Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E99-0004 - SKAGEN MARINE - BUILDING DEMOLITION / SHOP UPGRADESKAGEN MARINE DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDING & UPGRADE EXISTING SHOP 10625 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH E99-0004 CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: SEPA CHECKLIST TO DEMOLISH EXISTING ONE-STORY BUILDING; UPGRADE EXISTING SHOP. PROPONENT: SKAGEN MARINE LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 10625 EAST MARGINAL WY S PARCEL NO: 042304-9083 SEC/TWN/RNG: NW SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 23, RANGE 4 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E99-0004 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. *************************************************************************** This determination is final and signed this _0/1:1_ day of 200L). Steve Lancaster, Respo ficial City of Tukwila, (20643 -3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director June 16, 2000 David Kehle David Kehle Architect 12720 Gateway Drive Suite 116 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: SEPA Determination Skagen Marine Demolition File Number E99-0004 Dear David Kehle: This letter is to notify you that the SEPA determination for the Skagen Marine demolition, located at 10625 East Marginal Way has been approved as a (DNS) Determination of Non - Significance. A copy of the approval is enclosed. As part of the determination approval, please note that you will need to comply with the recommendations outlined by AGRA Earth and Environmental, Inc. in their report dated March 7, 2000, Page 2. Compliance with these recommendations is required as part of the determination approval. Also, please note that the riverbank must be vegetated with willow stakes. This recommendation is cross referenced in the biological assessment prepared by Adolfson Environmental Solutions, February 26, 2000, Page 2, item (d). All work must be completed above the ordinary high water mark to the top of the bank. A copy of each section is attached for your reference. If you have any further questions about the determination, please contact me at (206) 431-3673. Sincerely, Ol Set (°-)A-) • Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Encl. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I , 1, -g5 -1e- HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Name ! , ,3-, Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice L) A j `X-PE1(Z-l" Miil -(A) E Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt / -- Notice of Action Mailer's Signature: Planning Commission Agenda Pkt F Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this 'l(e dk day of JUA-Fin the year 20 00 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM Project Name ! , ,3-, S --(Z L) A j `X-PE1(Z-l" Miil -(A) E Project Number: / -- ()D01-1 Mailer's Signature: A / F P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM 1111 CHECKLISTENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAIL NGS ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT #11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) POLICE ( ) PLANNING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) CITY CLERK FIRE FINANCE BUILDING MAYOR ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( ) DUWAMISH INDLAN TRIBE ( }() SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WPS1DATA\CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ' OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING COUNTY AGENCIES ( K.C. DEPT OF PARKS HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 ' CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES N METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE CITY TUKWILA COMMENTS Address: 10625 EAST MARGINAL WY S Permit No: E99-0004 Type: P-SEPA Location: Parcel #: 042304-9083 Status: PENDING Applied: 02/23/1999 Issued: *************************************************************************** Permit Comments: 5.08.00 PW has no comments; no work below OHWM, applicant will vegetate the river bank w/willow stakes above high water mark to the top of the bank to mitigate further river bank erosion - refer to march 7, 2000 agra letter to DAVID WILLIAMS/NORTWESTERN TRUST.JJS 19a.v-Haezze2e-d • •+ City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: 3- 8-00 Plan Check/Permit Number: UM- Dooq ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter # 0 Response to Correction Letter # ❑ Revision # after Permit is Issued Project Name: 6k-a-9en / 1' a r'r e/ Project Address: 10U,25- (apt %t)t.rginat, WeLtil,41,1k" / Contact Person: [ 4� / Phone Number: C(v-'/S.3-ggg7 Summary of Revision: f f- r A l e z11 he rlou l 5 Fel). 15, gooO Ld 4-t-i) Gt attached, +tcLttt-' (dpi j Dl i l iow„ j I. e)io /d3 )02L Ab. rnerl4- b Ado iL'6Dn Amcc.. J. (4)o&imic:aL Rt ,514Imdi "ji. A4 . U.)/ V•ej 6 6taAl p --51•4064-tar& • REta oy,\NuA •pF • PERM\j CENSER Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: 0 Entered in Sierra on 06/29/99 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Le! david kehle March 7, 2000 City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Ms. Alexa Berlow Re: Skagen Marine L99-0009 Dear Alexa, Attached are revised documents from Adolfson & Assoc., AGRA letter supplement, survey (stamped) and a revised maintenance plan. These revised documents respond directly to your comments in your letter of February 15, 2000. Hopefully this will enable you to proceed with the approvals. If you have any questions, please call. David Kehle DK/mt Enclosure: 4 copies each: Adolfson Associates Analysis AGRA Survey Maintenance Plan cc: Diane Decker w/1 enclosure a\9737Vet3-7bIdg. 12720 GATEWAY DRIVE, SUITE 116 SEATTLE, WA 98168 (206) 433-8997 FAX (206) 246-8369 email: dkehle@seanet.com 03/07/00 17:09 FAX • AG RA ENGINEERING GLOBALSOLUTIONs March 7, 2000 9 -91M -08219-D • Northwestern Trust 1201 Third Avenue, 20th Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Subject; Mr. David Williams Geotechnical Considerations Former Skagen Marine Facility Seattle, Washington Dear Mr. Williams: R1002 AGRA Earth & Environmental, inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 1Q0 Kirkland, Washington USA 980344918 Tel (425) 820.4889 Fax (425) 821-3914 AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AGRA) is pleased to submit this letter for the above -referenced project, which addresses environmental concems by the City of Tukwila outlined in letters dated August 5, 1999 and February 15, 2000 from Ms. Alexa Berlow. AGRA previously completed a geotechnical evaluation of the project site and submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report (8- 91 M -08219-C) dated February 26, 1999. As outlined in our proposal letter dated September 10, 1999, our scope of work consisted of a meeting with the City of Tukwila and preparation of this letter. We received written authorization for our work from David Kehle Architect on September 23, 1999. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Northwestern Trust, David Kehle Architect and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Previous development plans included remodeling the main Skagen Marine building which is in disrepair and has experienced significant differential settlements, demolishing the small adjacent wooden structure, and constructing a rock revetment along the shoreline of the•Duwamish River to prevent further shoreline degradation and improve existing slope stability. Current development plans include demolishing the main Skagen building and adjacent wooden structure, remodeling the existing Butter building and not improving the stability of the existing slope using a rock revetment due to prohibitive costs. The area of the main Skagen building will be asphalt paved and used as a storage area. We understand that to mitigate further river bank erosion that the bank will be vegetated with willow stakes above the high water mark to the top of the bank. S:IWOROPROC1g9 P,gpwlSeoll!e$000a1G0219 Ncnhwaatarn TnrarFvrmer Skagen Marine Faci Iy,wpd 03/07/00 17:09 FAX 0003 • • Northwestern Trust March 7, 2000 9-91 M -08219-D Page 2 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ON RIVER BANK Based on our discussions with the City of Tukwila, we understand that in accordance with the Flood Zone Control Permit it is necessary to provide a river stabilization analysis to show how/if the building demolition will impact the river bank. In our opinion, this analysis is not necessary since the proposed development will not involve construction of any new structures on or near the river bank. Furthermore, we do not anticipate that demolition of the existing building will affect the existing river bank provided appropriate demolition/construction practices are utilized. These practices would include items such as adequate temporary erosion control systems in construction areas, dust control maintenance during demolition, and minimizing construction equipment traffic near the top of the river bank during demolition. All construction activity should be stopped and the City of Tukwila notified if river bank destabilization occurs. SLOPE MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS As the river bank has been subjected to and continues to experience erosion from river flow which has reduced slope stability over time, we recommend the condition of the slope be monitored. We recommend the owner examine the slope at a minimum on an annual basis for indications of reduced stability such as (1) exposed soil on the river bank; or (2) significant loss of ground; or (3) tension cracks developing on the slope or on upland portions of the site. If these conditions are apparent, we recommend AGRA be contacted immediately to observe slope conditions so that appropriate slope stabilization measures can be developed and implemented. CLOSURE We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. if you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely; .mes S. Oran Principal JSD!SAS/jdp Distribution: The Northwestern Trust (2) David Kehle Architect (1) Stephen A. Siebert, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Attn: Mr. David Williams Attn: Mr. David Kehle 5 ‘WORDPROC\SS Prefect, SenweNGeCag105219 Norsnweelern Tn;!HForrner Skagen Mame FecJity.wpa AGRA E rtraNBBAING GLOBALSCLUTIOPA ErwironmentaZ So(i ons 29 February 2000 David Kehle, Architect 12720 Gateway Drive Suite 116 Seattle, WA 98168 SUBJECT: SKAGEN MARINE BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS Dear Dave, Adolfson is pleased to provide the following revised biological analysis in response to the comment letter addressed to you by the City of Tukwila of 15 February 2000. As before, we are providing our Biological Analysis in the form of a SEPA checklist. Note that the City asked that peregrine falcon be added to the list of endangered species; however, peregrine falcon were recently de -listed completely (from their prior status as threatened), so that change is not reflected in the revised checklist. Also, note that the City has asked that all references to the use of non-native vegetation be removed from the checklist and that only native vegetation be used. It is our understanding that the area between the river and the current building would be replanted with native species, but omamentals would be used as foundation plantings elsewhere on the site. To comply with the City's request, we have removed all references to non-native vegetation, but if you still wish to use omamentals as part of the landscaping plan, perhaps you should discuss that with City staff. Lastly, the City's letter requests that the word "weeds" be replaced in a section #2; however, we prepared responses only under sections 4 and 5, and are unsure how to respond to this item. Note, however, that the word "weeds" does not appear anywhere in the following text. 4. Plants a. Types of vegetation found on site: Deciduous trees: Black cottonwood, European white birch, omamental cherry Evergreen trees: None observed Shrubs: Rubus discolor (Himalayan blackberry) ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 7( 206 789 9658 lax- 206 789 9684 adoyson®adoyson.em Grass: Phalaris arundinacea'(reed canarygrass) Pasture: None present in the project vicinity Wet Soil Plants: None present in the project vicinity Water Plants: None present in the project vicinity b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Himalayan blackberry (a non-native, invasive species) is the primary vegetation to be removed or altered during the demolition project. c. List threatened or endangered species or critical habitat known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species occur on or near the site. A field reconnaissance of the demolition area confirmed that habitat for threatened or endangered plants are not present. The demolition site is located in an area covered by blacktop. d. Describe proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site. The site will be planted with native vegetation following demolition. Native plantings (for example, western red cedar, willows, salmonberry, dogwood, and Nootka rose) will be installed. 2 5. Animals a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other (e.g., bass and other species that are not actively managed are likely to occasionally occur near the site) Amphibians: frogs, salamanders, other Reptiles: lizards, snakes, turtles, other Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbirds, ducks, other Mammals:. deer, bear, elk, beaver, other (rats, mice, raccoons, muskrat, river otter, sea lion) List any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat near the site. No threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species were observed, or are likely to occur, on the Skagen Marine site. Three fish and one avian species provided protection under the Endangered. Species Act (ESA) are present in the Duwamish River Basin: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon (0. kisutch), and Puget Sound/Coastal bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Bald Eagle The occurrence of bald eagles in Puget Sound and the Tukwila area has been • documented since pre -settlement times (Stalmaster, 1987). Eagle populations have decreased within the region because of hunting and the widespread use of DDT, but. their numbers have been increasing since the early 1970's. They are currently listed as a threatened species, but are under consideration for de -listing. There are no bald eagle nests or known foraging areas within one mile of the Skagen Marine site (WDFW, 1999). The site has no trees consideredsuitable for perching or roosting. A transientbald eagle may occur within the vicinity during demolition, but - eagle use in the'project area is unlikely due to the high level of ambient industrial - based noise. Fish Species The Duwamish River flows immediately adjacent to the project site, and is used as a migration route by several stocks of chinook and coho salmon (WDFW, 1994) as well as by lamprey. Chinook and coho salmon entering the Duwamish River are listed as threatened and candidate species, respectively, under the Endangered Species Act. 3 . Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) chinook salmon are known to spawn in the Duwamish River from mid-September through October, though there. " are no known spawning grounds in the vicinity of the Skagen Marine site (WDFW, 1994). There is no critical habitat designated for Puget Sound ESU chinook salmon. Critical habitat is currently proposed by NMFS, though not yet granted specific protection. Proposed critical habitat includes all marine, estuarine and river reaches accessible to chinook salmon in Puget Sound (NMFS, 1999), including the Duwamish River.. Chinook salmon are not expected to be affected by this project Coho Salmon Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon typically enter freshwater from mid- September to mid-November, and spawn from late October to mid-January. No Critical Habitat has been proposed for Puget Sound/Straight of Georgia ESU coho salmon. Coho salmon are not expected to be impacted by this project. Bull Trout Information on the bull trout in the Duwamish/Green River basin is unavailable or extremely limited. There is no information on timing or distribution of spawning, if any. WDFW (1998) cites one source (Mongillo, 1993, cited in WDFW, 1998) as finding bull trout "Present' in the Green River. The USFWS has not established or identified critical habitat for coastal bull trout. Bull trout are not expected to be impacted by this demolition. References: NMFS. 1999. United States Department of the Interior, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region Habitat Conservation Division, Northwest Region Species List. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/1habcon/habweb/listnwr.htm. Updated 8/16/99. Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books. New York. 227 pages. WDFW. 1999. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species Database. Olympia, Washington. September 21, 1999. WDFW. 1998. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Salmonid Stock Inventory: Bull Trout/Dolly Varden. 437 pp. 4 • WDFW. 1994. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix 1: Puget. Sound Stocks, South Puget Sound Volume. Olympia, Washington. 371 pp.. Is the site part of a migratory route?. If so, explain. As noted above, the Duwamish River is a migratory route for several salmonids species as well as for lamprey. . The site is also located within the Pacific Flyway, one of the four principal north -south migration routes for birds in North America. The Pacific F!yway-.enccmpasses:the. entire Puget Sound basin. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. The project is not anticipated to impact wildlife. Site property adjacent to the Duwamish River will beplanted with willow species to enhance bank stability and limit siltation. The demolition will remove three existing structures including slabs and foundations. The area between the Top -Of -Bank and buildings to be removed is presently asphalt in poor condition. This asphalt will be removed and replaced, and graded to drain away from the Duwamish River. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these revisions. Please call me if there are any further questions. Sincerely, ADOLF ON ASSOCIATES, INC. / //, z Andrew . Castelle Vice President 5 FIR n • Lo d kehle • A Rev. 2/21/OO Per City PROJECT: SKAGEN MARINE The following shall be the proposed maintenance requirements for landscaping and river bank: LANDSCAPE: Contractors Warranty: The contractor shall be responsible for the health of all newly installed 0 plants for two growing seasons and is defined as occurring from spring to spring. For fall installation, the growing season will begin the following spring. Contractor shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Architect, unless the failure of the plant materials is due to negligence of the Owner, or unless the failure is due to vandalism, severely cold winter weather, or other extreme natural phenomena or animal damage. Replacement plants shall be the same as the size and type as those originally installed unless otherwise directed by the Landscape Architect. Procurement and installation of replacement plants shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Replacement plants shall be inspected as described above for the original installation, and shall be warranted for 60 days following installation. Plants that have settled in their planting pits too deep, too shallow, loose, or crooked shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Architect. AMaintenance: Contractor shall maintain the plantings for a period of two growing seasons following installation. Maintenance Plan: 1. Irrigate all plant materials with approximately 1" of water per week from May through September of the first two seasons following installation to ensure survival and plant health. Naturally occurring precipitation may substitute for irrigation water application per weather conditions. 2. Remove weeds and grasses within the driplines of trees and shrubs maintaining a mulch ring at the base of each. Weed removal to be performed twice per year. A3 Replace all dead, dying or diseased plant materials during the first two years after installation. 4. Remove all litter, refuse, and non-native vegetation, e.g. Himalayan Blackberry, Reed Canary Grass, Evergreen Blackberry, Scots Broom, English Ivy, Morning Glory, Japanese Knotweed, etc. RIVER BANK: Slope Monitoring Recommendations As the river bank has been subjected to and continues to experience erosion from river flow, which has reduced slope stability over time, we recommend the condition of the slope be monitored. We recommend the Owner examine the slope at a minimum on an annual basis for indications of reduced stability such as 1) exposed soil on the river bank; or 2) significant loss of ground; or 3) tension cracks developing on the slope or on upland portions of the site. If these conditions are apparent, we recommend AGRA be contacted immediately to observe slope conditions so that appropriate slope stabilization measures can be developed and implemented. 12720 GATEWAY DRIVE, SUITE 116 SEATTLE, WA 98168 (206) 433-8997 FAX (206) 246-8369 email: dkehle@seanet.com • Ciiy of Tukwila Steven M. -Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 15, 2000 David Kehle David Kehle Architect 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 116 Seattle, WA 98168 Re: Skagen Marine Shoreline Substantial Development (File # L99-0009) Dear David Kehle: Your revisions have been reviewed and comments have been provided. They pertain to the new geotechnical report, biological analysis, and a maintenance schedule. Please review these comments and make corrections accordingly. Return edited copies to me as soon as possible. Comments pertain to each document submitted. They are as follows: Biological Assessment, prepared by Adolfson's Associates 1. In section # 2, "weeds" shall be replaced by"invasive/non-invasive vegetation". • 2. In section # 4 — Plants, item (a); change Shrubs to Robus discolor, and change Grass to Phalaris arundinacea. 3. Correct Item #4 (d) to native plants only, in all instances. 4. In section # 5 — Animals, please check that bass fish are still present, and under Mammals, add river otter and sea lion. 5. Also in section # 5, add Peregrine Falcon to the list of endangered species; Correct the status of the Bald Eagle as "threatened", rather than endangered. 6. In section # 5 (b) please note that the Duwamish River is also a migrating route for salmon and lamprey. The migratory route is calculated at 1.5 miles from the site.. 7. The surveyor's stamp and signature is necessary on sheet TI -4 of the survey. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 L99-0009 Geotechnical Considerations, prepared by AGRA Skagen Marine Comments to Revision # 2 Page 2 1. On page 1 of 2, under Project Description, several items are listed in the first paragraph as having been part of previous development plans. Please indicate if these projects will be completed in this current proposal. Specifically, do you intend to construct a rock revetment along the shoreline? 2. On page 2 of 2, under Construction Impacts on RiverBank, please add language to indicate that construction activity will be stopped and the City of Tukwila notified if bank destabilization occurs. Maintenance Plan, prepared by Skagen Marine 1. The maintenance time between the contract and the contractor shall be corrected. Both must be for two (2) growing seasons. Currently, there is inconsistency among items # 3 and # 4 in the proposed plan. The remainder of your application and associated permits will be processed concurrently. If you have any questions about the above corrections, I can be reached at (2060 431-3673. Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works fI1eJea, F,EOM : dokm\ - e. Febof culled": Ska.�P,,,. /YI,�,Ec�e. 0 4 2000 le -/16( a):,r,d lieh le 7344-44_ 1-/ b f3) N MFS - Na.& o H J Mph e c orreel aav ,7-, ('t -o NIL/HP.) 22 Rvposed mcrda,navrce. c are4'' /i ,lsc tr e2Gi PnU c ,-i n4,t-2 ,td r i ' C ra boA- Ma),.444.c2r4c0 k r 62)--h-Jo__L-)/tYy, Q Zs v . sho-eta-c. INvA-Sl tie Aviv N4-770 V77'oN Rai-tot/4-4_11 - /U07 eA)EE( 3 Rip ce c � - .l� u,e/IX T /0 F/,e.sr Ivo -&-.4-2s Amo No -r gou4)N6., rhes YEhe 4 3K,AZ1- / ND/ .4-rr Fog- 7Z.Jo rE s 3) Ce ecG,,z;'st,s dakd/of /LIj i?99 - e-aas g4/- 5-1-y � ck 6z- ,&-• fe�l7i 2evZt ).S12ct .0 Atail324-t-visse,. Evi-er ski 4. vv 60,2 0702 stia _ 0� Gl,[�✓� C�'i�c 5 G� �� acAtii h 2,22 S lop c, 44,0-41,,d 41) Moi pot/Pt/is Assoc. 73A- S 11. e be ,ca' -dee, *5 6 - m,' r route psi- s,V.8.,/ 1.5 V1/14le mQc�c'u `L` s, _ s v ey Drs 5i -g:277 914 Signature: Title: Date: v 26300 PROJECT: SKAGEN MARINE The following shall be the proposed maintenance requirements for landscaping and river bank: LANDSCAPE: Contractors Warranty: The contractor shall be responsible for the health of all newly installed plants for growing season is defined as occurring from spring to spring. For fall installation, the growing season will begin the following spring. Contractor shall replace any plants that are failing, weak, defective in manner of growth, or dead during this growing season, as directed by the Landscape Architect, unless the failure of the plant materials is due to negligence of the Owner, or unless the failure is due to vandalism, severely cold winter weather, or other extreme natural phenomena or animal damage. Replacement plants shall be the same as the size and type as those originally installed unless otherwise directed by the Landscape Architect.' Procurement and installation of replacement plants shall be the responsibility of the contractor. Replacement plants shall be inspected as described above for the original installation, and shall be warranted for 60 days following installation. Plants that have settled in their planting pits too deep, too shallow, loose, or crooked, shall be replanted as directed by the Landscape Architect. Maintenance: Contractor shall maintain the plantings for a period of installation. Maintenance Plan: 1. Irrigate all plant mate 'al ith approximately 1" of water per week from May through September of the first seasons following installation to ensure survival and plant health. Naturally occurring precipitation may substitute for irrigation water application per weather conditions. i/OAKWW1 , i ,1*.rsV. Vetoo7a.1-,w.� 2. Remove weeds and grass within the driplines of trees and shrubs maintaining a mulch ring at the base of each. removal to be performed twice per year. � 3. Replace all dead, dying or diseased plant materials during the first ea6after installation. 4. Remove all litter, refuse, and non-native vegetation, e.g. Himalayan Blackberry, Reed Canary Grass, Evergreen Blackberry, Scots Broom, English Ivy, Morning Glory, Japanese Knotweed, rowing season" following `5 etc. -- RIVER BANK: Slope Monitoring Recommendations As the river bank has been subjected to and continues to experience erosion from river flow, which has reduced slope stability overiime, we recommend the condition of the slope be monitored. We recommend the Owner examine the slope at a minimum on an annual basis for indications of reduced stability such as 1) exposed soil on the river bank; or 2) significant loss of ground; or 3) tension cracks developing on the slope or on upland portions of the site. If these conditions are apparent, we recommend AGRA be contacted immediately to observe slope conditions so thatRECEIVED appropriate slope stabilization measures can be developed and implemented. CITY OFTUKWILA L 99- 0009 JAN 1 8 2000 PERMIT CENTER aJld Kahle December 21, 1999 Page 2 4. Plants "a. Types of vegetation found on site: . Deciduous trees: Black cottonwood, European white birch, omamental cherry Evergreen trees: None observed ciiSco Shrubs: Rubus—el o,{Himalayan blackberry) Grass: Phalaris n inasea-(Reed canary grass) . <0 vut i hweea. Pasture: None -present in the project vicinity Wet Soil Plants: None present in the project vicinity Water Plants: None present in the projectvicinity • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Himalayan blackberry (a non-native, invasive species) is the primary vegetation to be removed or altered during the demolition project. c. List threatened or endangered speciesor critical habitat known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species occur on or near the site. 'A field • reconnaissance of the demolition area confirmed that habitat for threatened or endangered plants are not present. The demolition site is located in an area covered by blacktop. . d. Describe proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on site. m _ � n,.►r✓e The site will be planted with native and etation following demolition. Native plantings (westem red cedar, willows, salmonberry, dogwood, Nootka rose) will occur from the Duwamish River ordinary high water mark to the vicinity of the existing building. ' — Nor 1 ✓cr wi _.. anthus, ravid Kehle December 21, 1999 Page 3 . • 5. Animals a. Underline y birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are kn n to be on or near the site: Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other Amphibians: frogs, salamanders, other Reptiles: lizards, snakes, turtles, other Birds: hawks, heron, eagle, songbirds, ducks, other a6rTh+ti-- Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other (rats, mice, raccoons, muskrat) sd,,, ;,.,., List any threatened or endangered species or critical habitat near the site. No threatened or endangered terrestrial wildlife species were observed, or are likely to occur, on the Skagen Marine site. Three fish, and one avian, species provided protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are present in the Duwamish River Basin: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU coho salmon (0. kisutch), and Puget Sound/Coastal bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Bald Eagle lam»^9Q`. The occurrence of bald eagles in Puget Sound and the Tukwila area has been documented since, pre -settlement times (Stalmaster, 1987). Eagle populations have decreased within the region because of hunting and the widespread use of DDT, but their numbers have been increasing since the early 1970's, and the species is currently underconsideration for de -listing. There are no bald eagle nests or known foraging areas within one mile of the Skagen Marine site (WDFW, 1999): The site has no trees considered suitable for perching or roosting. A transient bald eagle may occur within the vicinity during demolition, but eagle use in the project area is unlikely due to the high level of ambient industrial - based noise. Fish Species The Duwamish River flows immediately adjacent to the project site, and is used as a migration route by several stocks of chinook and coho salmon (WDFW, 1994). Chinook and coho salmon entering the Duwamish River are listed as Threatened and Candidate species, respectively, under the Endangered Species Act. Chinook Salmon Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) chinook salmon are known to David Kehle December 21, 1999 Page 5 WDFW. 1994. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. -Appendix 1: Puget Sound Stocks, South Puget Sound Volume. Olympia, Washington. 371 pp. b. Is the site part of a migratory route? If so, explain. The site is located within the Pacific Flyway, one of the four principal north -south migration routes for birds in North America. The Pacific Flyway encompasses the entire Puget Sound basin. • 4 Rtrlo-- s 44_4o 4-.,L44 t ww•jw4,) ncvr'6i Proposed measures to preserve or enhancewildlife, if any. . The project is not anticipated to impact wildlife. Site property adjacent to the Duwamish River will be planted with willow species to enhance bank stability and limit siltation. The demolition will remove three existing structures including slabs and foundations. The area between the Top -Of -Bank andbuildings to be removed is presently asphalt in poor condition. This asphalt will be removed and replaced, and graded to drain away from the Duwamish River. 