this report. DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS We recommend that we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to foundations and earthwork to determine whether they are consistent with the recommendations in this report. We recommend that monitoring, testing, and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by our explorations, to provide expedient recommendations should conditions be revealed during construction that differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Such activities would include observation of subgrade preparation for foundations, floor slabs, and pavements; observation of fill placement and compaction testing;, other geotechnical -related earthwork activities; and environmental activities associated with screening excavated soils. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The current scope of our services, which forms the basis of this report, did not include any additional environmental assessment or evaluation regarding the presence or absences of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater at the site. For information regarding environmental issues, including: (1) hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water or groundwater at the site, and (2) construction issues, please refer to the Modified Level I Environmental Site Assessment report prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. dated July 11, 1996. W-7987-01 • City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 10 LIMITATIONS • SHANNON 6WILSON. iWILSON. INC. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on site conditions as they presently exist, and further assume that the exploratory test pits (both current and previous) are representative of the subsurface conditions beneath the proposed facilities. If, before the start of work at the site, conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or adjacent to the site, the recommendations presented herein should be reviewed. If subsurface conditions during construction appear different from those noted in the explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples or completing test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. Therefore, some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Tukwila and other members of their design team for specific application to the design of the project at this site as it relates to the geotechnical aspects discussed herein. It should be made available to prospective contractors for information on factual data only, and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from the test pits and discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. ADDITIONAL STUDIES Additional geotechnical engineering studies may be necessary once a structural engineer is identified, additional design is completed, and design issues are identified. For example, the structural engineer may require meetings with us to better understand the issues and suggest other foundation support alternatives for us to analyze. A cost for these additional studies, if required, can be estimated as they arise. W-7987-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Randy Berg November 26, 1997 Page 11 • • SHANNON iWILSON. INC. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., has prepared Appendix B, "Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report," to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our report. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. William D. Nashem Geologist WDN: GRF: TMG/lkd Gregory R. Fischer, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Enclosures: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Soil Classification and Log Key Figures 4 through 14 - Logs of Test Pits TP -101 through TP -111 Appendix A - Logs of Test Pits TP -1 through TP -5 From July 1996 ESA Report Appendix B - Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report W7987-01.Lt2/W7987-Ikd/njg W-7987-01 0 1/4 1/2 1 Scale in Miles NOTE Map adapted from USGS 1:24,000 topographic map of Des Moines, WA quadrangle, dated 1949, revised 1995. N City of Tukwila Proposed Vactor Waste Facility Tukwila, Washington VICINITY MAP November 1997 W-7987-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Car s itants FIG. 1 • TP -1 / roes . mate .. • . TP -105 TP -104 Macadam Road (South 135th Street) • // / ITP -106 TP -103 TP -111 / ATP -10 TP -1081 TP -101 TP -110 / \ ..