1/ You also requested comments and suggestions on the landscape plan. Adolfson botanists suggest that, as the landscape plans call for willow plantings above the ordinary high water mark for bank stabilization and erosion control, the use of willows for this purpose is more cost effective if cuttings are planted, rather than the designed rooted plants. Standard practice in using willow for bank stabilization is to use "stakes" (also referred to as "cuttings") rather than rooted plants, spaced 12 inches apart triangularly. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this biological analysis. Please call me if I can clarify any point Sincerely, ADOLFSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian S. Bigler Senior Fisheries Biologist k., kehled January 6, 2000 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Ms. Brenda Holt Re: Correction Letter #1 D99-0324 Skagen Marine - Demo Dear Brenda, This resubmittal is in response to your correction letter #1, dated September 22, 1999. It has taken some time to gather the additional studies and documents and trying to get specific answers from staff on their requests. However, the following are responses to the various department comments: A) (Alexa's letter September 15t) The 10' x 10' patio previously shown has been eliminated entirely from the Shoreline Action, (also from the TI permit, which was separated from the Shoreline Action). B) (Alexa letter August 5th) 1. An updated Phase II Environmental Site Assessment by AGRA, dated October 20, 1999, Report #9-91 M -08219-D, has been completed. AGRA did soil explorations beneath the existing slab and found the site to be below ecology standards and "no further action is warranted". (4 copies enclosed). 2. A biological analysis regarding impacts of demolition was prepared by Adolfson Associates, Inc. dated December 21, 1999. This is formatted as a SEPA Checklist supplement. Per Adolfson, since no federal permit is required (no work below water line), therefore a full biological assessment going to NYMF's would not be required. • This biological anal sis does address any environmental concerns o demolition and planting. (4 copies enc ose . As recommended by Adolfson's biologist/botanists, willow plantings have been changed to cuttings/stakes spaced 12" apart, triangularly spaced (noted on landscape plan. 12720 GATEWAY DRIVE, SUITE 116 SEATTLE, WA 98168 (206) 433-8997 FAX (206) 246-8369 email: dkehle@seanet.com Ms. Brenda Holt City of Tukwila Re: Skagen Marine January 6, 2000 Page 2 3. The survey (our site survey) has been updated to NGV datum with appropriate benchmarks. The survey ties into the street improvements, which were under city contract with Entranco. The city must request any changes to the Entranco survey. (4 copies attached). 4. Site cross-sections have been drawn at 50' intervals through the site. In addition, AGRA prepared a geotechnical considerations dated October 14, 1999, 91M -08219-D, which analyzed the geotechnical stabilizing of the bank in reference to the demolition. (4 copies are attached). 5. A maintenance plan for slope monitoring is within the AGRA Geotechnical report and I have attached the landscape monitoring plan. (4 copies attached). Brenda, I believe these additional reports and revised drawings reflect the concerns as outlined in Alexa's letters. If there are any other concerns or comments, please forward ASAP. DK/mt Enclosure: AGRA Geotech. Report (4), AGRA Level II (4), Adolfson Biological Assessment (4), Survey (4), Cross-sections (4), Demo -1 (4), Landscape Plan (4) cc: Diane Decker (2 copies) a:\9737\letl-6bldg. 1 0 City of Tukwila MAR 1999 File Number E Department of Community Development LK e �7�3LiC tiV�RKS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: ❑ Building 4, Planning [ Public Works ❑ Police Parks/Rec Gk /k G Project Name: A 1 r' l -€ Address: LLCO Z Date Transmitted: Staff Coordinator: , LOAAJ . Date Response Received: Instructions Response Due by: The attached environmental checklist was received for this project. Please review and provide the following information: a) Potential environmental impacts, b) how each should be mitigated (i.e. SEPA condition, ordinance requirement, permit requirement etc.), c) recommended specific language as to how the mitigation measure should read, d) the policy basis for the recommended mitigation (i.e. adopted policy), e) the nexus between the recommended mitigation and the impact, and f) corrections to the checklist and supporting documentation. THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT IN PROVIDING TIMELY AND ACCURATE SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC. Attach additional sheets if necessary. If you find the submittal incomplete and would like to request additional information, please inform the staff planner within five working days! PRIOR. 1D DEMOS IT1 oN APP COW' 5KALL GtrN Dw.T 5APMPl,i N6► Ai‘l b TMSTI n1ci of 501 LS UNDER-- IX ems 1..D1 NG -ID Becs4oLI sHED 1V A-55t4TH AT THERZ IA_ N 0 DA N GER- OP POLLUTANTS ENT R.1 IJ(a al Ve2t R.i NG t EH0 MO Gass. RC -POE DuTt.1,4134 Sot 1. T ST R SA L.TS AND A -PP ItO PR I4TH CONsT1 McT �o vociito OD '� O • : Ti _ G Comments Prepared by: g§ AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS October 20, 1999 9-91 M -08219-D Northwestern Trust 1201 Third Avenue, 20th Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Mr. David Williams Subject: Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Former Skagen Marine Facility 10625-29 East Marginal Way Seattle, Washington Dear Mr. Williams: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington • USA 98034-6919 Tel (425) 820-4669 Fax (425) 821-3914 AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AGRA) is pleased to present the following Limited Phase 11 Environmental Site Assessment Report. The purpose of this investigation was to assess whether there are potential contaminants beneath the existing floor slab prior to demolition. This report includes AGRA's observations, subsurface investigation data, laboratory analytical results, and conclusions regarding the site assessment activities. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the former Skagen Marine facility located at 10625-29 East Marginal Way in Seattle Washington (Figure 1). This site consists of an irregularly shaped parcel that measures about 370 feet by 135 feet overall and encompasses approximately one acre. Site boundaries are generally delineated by an undeveloped property to the north, by a commercial development to the south, by the Duwamish River on the west,,and by the intersection of East Marginal Way and Pacific Highway South on the east. Currently, the following three unoccupied buildings exist at the site: (1) a one-story L-shaped, wood framed building (the main Skagen Marine Building); (2) a rectangular shaped Butler building; and (3) a small wood framed structure adjacent to the north end of the main building. The bank of the Duwamish River is heavily vegetated with blackberry bushes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SCOPE OF WORK AGRA was contracted by Northwestern Trust to assess subsurface soil conditions beneath the existing concrete floor slab for the presence of priority pollutant metals and other organic contaminants, prior to demolition. To accomplish this, five soil boring explorations were advanced RECEIVED ^,IT/ r'g TI ;WWII G S:\WORDPROC199 Projects\Seattle108000s c8219 Northwestern TrustLLtd Phase II ESAwpd 9•-- 0009 JAN 1 8 2000 PERMIT CENTER • • Northwestern Trust October 20, 1999 9-91 M -08219-D Page 2 randomly throughout the building (SP -1, SP -2, SP -3, SP -4, and SP -5). The approximate locations of the soil borings are depicted on Figure 2. The borings explorations were advanced. by Transglobal Environmental Geosciences Northwest (TEG), Inc. of Lacey, Washington using a truck -mounted Strataprobe system. This drilling method uses hydraulic rams and a percussion hammer to push the sampling tools into the formation, obtaining a continuous soil core. The soil sample is collected in a 2 -inch diameter, 2- to 4 -foot length, steel, split -spoon samplers. Soil samples were classified in the field and screened for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons using an organic vapor meter (OVM). The OVM is a type of photoionization detector capable of providing semiquantitative data with respect to the presence of volatile organic compounds. Based on the results of the field screening readings, and AGRA's observations, select soil samples were submitted to AGRA's Washington certified laboratory, located in Portland Oregon. The soil samples were submitted for analysis of: • • Priority Pollutant Metals (Antimony, Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Selenium, Silver, Thallium, and Zinc) by EPA Method 3050B/6010B. No apparent evidence of organic contaminants was observed during the drilling activities, therefore, soil samples were not submitted for analysis of volatile or semi -volatile organic compounds. The data collected during the assessment was interpreted by AGRA and presented within the contents of this report. SITE ASSESSMENT RESULTS On September 30, 1999, AGRA arrived at the subject site and performed the site assessment activities described in the previous section. The borings were advanced to depths ranging from one 1 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface. Based on the estimated depths of the potential contaminant sources, these depths were anticipated to be sufficient to detect the target compounds under the existing concrete floor slab, if present. Subsurface soil conditions encountered consisted of what appeared to be one to nine feet of fill consisting of moist, brown, fine to medium sand over a 4 -inch -thick concrete floor slab. The specific soil conditions encountered are depicted on the attached boring logs for explorations SP -1 through SP -5. A contiguous water -bearing unit was not encountered during exploration activities. Evidence of perched groundwater (groundwater that is unconfined but isolated from a contiguous aquifer system by an unsaturated zone) was not encountered in any of the explorations. Soil samples were collected on continuous basis in all explorations using a 4 -foot sampler. Select depth intervals were placed in laboratory -prepared containers and preserved in an iced cooler S:IWORDPROC199 Projects1Seattle108000s108219 Northwestern Trust\Ltd Phase 11 ESA.wpd *AGRA ENGINEERING 3.08AL SOLUTIONS • • • Northwestern Trust October 20, 1999 9-91 M -08219-D Page 3 pending transport to the analytical laboratory. under AGRA's chain -of -custody procedures. Select soil samples were then chosen for laboratory analysis based on AGRA's field observations and field screening results. The soil analytical results have been summarized in Table 1. The laboratory analytical test certificates have been presented as an attachment to this report. The soil samples are identified according to the location followed by a suffix indicating the approximate depth the sample was collected C-3" represents an approximate depth of zero to three feet below grade and "-6" represents an approximate depth of three to six feet below grade). TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS Depth Sample ID (fee OVM Sb As Be Cd Cr Cu Pb Hg Ni Se Ag Th Zn (a) SP1 -3 0-3 ND <5.0 3.7 0.099 0.32 15 32 81 0.142 12 <5.0 <3.7 <5.0 110 (b) (b) (b) (a) SP2-6 3-6 ND <5.0 1.7 0.088 <0.75 8.1 7.0 <3.7 <0.100 5.3 <5.0 <3.7 <5.0 15 (b) (b) (a) SP3-3 0-3 ND <4.8 1.5 0.12 (b) <0.73 9.2 11 0.47 <0.100 6.8 <4.8 <3.6 <4.8 18 . (b) (b) (a) SP4-6 3-6 ND <5.2 2.5 0.13 (b) <0.78 12 13 1.4 <0.100 8.5 <5.2 <3.9 <5.2 20 (b) (b) (b) SP5-3 0-3 ND <4.5 1.8 0.070 <0.68 9.5 12 0.93 <0.100 7.9 <4.5 <3.4 <4.5 19 (b) (b) (b) Method Detection Limit 0.15 0.075 0.0025 0.014 0.020 0.14 0.07 N/A 0.13 0.070 0.10 0.15 0.085 0 Method Reporting Limit 1.0 0.75 0.050 0.15 0.25 1.0 0.75 0.100 0.75 1.0 0.75 1.0 0.75 MTCA Method A Cleanup LMTCA N/A 200 N/A 10 500 N/A 1,00 1.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Method B Cleanup Level N/A 219 0.233 80 N/A 2,960 N/A 24 N/A 400 400 N/A 24,000 MTCA Method C Cleanup Level N/A 66.7 30.5 3,500 N/A 1.3 e+5 N/A 1,050 N/A 17,500 17,500 N/A 1.05 e+6 Notes: Sb = Antimony; As = Arsenic; Be = Beryllium; Cd = Cadmium; Cr = Chromium; Cu = Copper; Pb = lead; Hg = Mercury; Ni = Nickel; Se = Selenium; Ag = Silver; Th = Thallium; Zn = Zinc (a) Results are from a 1:5 dilution (b) Estimated value because the analyte concentration is between the method reporting limit and the detection limit. All concentrations are presented in parts per million concentration units (ppm). OVM = Organic vapor meter ND = None Detected (g) N/A = Not Applicable S:\WORDPROC\99 Projects \ Seattle \08000s\C8219 Northwestern Trust\Ltd Phase 11 ESAwpd AG RA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Northwestern Trust 9 -91M -08219-D Page 4 October 20, 1999 CONCLUSIONS Based on the analytical results of the soil samples collected during this assessment, and that the site is zoned as a manufacturing heavy industrial area (MICH), concentrations of pLioritkpollutant metals are below Ecology's MTCAMethod A,_Method B, and Method C cleanup levels. No further actions should be warranted. -- CLOSURE The information contained in this report is based on site characterization data, field observations, and laboratory analytical testing accomplished for this assessment. The conclusions presented herein are professional opinions based on AGRA's experience and interpretation of the analytical test results and field observations. The locations and depths of the explorations, as well as the analytical scope, were generally completed within the site and proposal constraints established in the approved contract. AGRA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Northwestern Trust on this project. If you have any additional questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (425) 820-4669 at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Foe Don Irr rry St-ir cientist Senior Project Geologist DW/JK/jdp Attachments: Figure 1 — Location Map Figure 2 — Site and Exploration Plan Soil Boring Logs Laboratory Analytical Test Certificates cc: Mr. Steve Siebert, AGRA S:\WORDPROC199 ProjectslSeattte\08000s\08219 Northwestern Trust\ltd Phase II ESA.wpd AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 1 Pacific Hagfish NO EYES NO PAIRED FINS FLAT POINTED SNOUT BEARING 8 BARBELS AND SMALL SUCKING DISC LARGE ANUS 10-14 GILL PORES (HOLES) SPECIES: Eptatretus stoutt—from the Greek hepta and tretos, meaning "seven" and "apertures;" and honouring Dr. Arthur B. Stout, former secretary of the California Academy of Sciences. ALTERNATE NAMES: California hagfish, common hagfish, hagfish, hag -fish, hag, slime eel' . MAXIMUM RECORDED SIZE: 63.5 cm (25 Inches). DISTRIBUTION: Bahia San Pablo, central Baja California, Mexico, to southeastern Alaska. • To catch a Pacific hagfish with conventional angling gear is virtually Impossible, but if capture seems desirable try an effective trap pioneered by research scientists. Repeatedly puncture all sides of a metal can from the outside; this allows specimens to enter the trap easily, but severely hinders their exit. After baiting this trap with fish and securing it with rope, lower it to a muddy bottom at a depth of between 18 and 1,000 m (60 to 3,300 feet). And wait. A diver venturing over silty bottoms at depths greater than 18 m (60 feet) might occasionally encounter a Pacific hagfish resting coiled in a figure eight or a tight circular pattern. Particularly In California, the Pacific hagfish represents a costly nuisance to commercial- fishermen who leave nets out many hours when seeking valuable groundfish. Attracted to the trapped dead -or -dying catch, these despised creatures enter the nets, often in great numbers, then reduce the valuable species to skin and bone. After burrowing into the carcasses and devouring all the flesh, enmeshed Pacific hagfishes secrete quantities of slime, fouling the nets of the distraught fishermen. The tidepool observer or wharf -bound naturalist never sights the Pacific hagfish because of Its deep dwelling tendencies. The rubbery texture and the fishy and oily taste of the Pacific hagfish discourage any potential gourmets. The slime Is also toxic. • —Incorrect 2 C061.Stia, Sly e S of dam- THE LAMPREYS (Family: Petromyzonidae) Approximately thirty known living species of lampreys form the Petromyzonidae, "the family of stone rollers." All lampreys reside In the cool temperate or frigid boreal waters of the world—tropical waters are inhospitable to these swift, elongate animals. Although some frequent both fresh and saltwater during different life cycle stages, others live their lives entirely In freshwater habitats. No strictly marine petromyzonids exist however because all species ascend rivers or streams to spawn. Within the Pacific Northwest two anadromous species flourish; as adults, they migrate from the sea to freshwater to spawn and upon entering streams build nests by moving small rocks with their mouths. �vw MOUTH IS DISC-LIKE FUNNEL WITH HORNY TEETH DORSAL FIN PROMINENT EYES 7 GILL POUCHES NO WHISKERS Soon after hatching, tiny larval lampreys, termed ammocetes, burrow Into muddy or silty river bottoms and remain there for some months, staying inactive but looking completely unlike their parents, while extracting nourishment from the surrounding ooze. Ultimately a metamorphosis occurs and the tiny ammocetes transform Into miniature adults, emerge from the mud and, In the case of marine species, make their way seaward to forage actively. Once they locate prey petromyzonids sink their tooth -studded sucking -disc mouths on to the victims' bodies and begin to rasp holes through skin or scales. Although few lampreys attain lengths of 91 cm (36 inches), they attack many varieties of large fishes, even whales. The swift lampreys relate most closely to the sluggish hagfishes because both lack jaws, paired fins and scales, though they have different feeding behaviours. Early European and North American cultures highly regarded petromyzonids as fool and considered them delicacies. Recently, though, the sea lamprey of the Atlantic devastated major Great Lake fisheries, because when the St. Lawrence Seaway opened up the Great Lakes to marine shipping routes it also exposed lake char and whitefish stocks to this voracious predator. Costly eradication programs eventually controlled the unfortunately introduced menace. 3 2 Pacific Lamprey NO JAWS 7 GILL PORES (HOLES) SUCKING DISC WITH: (a) TOOTH AT TOP OF MOUTH WITH 3 POINTS (b) 4 PAIRS OF SIDE TEETH (c) TOOTH AT BOTTOM OF MOUTH WITH 5 POINTS SPECIES: Lampetra trldentatus—from Latin Iambere, petra, tri and dentatus, "to suck," "stone,""three" and "tooth." ALTERNATE NAMES: Pacific sea -lamprey, threetoothed lamprey, tridentate lamprey, sea lamprey. MAXIMUM RECORDED SIZE: 76 cm (30 Inches) and .5 kg (1 pound). DISTRIBUTION: Punta Canoas, central Baja California, Mexico, to the Bering Sea coasts of Alaska and Asia, then south to the Yuhutu River, Hokkaido northern Japan. • -14 An almost Impossible direct catch, the Pacific lamprey may occasionally dangle from a hooked salmon or other gamefish. More likely, though, the angler who catches a salmon, steelhead trout, Pacific hake, sablefish or arrowtooth flounder may notice a circular mark which bears witness to a Pacific lamprey attack. Surprisingly, identical wounds may also pock various whales, including the blue, humpback, sel, finback and sperm. Frequently though, predator becomes prey; sometimes sperm whales feed upon Pacific lamprey. Very rarely would a diver site the active Pacific lamprey because it dwells at depths Inaccessible to sport aquanauts. Occasionally used for reduction to meal, Pacific lamprey on their spring migration frequently enter the nets of river -based fishermen. Gillnetters and seiners often find some of their harvested salmon carrying either wriggling Pacific lampreys or circular wound scars indicative of past attacks. How many salmonid victims annually die from such attacks is as yet undetermined. Like its anadromous prey the salmon, this lamprey ascends rivers and creeks to spawn. Working together as mated pairs from April to July, Pacific lampreys construct gravel nests, stone by stone with their suctorial mouths. Shorebound naturalists never sight the Pacific lamprey in shallow accessible marine waters, but dipnet-wielding native Indians and some European immigrants gather specimens in streams. Some folk eagerly eat fried, broiled, or baked Pacific lamprey while others prefer It smoked. 3 River Lamprey NO JAWS 7 GILL PORES (HOLES) SUCKING DISC WITH: (a) TOOTH AT TOP OF MOUTH WITH 2 POINTS (b) 3 PAIRS OF SIDE TEETH (c) TOOTH AT BOTTOM OF MOUTH WITH 6 POINTS SPECIES: Lampetra ayresl—from the Latin Iambere and petro, "to suck" and "stone and honouring its discoverer, early naturalist William O. Ayres. ALTERNATE NAMES: western river lamprey, parasitic river lamprey, western brook lamprey, western lamprey. MAXIMUM RECORDED SiZE: 31 cm (12.2 inches). DISTRIBUTION: San Francisco Bay, central California, to Lynn Canal and the Taku River, southeastern Alaska. • 24 Because the Pacific herring is Its favourite prey, the river lamprey may attack plug cut herring or herring strip being dragged through the water to lure salmon. Such attacks may be fairly common near the surface from June to September in some locales. if plagued by these predators, retain them as live bait and then bottomfish for lingcod or rockfish, all of which may eat river lamprey. Divers almost never see the river lamprey unless this predator attacks a herring or small salmon near the surface. Expect only a brief glimpse because these fish avoid the aquanaut, 2nd live in open water. As an unwanted "bonus" adhering to captured salmon, the economical underutilized river lamprey Is occasionally taken by seiners and trollers. Usually this lamprey fastens along the upper side of the host between the victim's head and tail. While larger, stronger salmon often survive these attacks, maintaining circular scars, the smaller Pacific herring is usually completely devoured. Like its anadromous prey the salmon, the river lamprey migrates to fresh water for Intricate courtship and spawning activities. The feeding river lamprey might attack an unsuspecting herring, young salmon, or anchovy adjacent to a wharf or jetty where the naturalist could actually observe the entire activity. Throughout the world, other cultures feast upon the delicate flesh of lampreys. Skin and try it—any recipe for eels will do. Smoked or fresh, the river lamprey offers potentially fine eating. September 23, 1999 City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Ms. Alexa Berlow Re: Skaggen Marine SEPA #E99-0004 Shoreline #L99-0009 Dear Alexa, RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I had wanted to meet with you and Public Works to review the scope of services from AGRA and B -twelve (Biologist) to insure that we have not gone overboard on the studieswhile providing the required information the city needs to approve our demolition project. Your reluctance to meet without a project proposal to discuss doesn't seem to help make sure the final proposal submitted will address your concerns. I have attached the AGRA proposal and B -twelve proposal for your review of their scope. I am concerned with the B -Twelve proposal, that they have proposed more work than is necessary. One of the Owners, Kathy, is saying that all we need to do is fill in some paperwork, an extremely simple, not costly process. It is hard to convince the Owner's to spend $5,000 for a "simple process". Please contact me upon your review of the scopes of proposals. David Kehle DK/mt Enclosure: AGRA and B -twelve proposals cc: Diane Decker a19737Vet9-23bIdg. 12720 G.ATEwAY DRIVE, SUITE 116 SEATT__E. 93163 (206) 433-8997 FAX (206) 246-8369 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS September 15, 1999 TO: Brenda Holt Permit Coordinator FR: Alexa Berlow Associate Planner RE: Skagen Marine D99-0324 This project is currently under shoreline substantive review (L99-0048). This proposal shows plans to build a 10X10 patio, to be attached to the outside of the building, within the shoreline setback. Therefore, this proposal can not be approved until the shoreline substantial development permit has been approved. This proposal should be revised to include interior work only: If the applicant still choose to build the patio, then it should be included as part of the shoreline permit. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development September 2, 1999 Cathy Ross 15851 SE 16th Bellevue, WA 98008 Re: Skagen Marine (L99-0009, E99-0004) Dear Cathy Ross: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director At your request, enclosed is a copy of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by ATEC December 31, 1991. This report was submitted for both the SEPA checklist and the shoreline substantial development permit (File # E99-0004 and L99-0009). Items in the 1991 report that apply to the demolition proposal were outlined on June 5, 1999, in a letter from David Kehle to me, planner -in -charge of the project. However, the report does not respond to the extent of shoreline issues brought about during the substantive review phase. Also at your request, I am searching for examples of other demolition projects subject to shoreline development permits to assist you in this phase of the revision process. In the meantime, Ryan Larson in Public Works is prepared to assist you answer the additional questions you have about the public works comments for the shoreline permit, outlined in my letter to David Kehle dated August 5, 1999. Please let me know in advance when you would like to do this so that I can set aside time in our schedules to meet or to have a conference call with you. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am here to assist you through the permit process, to provide whatever information about the project you need to meet the city requirements for the permit proposal. However, please be aware of a policy in our office that instructs us to work through a single contact person designated to the project. Should you or any other member of your project team wish to do so, a contact person can be redesignated. Just have one of your team members notify me of the new person's name, address, and telephone number. It can be handles over the telephone. Otherwise, it is important for the designated contact person to be kept in the loop on activity pertaining to the project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Letter to Cathy Ross Skagen Marine Page 2 �r Ib cct frDI. )13 Roc 3\1 stc e/r) «Q(POCk4 000 Id Ere 's 4. C ��� vF f)Aie 5bi is xepof -� tuc(5 otere by. 45 ( daA4 11335 �,r. 1Ltr� Santa tau. rf w; 1l h& vpdet'ab �� �� AP4r fa re.-1/ec4 6w Jim) p yap°. fiv4� yyoti)-) ��3 8/ol, Gecl-c-ct, Ctr\: covvY\-olv \(%25-2 cce,(AlL \A-1 Ate. CONW3SATION RECOF. DATE: DAY: TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference 27, (777. WED THU lj) F'+ SAT SUN TIME: P.M Telephone — 0 Incoming $fOutgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact wit fou: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: /2i! /-/7(3~2(//,5 rn �;f�iL2�/c744de/4_ Giles (iallzst (PaNI/fy aNikki.zm to (-w/pi l�►;'h Z1 G ?�1/ti - 1re5004 i kt., p,,e at Lz - / rs sem- 14,1/77,1 pory 12-a?a417 kt 3 /'Ls )A1,6 b 6%, b7/ wr/Ic 1a Lpp 04- -e1x 1 c Vve/2A_, Signature/i Qjl Ke_ Title: '\1 Date: , / 2 7 Le. S david kele June 14, 1999 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Ms. Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Re: Skaggen Marine SEPA/Shoreline Dear Alexa, Since your letter of May 12, 1999 the Owners have been doing research into what has transpired regarding the notations in the Environmental Site Assessment from RZA AGRA in July 1992 (W-8219) and Phase I by ATEC dated December 31, 1991. In the latter report, I will address each item that was underlined. A. Item 2.4: Asbestos Containing Materials Suspected items were suspended ceilings, and flooring. RZA AGRA with Asbestos Analysis and Information, Inc. tested various sample materials. Per the RZA report dated July 1992 (W-8219), ceiling material was collected and material was below limits (pg. 2). In addition the asbestos company report (May 26th), ceiling test was done and also the floor tile was noted as not detectable. As I visually observed, no ceiling tiles now exist nor is there any flooring. B. Item 2.5: Utilities There does not appear to be signs of an existing septic tank. The building is being demolished and this would be of no significance. C. Solid and Hazardous Waste: In the RZA July report, soil samples were taken; ground water was collected and tested by the asbestos -testing lab with no recommendations to do anything else. The building is vacant and no signs of solvents, paints, etc. are on site now. 12720 GATEWAY DRIVE, SUITE 116 (206) 433-8997 SEATTLE, WA 98168 FAX (206) 246-8369 Ms. Alexa Berlow City of Tukwila Re: Skaggen Marine June 14, 1999 Page 2 D. The sump pump was discussed in the RZA October 12, 1992 report with the follow- up report of October 13, 1992 all indicated the fluid was non -hazardous and the only issue is a wooden cover. Since the proposal is to demolish the building, this pump will be removed entirely. In terms of your notes on a previous SEPA, I suggest you use our permit application. To quickly answer the comments, bank stabilization will not be done and is why we are demolishing the building; no surface water withdrawals or diversions will occur with the demolition; any floor plan would be below top of bank which is where our work is; no waste materials are discharged to surface waters when the building is demolished. Please review the attached information along with my letter and focus on our project proposal. I trust this will answer your questions and will now re -start the project review. Sincerely, OIL 44e -jt David Kehle DK/mt cc: Diane Decker Enclosure: RZA Reports a:\9737\Iet6-14.doc FROM : DAVID KEHLE,ARCH ITECT FAX NO. : 206 246 8369 . Apr. 28 1999 03:28PM P8 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southc:nter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98183 Telephone: (206) 431.3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGN(S) SKavxl State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I Diane_. . bQCICir(PrintName) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. 1 certify that on ___ ,�k !''%T_ the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with /I and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at �,i5 v'el so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the propey for application file number Egg' OD() 5EA1- L-99_ / zq S Are.1 > ection 18.104.110 ti '- Affiant (Applicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this l,4 day of , 19 Q dkmAtat NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at S�°�dUc WA My commission expires on L1 `\ 1 " cY • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION April 16, 1999 David Kehle, Architect 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 116 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Skagen Marine 10625 East Marginal Way E99-0004 (SEPA Application Checklist) L99-0009 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) Dear Mr. Kehle: John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Your application for review of a State Environmental Protection Review (SEPA) Checklist and Shoreline Substantial development Permit to demolish an existing one story office/showroom and shop building (approximately 7,000 sq. ft); upgrade and repair an existing shop located at 10625 East Marginal Way, are considered complete as of February 24, 1999. The next step is for you to attach a laminated Notice of Application form on your notice board for the Shoreline Substantial Development. The notice for the SEPA will be installed once the final determination on the checklist has been made. Laminated notices for all permit activity associated with this project are to be posted on the notice board. For instructions and timelines to install a notice board on the site, please refer to Attachment B - Public Information Signs in the application packet. The Planning Division will contact you when each laminated notice is ready for you to pick up. After the form has been installed, please drop off a signed Affidavit of Posting, one for each notice, to show proof that the notice board and proper notices have been 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 • Notice of Completeness Page 2 installed. You will be responsible for removing the notice board from the site once your application has been approved and finalized, and when all public comment periods have terminated. • Your permit application and SEPA checklist have been routed to appropriate departments for internal review, and any revision comments made back to you within 21 days of this notice. This is to insure that your proposal meets the substantive requirements of the zoning code and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. A Complete Application does not preclude the City to request revisions to your proposal through the formal project review phase that has now commenced. If you have any questions about this notice, or if you wish to speak to me sooner that my next response date, please do not hesitate to contact me as planner -in -charge of your project at (206) 431-3673. Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Enclosure cc: Reviewing City Departments Shoreline Substantial Deve1 r hent Permit (L99-0009) Skagen Marine Page 2 Reference: The geotechnical and geological report prepared April 1995 by GES, submitted for a gabion wall as part of "The Duwamish" shoreline proposal in 1995, was not reviewed for the demolition proposal, This report is part of the file for "The Duwamish" project proposal submitted in 1995 (and expired due to no action in July 1996). Y L Iry (\ s L 7 • City of Thkwi/„i Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMO TO THE FILE May 16, 2000 To: Project File No. E99-0004 Skagen Marine 10625 East Marginal Way From: Alexa Berlow, Associate Planner Re: Staff Evaluation of Environmental Checklist Received: February 23, 1999 Project Description: The applicant proposes to demolish approximately 7000 square feet of existing single story wood frame construction building, to remove and repave approximately 8,000 square feet of pavement, and to add a restroom and electrical service to an existing metal building. The proposed redevelopment and demolition is located within 200 feet from the Green River. The proposal is subject to Shoreline Management development guidelines. Proponent: David Kehle Architect Location: 10625 East Marginal Way Date prepared: May 16, 2000 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Challenges to Document: None 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 Phone: 206-431-3670 0 Fax: 206-431-3665 • SEPA Review — E99-0004 Skagen Marine, Constriction and Demolition Page 2 Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: None Recommendation: Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) A. BACKGROUND Page 2, #6: Construction to start upon issuance of permits, expected in spring 2000. Page 2, #8: A soil report, a biological analysis, and a limited environmental site assessment were performed. Results concluded the need for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of the riverbank and landscaping to prevent erosion. No harmful or hazardous earth contamination was reported. Page 3, #10: The following permits and governmental approvals will be needed: building permit, demolition permits, tenant improvement, Flood Zone Control, Shoreline Substantial development. Page 3, # 11: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing one-story building, repave with asphalt over footprint, remodel existing metal building for structural modifications, and add restrooms and electrical service. Page 3, # 12: The project site is located at 10625 East Marginal Way at the Boeing Access Road. NW Section 2, Township 23, Range 4. Page 3, # 13: 2 • SEPA Review — E99-0004 Skagen Marine, Constriction and Demolition Page 3 The proposed redevelopment and demolition is located within two hundred feet of the Green River/Duwamish River. It is subject to substantial shoreline development permit approval. Summary of Interdepartmental Comments: Approval for this development has been confirmed by City Departments B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Earth The site is generally flat with a 6% slope. The soil is composed of silty sand and gravel. There is erosion at the water's edge and some pavement distress behind the building. Measures to monitor and stabilize the erosion on a regular basis are proposed. It will be monitored through a maintenance plan for landscaping and the riverbank stabilization. The development will not generate any additional asphalt. New asphalt will cover the surface of the footprint of the demolished building only. The foundation will be ground and a gravel base will be added under new asphalt. Ground concrete will also be added to prevent erosion. Any other measures necessary to reduce and control erosion will be applied, consistent with best management practices. Air Dust will be generated from construction only. Dust control measures (i.e. wetting) will be applied. Any emissions will be generated from automobiles or trucks only. Off site, noise from East Marginal Way is expected on an ongoing basis. Water The site is located within 200 feet of the Green River/Duwamish River. Most of the construction and demolition proposed will take place in the shoreline environment. Measures to protect native vegetation, and prevent erosion along the river have been conducted and will be applied through an annual monitoring and maintenance program. A Shoreline Substantial development Permit is 3 • SEPA Review — E99-0004 Skagen Marine, Constriction and Demolition Page 4 required. Issues regarding shoreline development will be addressed through this permit process. Storm water is currently collected through a catch basis along East Marginal Way. A Flood Zone Control permit is required for this development proposal. Issues to further retain runoff will be address through this permit process. At this time, it is anticipated that water will continue to drain towards the catch basin along East Marginal Way. Plants Currently, vegetation on the site consists of the following: Black cottonwood, European White birch, ornamental cherry, Himalayan Blackberry, and reed canarygrass. Blackberries will be removed. The site will be planted with native planting, including but not limited to western red cedar, willows, salmonberry, dogwood, and Nootka rose. Site property adjacent to the Duwamish River will be planted with willow species to enhance bank stability and limit siltation. The demolition will remove three existing structures, including slabs and foundations. The area between the top of the bank and the buildings will be removed and replaced, and graded to drain away from the Duwamish River. Animals Salmon, trout, frogs, salamanders, lizards, snakes, turtles, hawks, heron, eagle, songbirds, ducks, rats, muskrat, raccoons, river otter, mice, and sea lion have been observed on the site. The Duwamish River is a migratory route by several stocks of Chinook and coho salmon, as well as by lamprey. Chinook and coho salmon entering the Duwamish are listed as threatened and candidate species, under the Endangered Species Act. The site is also located within the Pacific Flyway, one of four principal north -south migratory routes for birds in North America. The site is not anticipated to impact wildlife. No endangered species are known to be on or near the site. There have been occurrences of bald eagle. Their occurrences in the Puget Sound region and the Tukwila area are listed as threatened species. However, there are no known bald eagle nests or known foraging areas within one mile of the Skagen Marine site. The site has no trees considered suitable for perching or roosting. A transient bald eagle may occur within the vicinity during demolition, but it has been 4 • •SEPA Review — E99-0004 Skagen Marine, Constriction and Demolition Page 5 determined that eagle use within the vicinity of the project is unlikely due to the high level of ambient industrial based noise. Energy/Natural Resources Gas will be used for heating, and electrical will be used for lighting. Environmental Health Noise impact due to construction and traffic along East Marginal Way is expected. General operation of the project once constructed will not exceed existing levels. Land/Shoreline Uses The site is currently developed with two building. Both are vacant. There is also parking for commercial vehicles. The property is adjacent to the shoreline in the King County Shoreline Master Program district. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required. Issues that might impact the shoreline will be addressed under this permit. The building to the north is proposed to be demolished. The building to the south will be remodeled. The site is located in the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy. The remodel will be consistent with land use development standards in this zoning district. The business will employ approximately 10 persons. Housing None Aesthetics The tallest height of the proposed Skagen Marine building # 1 is 22 feet. The building construction is intended to upgrade the existing building to development standards consistent with the MIC/H zoning district. Light/Glare The proposed development will be lit on the exterior of the building by security lighting with directional fixtures to limit glare. It is not anticipated that any site lighting will cause glare. However, lighting from streetlights, automobiles, and trucks along East Marginal Way, and adjacent land uses off site may impact the site. 5 • SEPA Review — E99-0004 Skagen Marine, Constriction and Demolition Page 6 Recreation The property abuts the public recreation trail along the Green River/Duwamish River. Access to the recreation trail is from adjacent properties. Historic/Cultural Preservation None Transportation Access to the property is from East Marginal Way, through existing access points. There are two (2) driveway entries, one to the north and the other to the south. The site is currently served by public transit. A bus stop is located approximately 100 feet from the business along East Marginal Way. Five (5) parking spaces will be added to the proposed development. Additional parking will be located in front of the proposed redevelopment. Parking will not be striped. Handicapped parking will be identified. It is anticipated that the completed project will generate minimal traffic trips. Peak traffic generally occurs at approximately 3pm. Measures to reduce or control traffic will be unnecessary. Public Services The redevelopment is proposed to be a non-combustible building. It is anticipated that this will reduce or control direct impacts on the public service, to aid fire protection. Utilities Utilities currently available on the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, and sanitary sewer. Approved By ek, Ja'k Pace, Planning Manager 6 Date)0_,I,fidi6a3 CITY OW-UKWILA Department of Community Development • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 2 3 1999 PERMIT CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS To submit for SEPA review, provide the items listed above to the Planning Division at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Room 100. 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. 1421 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. One 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. COMPLETING THE CHECKLIST 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 tb. Care needs to be taken in reading and answering the questions to ensure theappropriate 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. CITY OVUKWILA CITY RECEIVEOF D Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FEB 2 3 1999 PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: File Number: E_ctG( . 0670 Receipt Number: Cross-reference files: (,crf . Op 0'1 Applicant notified of incomplete application: Applicant notified of complete application: Notice of application issued: A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Mac vi -1 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) k%ctiwx. Vbs( . Quarter: i14 Section: 1, Township: 2 Range: .4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: -' 15trbUsi l 4904. 1yto or 11.15111,4 I ►.C►tE L191 W090 Mb l* ratbje /VE Rik • 8( la0%° INV kV D. APPLICANT: ezvlOe 1 bC. In t, E3114 NAME: VUuir) 0I- i I.Fc. i I t: -eit ADDRESS: ItittO 6te. YY� PHONE: 0" 440 SIGNATURE: OP 01 DATE: I I CITY OF TUKWILA • 630 uthcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (2..06) 431-3670 ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of pending applications in order to encourage citizen participation in the land use process. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Mailing labels listing the owners of record for all property within 500 feet of the boundaries (not the center) of the applicant's site (2 sets or 3 sets if SEPA review is required). • Mailing labels listing the residents or businesses of any property within 500 feet of the property if they are different from the land owners (2 sets or 3 sets if SEPA review is required). • One copy of an assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot radius. I23ND ST- - Property owner names and addresses can be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the information required: • Obtain the assessor's map(s) which contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (See example diagram). You may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purchased maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the assessor's maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment. On this form provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the assessor's map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. Applicants can request that the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. To obtain occupants/resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development and then visit the site to determine resident names and unit numbers. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant", with the proper mailing address, if the specific name is unknown. • •, ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist ,asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attached any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply". In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project", "applicant", and "property or site" should read as "proposal", "proposer", and "affected geographic area", respectively. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: ath,0 I'si{u, 4.vbttiprst- Contr.°. Epic File No. Fee $ 325 Receipt No. 3. Address and phone umber of app scant and contact person: i212o Q F e 110 /W . 1(K) 0 -/M -h 4. Date checklist prepared: 1I'l11-F:I Le 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Uf61 I LID c q¢tart? 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, related to or connected with this proposal? If trtlP�l. N �' HrealtlIFNerb tiloqviae expansion, or further activity es, explain. 12r�io L 7161 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be preparc,directly related to this proposal. 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. �p -2- 10. List any government approvals or permits that willl-be needed for your proposal. ' ittOsa- © Eltrt, 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. l.: ' U10 1 r AE ' gel 4/4e,,44..., ou l ew r:• i' 1,1 �.1�� :;' Imo_' i P1Or S W. .y L b alit j` 1O LPlp AL _ 1' IG6h /Ar 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tjons related to tris checkist. t4g- it7Af boo galaci e 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy lan Map�asenvixonmentallnsitive? �r TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, IEvaluation for Agency Use Only other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? (ph c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable sails in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. i�� y10�1 U) ►OCAL6140 001.16 V ENT Y4 few 0 ur Wet e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate sources of � fill. Ib� Ufa Ila fej�l�i DAL ?.fi UM LIP 6(004 f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, onstruction, or u e? If s•, gener lly des ribe. C 0 UNIX 11) g• About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buil ings)? 