•••• /i \ \/ / / \ // Existing McLees \.// Building TP -3 TP -107 l TP -2 LEGEND Current Test Pit TP -101 f Designation and Approximate Location July 1996 Test Pit TP -1 Designation and Approximate Location 0 60 120 IH H H Scale in Feet NOTE Map adapted from Site Plan by Richard Carothers Associates. City of Tukwila Proposed Vactor Waste Facility Tukwila, Washington SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN November 1997 W-7987-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 2 Rev. 1 7-12-96 Shannon & Wilson, Inc. (S&W), uses a soil classification system modified from the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System. Elements of the USC and other definitions are provided on this and the following page. Soil descriptions are based on visual - manual procedures (ASTM D 2488-93) unless otherwise noted. S&W CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL CONSTITUENTS • MAJOR constituents compose more than 50 percent, by weight, of the soil. Major constituents are capitalized (SAND). • Minor constituents compose 12 to 50 percent of the soil and precede the major constituents (silty SAND). Minor constituents preceded by 'slightly' compose 5 to 12 percent of the soil (slightly silty SAND). • Trace constituents compose 0 to 5 percent of the soil (slightly silty SAND, trace of gravel). MOISTURE CONTENT DEFINITIONS Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp but no visible water Wet Visible free water, from below water table ABBREVIATIONS ATD Elev. ft HSA ID in lbs Mon. N NA OD OVA PID ppm PVC SS SPT USC WLI At Time of Drilling Elevation feet Hollow Stem Auger Inside Diameter inches pounds Monument cover Blows for last two 6 -inch increments Not Applicable or Not Available Outside Diameter Organic Vapor Analyzer Photoionization Detector parts per million Polyvinyl Chloride Split Spoon sampler Standard Penetration Test Unified Soil Classification Water Level Indicator GRAIN SIZE DEFINITIONS DESCRIPTION SIEVE SIZE FINES < #200 (0.08 Trim) SAND' • Fine • Medium •Coarse • #200 - #40 (0.4 mm) • #40 - #10 (2 mm) •#10-#4(5mm) GRAVEL' • Fine • Coarse • #4 - 3/4 inch • 3/4 - 3 inches COBBLES 3 =12 inches BOULDERS > 12 inches Unless otherwise noted, sand and gravel, when present, range from fine to coarse in grain size. RELATIVE DENSITY / CONSISTENCY COARSE-GRAINED SOILS : FINE-GRAINED/COHESIVE SOILS N, SPT, BLOWS/FT. RELATIVE DENSITY N, SPT, BLOWS/FT. RELATIVE CONSISTENCY 0 - 4 4 - 10 10 - 30 30 - 50 Over 50 Very loose Loose Medium dense Dense Very dense 2 2 <2 4 - 8 8 - 15 15 - 30 Over 30 Very Soft soft Medium stiff Stiff Very stiff Hard WELL AND OTHER SYMBOLS Cement/Concrete Bentonite Grout ElBentonite Seal ///�� Slough Silica Sand 2' I.D. PVC Screen (0.010 -inch Slot) Asphalt or PVC Cap f l Cobbles 4•.' 4'4 Fill Ash Bedrock Gravel City of Tukwila Proposed Vactor Waste Facility Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY November 1997 W-7987-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 3 Sheet 1 of 2 Key Rev. 1 7-12-96 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (From ASTM D 2488-93 & 2487-93). MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP/GRAPHIC SYMBOL® TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse -Grained Soils (more than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve) [Use Dual Symbols for 5 - 12% Fines (i.e. GP-GM)J +® Gravels (more than 50% of coarseMixtures, fraction retained on No. 4 sieve) Clean Gravels® (less than 5% fines) GW t7 n C o o O Well -Graded GravelsGravel-Sand , Mixtures, Little or No Fines Gp • s � Poorly Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Little or No Fines Gravels withO Fines (more than 12% fines) GM Silty Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Sift Mixtures GC . ` Clayey Gravels, Gravel -Sand -Clay Mixtures Sands (50% or more of coarse fraction passes the No. 4 sieve) Clean Sands® (less than 5% fines) SW - •. :. • • • 4 • • Well -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines sp •.. Poorly Graded Sand, Gravelly Sands, Little or No Fines Sands with'® Fines(more than 12% fines) SM • . / / Silty Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures SC Fine -Grained Soils (50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve) Sifts and Clays (liquid limit less than 50) Inorganic ML Inorganic Silts of Low to Medium Plasticity, Rock Flour, or Clayey Silts with Slight Plasticlty CL inorganic Clays of Low to Medium LeanGravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Organic OL = — – Organic Silts and Organic Silty Clays of Low Plasticity Sills and Clays (liquid limit 50 or more) InorganicInorganic CH // nic Clays PlasticInorgaity, Sandyof FatMedium Clay, GraveltoHighly Fat Clay MH Silts, Micaceous or Diatomaceous Fine Sands or Silly Soils, Elastic Silt Organic - OH /1/,;j /4j/ Organic Clays of Medium to High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT � , , " Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils with High Organic Content (See D 4427-92) NOTES 1. Dual symbols (symbols separated by a hyphen, i.e., SP -SM, slightly silty fine SAND) are used for soils with between 5% and 12% fines or when the liquid limit and plasticity index values plot in the CL -ML area of the plasticity chart. 2. Borderline symbols (symbols separated by a slash, i.e., CUML, silty CLAY/clayey SILT; GW/SW, sandy GRAVEUgravelly SAND) indicated that the soil may fall into one of two possible basic groups. City of Tukwila Proposed Vactor Waste Facility Tukwila, Washington SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND LOG KEY November 1997 W-7987-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants FIG. 3 Sheet 2 of 2 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants LOG OF TEST PIT TP -101 JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION Loose to medium dense, dark brown to gray, slightly sandy, silty, coarse GRAVEL; moist; numerous organics (Fill) GM. ® Stiff, gray -brown mottled, sandy, silty CLAY / clayey SILT; moist; CUML (FILL) ® Hard, gray, fine sandy, clayey SILT; moist; varved structure; ML. ® Hard, gray, fine sandy, clayey SILT; moist; ML. NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in the test pit. 2. Test pit backfilled. p 23.8 25.3 h a) E ca rn S-1 S-2 ti a a) 0 2 6 8 10 12 Sketch ofSouthwestPit Side 0 Surface Elevation: Approx. 44 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 10 12 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP -102 . PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 Medium dense, dark brown to gray, silty, cobbley, coarse GRAVEL ; moist; numerous organics (roots); (Fill) GM. 0 Medium dense, dark brown, sandy, silty GRAVEL; moist; (Fill) GM. 0 Medium dense, brown -gray, sandy SILT; moist; slightly mottled with trace of gravel and 8 to 12" diameter cobbles; ML NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in the test pit. 2. Test pit backfilled. 11.6 11.7 0. E 0) S-1 S-2 0 10 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side 2 Surface Elevation: Approx. 44 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 10 12 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants LOG OF TEST PIT TP -103 JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION a) E U) 0 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side Surface Elevation: Approx. 42 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 6 8 10 12 0 Loose to medium dense, dark brown to gray, silty, fine GRAVEL; moist; some organics; (Fill) GM. 0 Medium dense, dark brown, silty, medium to coarse sandy, coarse GRAVEL; moist; (Fill) GM. 0 Very stiff, brown -gray, clayey, sandy SILT; moist; occasional wood debris and wire (Fill) ML. ® Very stiff to hard, brown -gray, sandy, clayey SILT; moist; trace of cobbles and boulders; ML. O5 Soft to stiff, slightly clayey, sandy SILT; moist to wet; some organics; (Fill) ML. NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in the test pit. Test pit backfilled. 17.1 21.3 S-1 S-2 1 0 4 8 S-1 S-2 d .. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants LOG OF TEST PIT TP -104 JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION a N 0 0 Sketch ofSouthwestPit Side 2 Surface Elevation: Approx. 42 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 8 10 12 0 Soft to medium stiff, brown -gray, slightly clayey, sandy, coarse gravelly SILT; moist; numerous organics; (Fill) ML. 0 Dense to very dense, brown, gravelly, silty SAND; moist; trace of cobbles; (Fill) SM. NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in the test pit. Test pit backfilled. 15.1 S-1 0 10 S-1 . SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical end Environmental Consultants LOG OF TEST PIT TP -105 JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 Loose, dark brown, fine to medium sandy SILT; wet to moist; numerous organics; (Fill) ML. 0 Stiff to very stiff, brown -gray, slightly fine to medium sandy SILT; moist to wet; trace of cobbles, mottled; (Fill) ML. Medium stiff, brown, gravelly, clayey, sandy SILT; moist; trace of cobbles; (Fill) ML. ® Medium stiff, brown, sandy, clayey SILT; moist; trace of cobbles; ML. NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in the test pit. Test pit backfilled.. 