14.66 k4 We 'MO 1.9 � -4- •411 Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: khr ►Irq (' p 2. Air a. What types of emissions t. air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) ng construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and giv approximate quantities if own. RAJ ONWo t- PUelliw Pr U 00 um 0469161x kg., 419 blWANSIdleb l.:7r b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? -If so, generally describz c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other im•.cts a air, if any: 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 av flows tkai i*,i�54- 9 tig -5- • • Evaluation for 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,p lans. le0114 'tE edI ©� I�'E I luI m to ori ea - 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 Bill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, i,fiknown. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplai ? If so, note location on the site plan. H0 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. -6- Agency Use Only • III Evaluation for b. Ground: Agency Use Only • 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if ,Known. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the syst m(s) are expected to serve. !-o au 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 oth:r waters? If so, describe. M Iub'j'�2 %¢r►; t. ' o '1A- h G r Gf ✓ ► 0HC1 °iI -7- •411 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? Ifx, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if ,y: 1loi ,lam 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass _ pasture _ crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. 'What kind and a ount of vegetation will be removed or altered?__ c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the $ �� -8- ,. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the sit-, if any: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or nearthe site. c. Is the site ,p,art' of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measur s t� if any: 1j reserve or enhance wildlife, -9- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be us d for heating, manufacturing, etc. eLEO- b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 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 rult of this proposal? If so, describe. 1) Describe special, meergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental healh,Ohazards, if any: Fc -10- III Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 1 h` 1>- ._itJ 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hogs noise would come rom the site. j ki V 1O U"t td ' P 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise imacts'',,I if any: �0 N 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent pro.erties? 114, i ik y r Drl b. Has the site,ibeen used for agriculture? If so, describe. �p c. -scribe any structures on the site. ALM _. ,0 _. I r G ^% I 011!4-477r311g.ME 'asp II 11.40 'AUL_ isfl -11- • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Up e. What is :the urrent zoning classification of the site? 1-14Z,��-f f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? `iVivA V404.- If applicable, what is the current shr line a ter program designation of the site? UR '? II IG g. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally. sensitive" area? If so, specify. 0 i. Approximately how many peo le would reside or work in the come1eted project? d 1-060116_119132....-/� *N. 10 1-6 _AY.4_&__Itir !AIM Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? j. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, 1 any: .��rirwi ) 1. 'Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and lans, if any: tuu� _ 1I4 t'l 1 -12- 411 Evaluation for 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? 1O).1e b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indica t� whether high, middle, or low- income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:,1 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? rib .1 tic F1b i J r f io,2 Iligattir,..._ b.. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or �gst�cted? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic i acts, if any: i5t�bN(J p i[ 1. . -13- Agency Use Only a.k • III Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? �cepA fttar16�. �N � wry � 1t `to Lwi rr thee b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard o_r, interfere with views? c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your pro.osal? i, Alum L A Ea _MIL.. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and lare imp cts, if any - 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- t itie are the immediate icinity? LR b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreatjona uses? If so, describe. Ftit c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be pr vi i by thei��ct�or applicant, if any: -14- 411 Evaluation for 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation Agency Use Only a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally descr*be. b. Generally describe any landmarks orevidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known tot be on or next to the site. c. , Proposed measures�t� educe or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Sho, on sit plans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is th appro imate distant to the nearest transit stop?_RO c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? Ho, many would the project elimi te? 1140 -15- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicat whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Lt-ronsw—re.,3 oatf 1 � 11 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation imp ts, if any: 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. b. Proposed measures to reduce or i pacts on publi ser ices, if any. Ani tu. wi g .A control direct -16- • 16. Utilities 411 Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1e his • • fuse service eptic sys em, oche . 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 he immediate vicinity which might be needed. ILU*10 g Alf 1L5 Aitnik C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand lead agency is relying on them to make Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAA • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: -18- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: • 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? -19- • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. -20- Evaluation for Agency Use Only •III Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -21- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• 41/ Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: -22- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -23- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FORMER SKAGEN MARINE FACILITY 10625-29 EAST MARGINAL WAY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Northwestern Trust 1201 Third Avenue 20th Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Submitted by: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 N.E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 26 February 1998 8-91 M -08219-C rte, -7 7 : J Gs AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Ln AG RA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 26 February 1998 8-91 M -08219-C Northwestern Trust 1201 Third Avenue, 20th Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Attention: Mr. David Williams Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Former Skagen Marine Facility 10625-29 East Marginal Way Seattle, Washington Dear Mr. Williams: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034-6918 Tel (425) 820-4669 Fax (425) 821-3914 At your request, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AEE) is pleased to submit this report describing our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above -referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive design conclusions and recommendations concerning foundations and floors, structural fill, and earthwork. As outlined in our proposal letter dated 5 December 1997, our scope of work consisted of field explorations, geotechnical research, geotechnical analyses, and report preparation. AEE previously completed an evaluation of the of the project site, as described in our Geotechnical and Environmental Site Assessment Report (W-8219) dated 9 July 1992. We received your written authorization for our evaluation on 29 December 1997. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Northwestern Trust and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Stephen A. Siebert, P.E. Project Engineer Distribution: Northwestern Trust (3) Attn: Mr. David Williams S:\W ORDPROC\98\Kirldand109000\08219\SKAGEN.RPT TABLE OF CONTENTS 8-91 M -08219-C 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 2 3.1 Test Pit Procedures 4 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4 4.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Conditions 4 4.2 Soil Conditions 4 4.3 Groundwater Conditions 4 4.4 Seismic Conditions 5 5.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS 5 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 6.1 Foundation Considerations 6 6.2 Site Preparation 6 6.3 Shallow Foundations 7 6.4 Deep Foundations 8 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors 8 6.6 Drainage Systems 9 6.7 Structural Fill 9 6.8 Construction Monitoring 1 1 7.0 CLOSURE 12 Figure 1 — Location Map Figure 2 — Site & Exploration Plan Test Pit Logs TP -1 through TP -7 SAW ORDPROC198\Kirkland \08000\08219\SKAG EN.RPT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FORMER SKAGEN MARINE FACILITY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 8-91 M -08219-C 1.0 SUMMARY The following summary of project geotechnical considerations is presented for introductory purposes and, as such, should be used only in conjunction with the full text of this report. • Project Description: We understand development plans will include remodeling the main Skagen Marine building, demolishing the small adjacent wooden structure, and constructing a rock revetment along the shoreline of the Duwamish River to prevent further shoreline degradation and improve existing slope stability. As part of the remodel, the existing foundations will be reused or supplemented with additional foundations and portions of the existing floor slab demolished and rebuilt. • Exploratory Methods: We explored subsurface conditions for this study by means of seven test pits advanced at strategic locations around and within the Thxisting building to expose perimeter spread footings. Test pits ranged from `about 4 to 6 feet below existing grades. In our previous 1992 study, we advanced threes borings to depths of 25 to 30 below existing ground surface. • eSubsurface Conditions: Soils encountered in our recent test pits were similar Vto those in observed in our previous borings. Soils generally consist of low to medium dense, fine sands to a depth of 15 to 20 feet overlying very dense sands. We observed a LLo___2_-_foot thick soft to stiff silt layer at a depth of about 3 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater was not encountered in any of our test pits, but was previously observed in our borings at a depth of about 10 feet below existing ground surface. Liquefaction Considerations: The loose sands encountered below a depth of 10 feet have the potential to liquefy during a seismic event. We estimate that settlement of the structure due to liquefaction could range from 2 to 3 inches. • Foundation Design Recommendations: In our opinion, the existing spread footings should support a remodeled building without additional settlement provided: 1) New building loads are about the same as current building loads and 2) Shoreline stabilization is completed to improve slope stability and increase lateral support. Settlement due to liquefaction would need to be accommodated in the building design if shallow foundations are used. If new building loads are higher than existing and if it is desired that the effects of liquefaction be mitigated, we recommend supplementing the existing foundations with deep foundations such as pin piles or helical arc s. S:\W ORDPROC\98\Kirkland\08000\082191SKA G EN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 2 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is the former Skagen Marine facility located at 10625-29 East Marginal Way in Seattle, Washington. The enclosed Location Map (Figure 1) depicts the project site in relation to other nearby features. This site consists of an irregularly shaped parcel that measures about 370 by 135 feet overall and encompasses approximately one acre. Site boundaries are generally delineated by an undeveloped property to the north, by a commercial development to the south, by the Duwamish River on the west, and by the intersection of East Marginal Way and Pacific Highway South on the east. The enclosed Site & Exploration P/an (Figure 2) illustrates these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. Currently, the following three unoccupied buildings exist at the site: 1) a one story L-shaped, wood -framed building (the main Skagen Marine Building); 2) a rectangular shaped Butler building; and 3) a small wood framed structure adjacent to the north end of the main building. The bank of the Duwamish River is heavily vegetated with blackberry bushes. We understand development plans will include remodeling the main Skagen Marine building which is in disrepair and has experienced significant differential settlements, demolishing the small adjacent wooden structure, and constructing a rock revetment along the shoreline of the Duwamish River to prevent further shoreline degradation and improve existing slope stability. As part of the remodel, the existing foundations will be reused or supplemented and portions of the existing floor slab demolished and rebuilt. We understand the remodeled main building will likely be used as a warehouse type facility and have an expected useful life of about 20 years. It should be realized that the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed utilization of the project site, as derived from verbal information supplied to us. Consequently, if any changes are made in the currently proposed project, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained herein to reflect those changes. 3.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on 20 January 1998 and previously in July 1992. Our current exploration program consisted of the following: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; • Seven test pits (designated TP -1 through TP -7) advanced at strategic locations around and within the existing building; and • A review of published geologic maps and seismologic literature. SAWS:WORDPROC\98\KirkIand\O8OOO\O8 219\SKA G EN.RPT Northwestern Trust 26 February 1998 8-91 M -08219-C Page 3 Table 1 below, summarizes the approximate functional locations, surface elevations, and termination depths of recent subsurface explorations, and Figure 2 depicts their approximate relative locations. The following text section describes our procedures used for test pits. TABLE 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DEPTHS OF EXPLORATIONS Exploration Functional Location Surface Elevation (feet) Termination Depth (feet) TP -1 Southwest corner of existing building 26 6.5 TP -2 Southeast corner of existing building 26 5.0 TP -3 Northwest side of existing building 26 6.0 TP -4 Southwest side of existing building 26 4.0 TP -5 Eastern side of existing building 26 6.0 TP -6 Northeast side of existing building 26 6.0 TP -7 Southeast side of existing building 26 5.3 Elevation datum: KCAS The specific number, locations, and depths of our explorations were selected in relation to the existing and proposed site features, under the constraints of surface access, underground utility conflicts, and budget considerations. We estimated the relative location of each exploration by measuring from existing features and scaling these measurements onto a layout plan supplied to us, then we estimated their elevations by interpolating between spot elevations shown on this same plan. Consequently, the data listed in Table 1 and the locations depicted on Figure 2 should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources and implied by our measuring methods. It should be realized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discrete locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. S:\W ORDPROC\88\Klrkland108000\08 218\SKA G EN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 4 3.1 Test Pit Procedures Our exploratory test pits were excavated with a rubber -tired backhoe subcontracted by Precision Builders. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations and logged the subsurface conditions. After we logged each test pit, the hoe operator backfilled it with excavated soils and tamped the surface. The enclosed Test Pit Logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our Togs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of the in-situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and the stability of the test pit sidewalls. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding foundation and slab conditions, soil, groundwater, and seismic conditions at the project site. Descriptive logs of our subsurface explorations are enclosed with this report. 4.1 Foundation and Floor Slab Conditions We exposed existing perimeter spread footings in all test pits, except for test pit TP -7. Footings were typically 1 to 1 % feet thick and extended about 6 inches laterally. Test pit TP -7 which penetrated the floor slab revealed only a 3- to 4 -inch unreinforced concrete slab and no spread footing. We observed numerous north -south and east -west trending linear type cracks in the floor slab as shown on Figure 2. We did not observe any cracks in the spread footings exposed in the test pits. 4.2 Soil Conditions Our on-site explorations revealed fairly uniform near -surface soil conditions similar to those observed in our previous borings. Test pits TP -1 through TP -6 were excavated at locations around the existing building and test pit TP -7 was excavated inside the existing building. The purpose of our explorations was to observe soil conditions directly beneath existing perimeter footings. In test pits TP -1 to TP -6, we observed about 2 feet of loose, fine sand with trace organics and 1 to 2 feet of soft to stiff silt overlying loose to medium dense fine sand. In test pit TP -7, we observed about 3 feet of loose to medium dense, sand and gravel and about 1 foot of stiff to medium stiff silt overlying medium dense to dense fine sand. We interpret the soils observed in our test pits to be either alluvium or fill. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (20 January 1998), we did not observe groundwater in any of the seven test pits to the depth excavated. Our previous borings completed in 1992 encountered SAW 0 RO PRO C\8 8\Kirkland\08000\08 218\S KA GE N.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 5 groundwater at a depth of about 10 feet below existing ground surface. At all times of the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to precipitation patterns, fluctuations in the Duwamish River level, off-site construction activities, and site utilization. 4.4 Seismic Conditions Based on our analysis of subsurface explorations and our review of published geologic maps, we interpret the on-site soil conditions to correspond to a seismic soil profile type S-1, as defined by Table 16-J of the 1994 Uniform Building Code. Earthquake maps included with the 1988 NEHRP manual entitled Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings indicate that a bedrock site acceleration coefficient of about 0.25 is appropriate for an earthquake having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to a magnitude of 7.5 and a return interval of 475 years). According to Figure 16-2 of the 1.9.94 Uniform Building Code, the site lies within seismic risk zone 3 . 5.0 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS Liquefaction is a sudden increase in porewater pressure and a sudden loss of soil shear strength caused by shear strains, as could result from an earthquake. Research has shown that saturated, loose sands with a silt content less than about 25 percent are most susceptible to liquefaction. Although other soil types are generally considered to have a low susceptibility, liquefaction may still occur. Our on-site subsurface explorations and laboratory testing revealed wet to saturated, loose sands from a depth of about 10 feet downward to about 20 feet. For purposes of evaluating liquefaction potential, we used two model earthquakes to simulate differing seismic conditions. The first model represents a moderate earthquake with a statistical recurrence interval, or return period, of 100 years; the second model represents a strong earthquake with a return period of 500 years. According to published seismic maps, these return periods roughly correspond with the following magnitudes and peak ground surface accelerations: Return Period 100 years 500 years Magnitude Peak Acceleration 6.5 0.15 g 7.5 0.28 g Using these parameters, we applied an analysis method developed by Seed and others (1983) to determine the factor of safety against liquefaction for the loose sands underlying the site. Our analyses subsequently revealed that these sands have a safety factor against liquefaction less than 1 for both the 100 -year earthquake and the 500 -year earthquake. A safety factor less than 1.0 indicates a high potential for liquefaction. S: \ W O R D P R O C \9 8 \Kirkland \ 08000 \ 0 8 219\S KA G E N.R PT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 6 After calculating the safety factors, we qualitatively evaluated the risk of on-site surface damage resulting from liquefaction of the upper native sands. Surface damage could include subsidence, fissuring, or heaving of the ground surface, thereby causing settling, cracking, or tilting of the building and other structures. Generally, surface damage decreases as the thickness of non -liquefiable overburden soil increases, due to energy attenuation within the overburden soil. At the project site, we interpret this non -liquefiable overburden thickness to be about 10 feet and we interpret a discrete liquefiable layer thickness on the order of 5 feet. Comparing these conditions with empirical charts developed by Ishihara (1985), the site appears to have a low, risk of ground rupture due to liquefaction of the loose sand layers, but liquefaction -induced ground subsidence on the order of several inches could occur. Using the method developed by Tokimatsu and others (1986), we estimate settlements of 2 to 3 inches could occur. To reduce the risk of such building settlements, foundation Toads would need to be transferred downward below the loose sand layer by means of a deep foundation system. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, foundations, slab -on -grade floors, drainage systems, and construction monitoring. WSDOT Standard Specifications and Standard Plans cited herein refer to WSDOT publications M41-10, 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, and M21-01, Standard Plans for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, respectively. 6.1 Foundation Considerations We understand that the primary reason for rehabilitating the existing structure is because current developmental regulations would prohibit a new structure located so close to the shoreline. In our opinion, the foundation options for the existing structure are: 1) Reuse the existing spread footings; or 2) supplement the existing foundations with a deep foundation system. Which foundation option is selected would ultimately be a function of construction cost versus risk of future damage to the building resulting from settlement. The use of spread footings should be adequate if the remodeled building would not impose any higher loads than currently exist. However, a deep foundation system would be necessary to accommodate higher Toads which could cause additional vertical compression of the native soils or to mitigate settlement which could occur during a seismic event due to liquefaction. For both options, construction of the rock revetment along the shoreline will be necessary to improve existing static and seismic slope stability and provide lateral support to the structure to reduce the risk of future differential settlements. 6.2 Site Preparation Preparation of the project site should involve selective building structure demolition, limited excavation, and subgrade compaction. Exposed subgrades for footings, floors, pavements, and other structures should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state. Any localized zones of S:\W O RDPROC\98\Kirkland\08000\08 218\SKAGEN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8-91 M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 7 soft or pumping soils observed within a subgrade should either be scarified and recompacted or be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Pavement subgrades should be proof -rolled with a heavy dump truck or roller immediately before paving, in order to verify their firm, unyielding condition. 6.3 Shallow Foundations In our opinion, the existing spread footings should be capable of supporting a new structure having similar loading conditions. Damaging differential settlements which have caused distress to the existing building likely resulted from a comb�nati oof the variable thickness • of soft silt encountered in our test pits and also from the lateral ground movement toward the Duw mish River as evidenced by the tension cracks. Assuming that elastic settlement of the native s- oils occurred shortly after_ tlie'butltriig was finished, and assuming that stabilization of the shoreline will be completed, we would not expect significant additional future settlement of the building. If the proposed new building requires additional footings, we offer the following comments and recommendations for purposes of footing design and construction. Footing Design: To provide adequate vertical support, all footings should be at least 18 inches wide. For frost protection, all exterior footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished exterior grade. Bearing Capacity: Footings bearing on the existing native soils compacted to a dense condition or structural fill should be designed for the following maximum allowable bearing pressures: Loading Condition Allowable Bearing Pressure Static 2,000 psf Transient 2,700 psf Lateral Capacity: To resist lateral loads, an allowable base friction value of 0.35 may be used for foundation designs. Also, an allowable passive earth pressure of 150 pcf, expressed as an equivalent fluid pressure, may be used on that portion of shallow foundations which are at least 12 inches below finished grade. Subgrade Verification: All footing subgrades should consist of native soils compacted to a dense condition or structural fill. Under no circumstances should footings be cast atop loose, soft, or frozen soil, slough, debris, existing uncontrolled fill, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that the condition of all subgrades be verified by an AEE representative before any concrete is placed. S:\W ORDPROC\9 B\Kirkland\08000\OB 219\SKAGEN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 8 Footing Backfill: We recommend that all footing excavations be backfilled on both sides of the footing and stem wall after the concrete has been poured. Either imported structural fill or non-organic on-site soils can be used for this purpose, in our opinion. All footing backfill soil should be compacted to a density of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM:D-1557). Elastic Settlement: Assuming the foundation elements are founded in the recommended bearing soils, we estimate that total settlement will be less than 1 inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half that of the total settlement. The majority of these settlements will probably occur during the initial loading of the foundation; however, if any undisturbed or soft soils are left within the footing area prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased substantially. Settlement Due to Liquefaction: We estimate that liquefaction of the loose encountered below a depth of about 10 feet could result in settlement of 2 to 3 inches. 6.4 Deep Foundations In our opinion, if foundation Toads for the new structure are significantly greater than what the existing spread footings are currently supporting we would recommend supplementing the existing foundations with pin piles or helical anchors. These two types of deep foundations would need to extend to the dense to very dense sands underlying the site. It is our understanding that the cost of deep foundations would not make renovation of the existing building economically viable and therefore we have not presented design recommendations. However, we would be pleased to provide recommendations for deep foundation design and construction if the scope of the building renovation changes at a later date. 6.5 Slab -on -Grade Floors Assuming that the building footprint is prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report, a soil -supported slab -on -grade floor can be used in the new building. We offer the following comments and recommendations concerning slab -on -grade floor design and construction purposes. Subgrade Conditions: Slab -on -grade floors should be founded on a non -yielding subgrade consisting of native soils or structural fill compacted to a dense condition in accordance with our recommendations outlined in the Structural Fill section of this report. Moisture Protection: To reduce the risk of moisture infiltration into the building, we recommend that the upper 6 inches of soil directly beneath all slab -on -grade floors be composed of the following layers (top to bottom): S:\W OROPROC\98\Kirk' and \08000\ 082191SKAGEN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 9 • Curing Course — A 2 -inch -thick layer of clean sand to allow proper curing of the concrete slab and to protect the vapor barrier; • Vapor Barrier — A layer of plastic sheeting (such as Crosstuff, Visqueen or Moistop) to prevent the upward migration of ground moisture vapors; • Capillary Break — A 4 -inch -thick layer of pea gravel or other clean, uniform, well-rounded gravel, such as "Gravel Backfill for Drains" per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), to retard the upward wicking of groundwater. Vertical Deflections: Soil -supported slab -on -grade floors can deflect downward when vertical loads are applied, due to elastic compression of the subgrade. In our opinion, a subgrade reaction modulus of 20 pounds per cubic inch can be used to estimate such deflections. 6.6 Drainage Systems In our opinion, the new building should be provided with permanent drainage systems to minimize the risk of future moisture problems. We offer the following recommendations and comments for drainage design and construction purposes. Perimeter Drains: We recommend that the building be encircled with a perimeter drain system to collect seepage water. This drain should consist of a perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides of the pipe, and the gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric to reduce the migration of fines from the surrounding soils. The drain invert should be installed no more than 8 inches above the base of the perimeter footings. Runoff Water: Roof -runoff and. surface -runoff water should not discharge into the perimeter drain system. Instead, these sources should discharge into separate tightline.pipesand be routed away from the building to a storm drain or other appropriate location. Similarly, to reduce the risk of erosion and loss of lateral foundation -support, runoff should not be discharged onto the slope below the building. Grading and Capping: Final site grades should slope downward away from the building so that runoff water will flow by gravity to suitable collection points, rather than ponding near the building. Ideally, the area surrounding the building would be capped with concrete or asphalt to preclude surface -water infiltration. 