21.1 18.4 S-1 S-2 Q. a) 0 10 12 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side Surface Elevation: Approx. 42 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 Surface Water - 10 12 • SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechrdcal and Environmental Consultants LOG OF TEST PIT TP -106 JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION I`1 Medium stiff, dark brown, sandy SILT; moist to wet; trace of gravel and numerous organics (roots); (Fill) ML. 0 Loose to medium dense, brown, silty, gravelly, SAND; moist; trace ofcobbles, plastic sheeting at 3.5 feet; wood debris at 4.0 feet and 5.0 feet; (Fill) SM. ® Stiff, dark brown, organic, sandy SILT; moist; (Fill ?) OL. ® Stiff, dark brown to black, organic, sandy SILT; strong decomposition odor; (Fill ?) OUPT. Soft to medium stiff, dark brown to bluish -gray, sandy, clayey, gravelly SILT; moist to wet; numerous organics, mottled; (Fill ?) ML. © Very dense, gray, gravelly, sandy SILT/silty SAND; moist; MUSM. NOTE 1. Test pit backfilled. 2. Seepage encountered at depths of 4.0 and 7.2 feet. 17.9 16.6 8.4 y m a E c0 S-1 S-2 S-3 0 10 12 Sketch ofSouthwestPit Side 0 Surface Elevation: Approx. 41 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 6 10 12 :_... _ �... • SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-10-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP -107 PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION Oi Soft, dark brown, fine to medium sandy, clayey SILT; moist; numerous organics; (Fill) ML. 0 Medium dense, brown, gravelly, sandy SILT/silty SAND; moist; trace of cobbles, occasional organics, some iron -oxide staining at 6 to 7 feet; (Fill) MUSM. ® Very stiff, brown to gray, sandy, clayey SILT; moist; some iron -oxide staining, mottled; (Fill) ML. ® Soft to medium stiff, gray, sandy, gravelly SILT; moist, with organics; (Fill) ML. O Soft, black, sandy PEAT; moist to wet; strong decomposition odor; PT. NOTES 1. Test pit backfilled. 2. Seepage encountered at depths of 7.2 feet and 11.8 feet. 19.4 26.6 S-1 S-2 n m 0 0 4 10 12 Sketch of Northwest Pit Side Surface Elevation: Approx. 32 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 6 8 10 12 Bottom of Test Pit at 12.5 Ft. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-17-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP -108 PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 Loose to medium dense, dark brown and gray, slightly sandy, silty, GRAVEL; moist; organics; (Fill) GM. 0 Very stiff, brown and gray, gravelly, sandy, clayey SILT; moist; mottled; (Fill) ML. 0 Very stiff to hard, brown, gravelly, sandy SILT; moist; trace of cobbles; (Fill) ML. ® Very dense, gray, gravelly, silty, SAND; moist; SM. 1, p J NOTES 1. No groundwater was encountered in test pit. 2. Test pit backfilled. 12.3 10.1 a) S-1 S-2 L s n a) t7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side 2 Surface Elevation: Approx. 43 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 8 10 12 • SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-17-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP -109 PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION a>c isa) • g 0 o 0 a a) 0 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side 2 Surface Elevation: Approx. 43 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 6 8 10 12 O Loose to medium dense, dark brown and gray, slightly sandy, silty GRAVEL; moist; occasional organics; (Fill) GM. O2 Stiff to very stiff, brown, gravelly, sandy SILT; moist; occasional organics; (Fill) ML. • Medium stiff, gray to bluish -green, slightly clayey, sandy SILT; moist; numerous organics; MUOL. ® Soft, dark brown to black, slightly fine sandy PEAT; moist; numerous wood debris; PT. 0 Medium stiff, brown to greenish- gray, clayey, sandy SILT; moist to wet; occasional organics; ML. ® Stiff to very stiff, Tight brown -yellow, sandy SILT; moist; mottled; iron -oxide staining; ML. Loose to medium dense, brown -gray, fine gravelly SAND; wet, trace of silt; SP. NOTES 1. Test pit backfilled. 2. Seepage encountered at 5.8 feet. 17.6 11.0 S-1 0 10 S-2 S-2 at 12 Feet 12 :Bottom of Test Pit =12.5 Feet SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechrdcal and Environmental Consultants JOB NO: W-7987-01 DATE: 11-17-97 LOCATION: See Site and Exploration Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP -110 PROJECT: City of Tukwila, Proposed Vactor Waste Facility SOIL DESCRIPTION Oi Loose to medium dense, dark brown to gray, slightly sandy, silty, fine GRAVEL; moist; occasional organics; (Fill) GM. 0 Medium stiff to stiff, dark gray -green, gravelly, clayey, sandy SILT; moist; rebar at 1.7 feet; (Fill) ML. 0 Medium stiff to stiff, dark gray to green, gravelly, clayey, sandy SILT; moist; ML ® Soft, dark brown to black, sandy PEAT; moist to wet; wood debris; PT. 0 Loose to medium dense, Tight brown to grayish green, fine gravelly, clayey, silty SAND; wet; SM. © Loose to medium dense, brown -gray, slightly clayey, silty, fine gravelly SAND; wet; SM. NOTE 1. Test pit backfilled. 2. Seepage encountered at 6.8 feet. a) Q. E a 0 0 10 12 Sketch ofSouthwestpit Side 2 Surface Elevation: Approx. 44 Ft. Horizontal Distance in Feet 4 6 8 10 12 4,v • 1/2P7 . CIt,J! of Tukwila Department of Public Works February 25, 1997 Nick Olivas Assistant Fire Chief Tukwila Fire Department 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, WA RE: Request for Waiver of Fire Department Development Requirements Chief Olivas: John W Rants, kr.:yor Ross A. Earnst, P, E., Director The City of Tukwila is preparing to develop a facility to collect and recycle vactor soils. The first phase in construction of the proposed facility will include erection of two prefabricated metal pole buildings. One of these buildings will be over 10,000 square feet, and so by code requires a sprinkler system. The other building is 4,000 square feet and by code requiems a fire alarm system. Both of these buildings will be open air structures supported by columns with no walls. Your Land Use Permit Routing Form dated January 28, 1998 mentioned the following four requirements related to this project 1. A hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structures. 2. An approved turn around is required. 3. Buildings over 10,000 square feet are required to be sprinkled. 4. Buildings under 10,000 square feet are required to have a fire alarm system. Our responses to each of these requirements are listed below. 1. The project will include installation a new hydrant on site. 'This hydrant will be within 150 of all structures and no more'than 300 feet from any part of any structure. 2. The project includes a turn around which meets, or will be altered to meet, fire department requirements. 3. Since all construction will be of non-combustible materials, we are requesting a waiver of the sprinkling system requirement for the large building. The building materials will be only steel and concrete. The materials stored and processed in this 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: (206) 433-0179 0 Fax: (206)431-366 ; • • facility will be saturated soils pumped from catch basins, gathered from street sweepings or from drainage swales. These soils will be drained and dried under the cover of the large pole building. Since no combustible materials are to be used in construction or stored within the proposed building, the requirement to install a fire suppression sprinkler system creates an unnecessary burden on the project budget. 4. Similarly, the smaller building will be a prefabricated metal pole building which is constructed entirely of non-combustible materials. The building will be used to store composting materials and soils. Since the building is open air, constructed on non- combustible materials and will be used to handle non-combustible materials we are requesting a waiver to the fire alarm requirement for this building.. If I can provide any further information relating to this project please let me know. We look forward to hearing from you regarding these matters. Thank you for your time in considering these items. cc:: Phil Fraser Deb Ritter SLor- DETENTION POND FOR ROOF RUNOFF 7,500 G.F. Agovor F1Z 'ro D Sin %4 V A i DETENTION POND FOR -' VEHICULAR USE AREA 3,250 C.f. BUFFER MUM "3.1134.410. TYPE WATFWCOURSE NIERCFPTOR' 5WAL('. .(C0 NEGTS • EMSTNG STORM DRAIN). • SOUTH 1357N.gjAE'^ EXISTING STORM DRAW (DISCHARGES TO WATERCOURSE) BIC/SWALE FOR VEHICULAR USE AREA - 240 L.F. I NOT FOR 1 CONSTRUCTION < PUBLIC 'WORKS DEPT. Solo Mo.. 4e F: Richard Carothers Asssoc rtes SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY STORM DRAINAGE PLAN 0 H L) am. wva Attachment 2: Vactor Facilities Operations Manual Table of Contents ■ Testing procedures including current Federal, State, and Local testing requirements and solid/liquid minimum standards along with a list of test labs that are available to conduct tests. ■ Biologic Treatment Procedures for Waste Materials. ■ Procedures for Vactor Materials handling, materials testing, and recordkeeping in an easy to administer format. ■ Other material as requested by the City. - 10 - 1. SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION Assist the City with engineering, inspections, survey, change orders and final approval of the' Vactor Facility. 2. OPERATIONS MANUAL AND TRAINING SESSIONS Provide a Vactor Facilities Operations Manual and twoCitysession for Vactor truck and waste facilities operators, supervisors, andother ne camera ready original and sixty copies of the manual will be provided. (See Attachment 2 for report contents.) 1ee_APINI-1 RP- • • • MACADAM W. 1 VV -S,),•74, sI -r caOkt b 5Lve... 3r -r5 A of r1lLAv SOIL_ REG -LA MA -110d F:AC- IL 1-1<r- 13.1,4ft \\ \ Y•••• DETENTION POND FOR ROOF RUNOFF 7,500 C.F. DETENTION POND FOR VEHICULAR USE AREA 3,250 G.F. • BUFFER rb.rn sglo'.a,.n TTPE 2 WATERCOURSE ti EXISTING STORM DRAIN (DISCHARGES TO WATERCOURSE) BIOSWALE FOR VEHICULAR USE AREA - 240 L.F. MI ERC(PT OR SWALE' (CONNECTS TO ., • EXISTING STORM DRAIN) • SOUTH T3 --"-- �__..... . _crosrc: usEET- _...._ _ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. !9r• —ENGINEERING—STREETS— WATER—SEVER—PARKS—BUILDING— no ■ �M Richard Carothers Associates SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY STORM DRAINAGE PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Oats rovisions I.-. _ J date Ivem A x /114..*Olr Ai:ES:AID Sall SOO 11.eS rt....Yr 4.0fr •i0 / f • / ,WAT MI 10 CD Of1AUN 1 V,LIS / / L------7-4—* . •11,1 *!. ttLAL.: 1,11L trin •-• ',el., "t $1,1;.! 1.• GG.C11K1( VA., Or. C2152c*11 ti21r, If. AT 10 SS .1,1 C{1.111 014 11•10.47 1.01.1 NOW 10 .1 .1 .1111 NO 0,111.1.41, SAlf11 rt,caltotrt.c. Tr. MT (d. 11.0,11i IOUS!! CAOU10 N•tflt 2I1.0/ AT .0' MO • •• . ' • . • . SETTLING VAULT sEcriori NTS 11113‘•110N COMM.. •111109•11E1G VACUL111812/104/1 MO MT.. 1 car 11.r....110.1romrenott •ttloseutrt v2222.2.11/.(1.1t • •10 It Ir.. LEGEND ▪ 2,2 I CAI. !WA O "Pr 2 .422.222 mut 3 102101 Val.14 Ulf 1. 10011. V1111 10 • IG..12. AISPOS. NOT FOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. —ENG,NEERING—STREETS— WATER —SEWER —PARKS—BUILDING- 41.• ••••••••—. ;;;;.•••••....7 .14 2.1 • 6. •• rra Richard Carothers Associates •••••••• 2.••••••••• ••-••• SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY SEWER AND WATER PLAN H I 1 L) Os NO .016 660 11,6*." To". So, Recloatos ,14, 5oTook rsTATT T Tose Groom 0... Towns, Haw lope Confe, o4rest Tres Oast Asosool SeAnwe wooer... "woos Co4fer Xrem Tree (Gaon Ao) ineenee Ceder Goexedoree 84. CoSor ArrOcs .601per0. or00.00 Kokos isoler ffeagrese00 tree Seam roe ftwe hoot.. Street Tree ScAlat Oak Osest. coccnee LOcossus Shole/Accont lees 0000e. •loeele0e, Tem Stsras moo. Pisa., .erproes Ss. Screen Ahto Stocks.. C.4stus 0:.:50qemee 0e.A. slras Coto.", fresorsts Decklur. S1.40 Sem i.e. Rose e,.,0-mScreen Moto. froserl Stotno frown 15,4... soot, 14011, 4,01 SoRtOS ON, WILT OE ARIC.ATCD I. VII SfSler, SE IJSCO. '40 .I.4.LI101. 011 51 tiSte11(0 Of LI.L0000 ann. I.HTS :Om Amu.° Sm. 4 2``,.0";,7 CasPor 2' to 15' rlos,St Sorer. Coosects 41 to 10' 1 MO 8 to 10 2' PIO 0' to 10' 2' 0.45 8' to .1. 5413 12 to IA' 1185 e. to IV 040 15' to 15 2 C4O 35 to 4 5 Col. 2 1/2' to 1' 5 Sok flOfltT6 100 As needed At. Neu. ArtItItC.OURSE 01411111 C.S1. 1.0405CAPOS 10 \RS/WO 84/8 CS GAM SOUTH 135TH STREET Ems's. reetUSAL .0000(0 . - ARE& TO IdtlAnt LOPSSUR8.10 , . . iRLAoR CO Ir/PLACI. . . t AST118 MC, • Y, • \ ' • • \ ,..› .•••-•• .41 H u NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. .eseenee• 00. CNC It .EC ,I11' —SEE1S—V/Af ER — SEV.ER —PARK S—BLIILD,NG- MCI Richard Carothers Aspc!otes SOIL RECLAMATION FACILITY LANDSCAPE / LIGHTING PLAN •-•.; scale 1.30 pats 11/41/447 11 11 407 bull o FROG/RE F, ELEVM io11 111111111111 1_1 11 L 'A' FUTURE ariGE BUIL04 (A-6' of -6Kt,IILA PUE LIo 1iORX Derr 'FR 00-17f AR ELEVATo1J SOIL LALAMA-noIJ EAGILI'1r-Y I.- A reo 4501 .Se• 134-A1 5-f f A441Ln0 NA 15175 gu1L471-1/ EL\/A-11io1.15 __ SIDE ELEVAT 4 C)IDE.E—EVPfrit-1- vee•= �•-a SIDE ELEVA-rrotl