6.7 Structural Fill "Structural fill" refers to any materials placed under foundations, slab -on -grade floors, sidewalks, pavements, and other structures. Our comments, conclusions, and recommendations concerning structural fill are presented in the following paragraphs. S:\W OROPRO C\88\Kirkland\08000\OB 218\SKAGEN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8-91 M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 10 Materials: Typical structural fill materials include clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, quarry spalls, controlled -density fill (CDF), lean -mix concrete, well -graded mixtures of sand and gravel (commonly called "gravel borrow" or "pit -run"), and miscellaneous mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled asphalt, concrete, and glass, which are derived from pulverizing the parent materials, are also potentially useful as structural fill in certain applications. Soils used for structural fill should not contain any organic matter or debris, nor any individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter. On -Site Soils: Because limited excavation is planned for the project, we do not expect that Targe quantities of on-site soils will be generated during earthwork activities. In our opinion, the sands observed to a depth of about 10 feet in the majority of our explorations do anger .suitable_fo rreuse as struc~ tural fill at their ore`se"nt moisture contents. However, the silt layer observed at a depth of about 3 feet within the sand unit would .t be suitable for reuse as structural fill. Fill Placement: Generally, quarry spalls, CDF, and lean -mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, clean sand, granulithic gravel, crushed rock, soil mixtures, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Compaction Criteria: Using the Modified Proctor test (ASTM:D-1557)as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on-site applications be compacted to the following minimum densities: Fill Application Footing subgrade Slab -on -grade floor subgrade Foundation backfill Minimum Compaction 95 percent 95 percent 95 percent Subgrade Verification and Compaction Testing: Regardless of material or location, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The condition of all subgrades should be verified by an AEE representative before filling or construction begins. Also, fill soil compaction should be verified by means of in-place density tests performed during fill placement so that adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses. Soil Moisture Considerations: The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on their grain -size distribution and moisture content when they are placed. As the "fines" S:\W O RD PRO C\98\Kirkland\08000\08 219\S KA G E N.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 11 content (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than 2 percentage points above or below optimum. For fill placement during wet -weather site work, we recommend using "clean" fill, which refers to soils that have a fines content of 5 percent or Tess (by weight) based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. CDF Strength Considerations: CDF is normally specified in terms of its compressive strength, which typically ranges from 50 to 200 psi. CDF having a strength of 50 psi (7200 psf) provides adequate support for most structural applications and can be readily excavated with hand shovels. A strength of 100 psi (14,400 psf) provides additional support for special applications but greatly increases the difficulty of hand -excavation. In general, CDF having a strength greater than about 100 psi requires power equipment to excavate and, as such, should not be used where future hand -excavation might be needed. 6.8, Construction Monitoring Because the future performance and integrity of the structural elements will depend largely on proper site preparation, drainage, fill placement, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Consequently, we recommend that AEE be retained to provide the following post -report services: • Review all construction plans and specifications to verify that our design criteria presented in this report have been properly integrated into the design; • Prepare a letter summarizing all review comments (as required by the City of Seattle); • Attend a pre -construction conference with the design team and contractor to discuss important geotechnical -related construction issues; • Observe construction of the rock revetment along the shoreline; • Observe all exposed subgrades after completion of stripping and overexcavation to confirm that suitable soil conditions have been reached and to determine appropriate subgrade compaction methods; • Monitor the placement of all structural fill and test the compaction of structural fill soils to verify their conformance with the construction specifications; S:\W ORDPROC\98\Kirkland\08000\08 2191SKA G EN.RPT Northwestern Trust 8 -91M -08219-C 26 February 1998 Page 12 • Probe all completed subgrades for footings and slab -on -grade floors before concrete is poured, in order to verify their bearing capacity; • Monitor the installation of all piles to verify that adequate capacities have been achieved and to document the installation procedures; • Observe the installation of all perimeter drains, wall drains, and capillary break layers to verify their conformance with the construction plans; • Prepare a post -construction letter summarizing all field observations, inspections, and test results (as required by the City of Seattle). In addition to the aforementioned services, AEE can provide inspection and testing of concrete, steel, masonry, and other structural materials. Upon request, we could submit a proposal for providing some or all of these construction monitoring, inspection, and testing services. Such a proposal is best prepared after the project plans and specifications have been approved for construction. 7.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Also, because the future performance and integrity of the project elements depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and construction procedures, monitoring and testing by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. AEE is available to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction. S: \ W O RD P R O C \8 8\ Kirkland \ 08000\08218\ S KA G E N .RPT Northwestern Trust 26 February 1998 8-91 M -08219-C Page 13 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. /James S. Dransfield Vice President SAS/JSD/clt S:\W ORDPROC\98\KIrkland\08000\08219\SKA GEN.RPT Stephen A. Siebert, P.E. Project Engineer JOB NO.: 8 -91M -08219-C ( DWG DATE: 01-28-98 1 SCALE: N.T.S. 1 DESIGN BY: SAS FILE NAME: LOCATION.DWG m T W 13) 1 r-� ZZ ? P int Qo rry DNon .n 0• • DD co (1) O( C r -h --I 11) 01 t0 � pp 0 1 "'JRp =1r 4111 AV S a I 11600 24 5TH Q. 1 AV N AV Av t -S " y 4T1 hew 16M zisr AY a S 22ND AY S 2300 AV S 24TH AV I?rn AVI ,7w -0 NM � ~ S 4BIN -*AV 5 T AV 2 101 S )J Nllti ar OND --- - A6TH A71, rrs1R I7TNy A 7 1$ yr,%F113H11R1 r -�-- -nJi� MII, ' Ar ale n AV tlY 10, T AY AV $ ti /(7;1'11 S— Ar $ AV ` 117001' AV S AV 5 • Sr- 8 1 DESIGN BY: SAS 8 -91M -08219-C__ f DWG DAT LEGEND B- 3/MW- 2 TP- 7 (9 Tp- PACIF MONITORING WELL/BORING NU TEST PIT NUMBER AND LOCA AREA OF POSSIBLE TENSION NAY 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF c TE AND EXPLORATION PLAN RMER SKAGEN MARINE FACILITY SEATTLE, WASHINGTON FIGURE Depth (feet) 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.5 1.5 - 2.7 2.7 - 4.5 4.5 - 6.5 0.0 - 1.5 1.5 - 3.0 3.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0 0.0 - 1.0 2.5 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.0 TEST PIT LOGS 8 -91M -08219-C Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP -1 Location: Southwest corner of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete slab Concrete footing Loose, moist, brown, fine SAND, trace silt Soft, wet, tan SILT with trace clay Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, silty, fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 6.5 feet No caving, no seepage observed Test Pit TP -2 Location: Southeast corner of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete footing Loose, moist, brown, silty SAND with some small roots, brick fragments and gravel Soft, wet, tan SILT with trace clay Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 5.0 feet No caving, no seepage observed Test Pit TP -3 Location: Northwestern side of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete footing Loose, moist, brown, silty fine SAND with occasional small roots and cobbles Soft, moist, tan, sandy SILT Loose, medium dense, moist, brown, silty SAND with trace gravel Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet No caving, no seepage observed Depth (feet) 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 4.0 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 6.0 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.0 8-91 M -08219-C Test Pit Logs, Page 2 Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP -4 Location: Southwestern side of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete footing Loose, moist, brown, fine SAND Medium stiff, moist, gray, sandy SILT Loose, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 4 feet No caving, no seepage observed Test Pit TP -5 Location: Eastern side of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete footing Loose, moist, dark gray, fine SAND Soft, wet, gray with red -brown mottling, clayey SILT Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, dark gray, fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet No caving, no seepage observed Test Pit TP -6 Location: Northeastern side of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete footing Loose, moist, dark gray, fine SAND Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, tan, silty fine SAND Medium dense, moist, reddish -brown, fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 6 feet No caving, no seepage observed Depth (feet) 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 1.3 1.3 - 2.3 2.3 - 3.3 3.3 - 4.3 4.3 - 5.3 8-91 M -08219-C Test Pit Logs, Page 3 Material Description Sample No, Test Pit TP -7 Location: Southeastern side of existing building Approximate ground surface elevation: 26 feet Concrete slab Medium dense to dense, moist, brown, sandy GRAVEL with trace pieces of asphalt Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, gravelly SAND Loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty fine SAND Medium stiff to stiff, moist to wet, gray -brown with reddish - brown mottling, SILT Medium dense to dense, moist, brown, fine SAND Test pit terminated at approximately 5.3 feet No caving, no seepage observed Date excavated: 20 January 1998 Logged by: SAS rA MCKONKEypROPERTY/ BIG B's AuT0 SALES TOWING And REPAIR EAST ASSOCIATED GROCERS WAREHOUSE W pY VACANT PROPERTY OVERGROWN BERRY BUSHES PARCEL A SKAGEN BOATS 10625-29 East Marginal Way MARGINAL FORMER CHEVRON SERVICE STATION PAC/p/C N/GNW BILLBOARD ' PARCEL B SIGN PETROLANE 10655 Pacific Highway South AST 1 STORAGE I AREA THE NICE WONGER COMPANY Ay S OurN 18.000 GALLON PROPANE AST Cj AST STORAGE AREA APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FORMER STORAGE AND DEBRIS DISPOSAL INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL PARK EXPLANATION • Pole -Mourned Translormers Approximate Property Boundary 0 0 SCALE PROPORTIONAL Figure 2: SITE PLAN FOR SKAGEN BOATS AND PETROLANE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. ATEC Y CLIENT SECURITY PACIFIC BANK PROJECT NO. 07181 DATE/DRAFTER 01-02-92/14.Kaenan 071]•-C2 SITE ANO 811110100 STATISTICS I. BUILDING CODE: UBC '97 2. ZONING. MIC/H 3. ZONING SETBACI S. FRONT 20' SIDE 0 REAR 0 4. BUILDING AREA. BUILDING 1 = 4,000 SF - TO REMAIN BUILDING 2 = 7.053 SF - TO BE REMOVED 5. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION : BUILDING 1 V -N NON-SPRINILERED BUILDING 2 = V -N NON-SPRINILERED 6. TYPE OF OCCUPANCY. BUILDING 1 = FI/SI/B/M BUILDING 2 = FI/S1/B/M 7. AREA OF EX. ASPHALT 19,03B SF 8. AREA OF NEW ASPHALT. 8,147 SF APPROX. 9. TOTAL SITE AREA. 42,144 S. F. SFTIPE 90 YORK. REMOVE 3 EXISTING STRUCTURES INCLUDING SLABS AND FOUNDATIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 7,053 SF. REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT BETWEEN BUILDING ,, AND TOP OF BANK. RE -ASPHALT AND GRADE TO DRAIN AWAY FROM RIVER AT ,,THE REMOVED BUILDING AREAS. REMOVE DEBRIS AND EXCESS MATERIAL FRAM SITE, CAP ALL UTILITIES AT PROPERTY LINE OR AS 800218ED BY CITY/KIILITY COMPANIES. DUwmjs RIVER 04. MAY DI man I warm MU. 1 roQNIMMO aaLM WIMP ro�o TO 1434.0 D361110 150111:0/10 TO RITIAJI — PACIFIC HW -. SOUTH 8641.: r.mo SITS PLAN - DEMOLITION PLAN. M, eXam arepn POMO n113112a31 MAMMISVP REMODEL for: SKAGEN MARINE DEMO -1 12/22/98 4.33 pm C.\CAD\9737SKA\ DLMO\Deno-t.d.9 SITE AND BUILDING STATISTICS WILD,.G CODE .uK •sr 2 ID41K •NIC/N 1 21.1. SETBACKS ..KW. EO' SIDEOEM. 0 DuILDI.L AREA . TOTAL • 4.000 Sr VrICET PAYED •ROO v RARE.EArsc �. zoos s zneAKT GROUP 1-10E • 1 • ITPE Q MSTI.C1104 -T. N.O.-SEEI.R[Y[10 r. PARKING REWIRED rCTuRE WILT R30 Sr 3/130 • G 4 CMS I.ARE.nuc 1.200 t< 1/2030 • I.M CMS 4 CMS ▪ AOMIK Saw •• tl vW ACCESSIBLE STALL) SITE MCA AREA U [•ISl1AG ASR.KT .2>. IRS S. r. 11. AREA Q 150M30EL • 30 Sr SCOPE OF YORK. WING SK EXISTS.L KIK WILDING MCA TO STRuCTWAL INTEUIIIT IKLCC0N0 REPAIR 10 1-1RACI ANGLE.. SAG RODS AND SILL ANC. REPAIR MARC. SIDI. AN1 RDSITI.c AND REPAINT. INSTALL KR RESIN.. RE - !WALL ELECTRICAL SERVICE. STRIPE LOT FOB PAIMIAG STALLS. • •••41.'"' a.T,si PDE% C DRAWPYS . oexVnuraw LOY .0133331.730.1. 13442,20TO 23 ROO OM% MO lona un man • Vii, TTnv • ZOOS _ 3..22 ROO .00 TM O= LTO., TOION �rm =WO TOM Oa BOO. Ts MOO .. Mm er DARK Se TODGG GOO •60 RR PTA. AK =MOM SLOT TOO 2$ COLO= TS TOMO FT MON OJT s RM. NOM MOOT lf OWES 22 OMEN fan O GTO Ma. MOO la GO GTO OF TOOL, mart ar •33•T. WOO Or OSTOOOP. TEO DMZ. 41 TOO .'.:forerun ••.0 GOO 200. SS MOOT It OROS •• MOOS NM, Oria TO ONO TWO ST eamm •• OOTO 27 OOMOS Or searopla. g•I mon T..IBA TO —� lin•I PATIO 011 DUIU)4MjsH RIVER WEE PAM WC* SAW TO satiot n4444. MULL LaL051.4020 0 5, pc .1.40010.15,01•67 EAMON SOWN vICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE op Assoc cool ■• U r&DN, .1..0IEA. An SMOG ATnALT \ i `PTMMUL ♦ I [eAY Ti • ,niCu , T�..DSERBS" TRUSS B' Le• DTACED COL ORD EmT•G Amu,T EArNs TO 004. , L NONRM,l oOIm I Ent. T» To n R•040 PACIFIC HWY. SOUTH C;Cy SITE PLAN - SITE FLAN r1 / SUM. r.7° , ON CURB SECTI, IST RESERVED PARKING STATE PARKING PERMIT REOUIRED PAIN ...ATE ED rETAL LETTERING, vane OMvaNN STALL dYT.1 MLLE •ACAC.A/CAND N NEO STEEL MST • LOCATE AT CENTER -crnoN( H ANDICAP STALL SIGN OFF. COO OJT TO RIO E,3NG0T500114. Lato.P.ANTER ARV TI -1 02/I0/99 1025 SO CACAO \973/SLATI\T.-Id.g "..... '''.'.. ' '.'.......DukVAN .i. Rive ,� io 'D0 0 Waft G05 =146 'O a, Gc5b� 5,°.Ae58 ^^R tae • n IP'S� AREA 88x15T645 PAVINS/ 1- 6 iw 5vPFEAT0a moi:• �� u 9 -1 Kyt TETL +�. a� b iiIIIIIII LINE• 5- -� NEW SHORELINE WORK FUTURE PERMIT LANDSCAPE ARIA • Awln� LANDSCAPE FJACIPiC �"DVE xsr.cc. EX 5T. CC. 74-0' 7 �HiVAY 50. S,TE PLAN :.20 zuJ _W wv 0 0) (11Q • 24'-0' REMOVE OUST OJT " AY SOUTHEAST MARGINAL W GENERAL D_SGRIPTION a NOTES AL_ AREAS JE5 SAA 4.5, 0RVP_M"5. PARKAS AREAS 4 PA:10 AREAS ARE 5x.5".5 PA'JP_7 AREAS. ALL s..6L G R:5..-eF-M"9 ARE SON, 64l EvAR$ KN. MY QOAOMY PLA. - 9OE..8 ACCES5 440.0 S55510'. P.6L:C .00K5 JEPT. C,^' x-.aV.,.-A JwP-. -5..^.054.... PA5< .5 SPACES AR: %If D 5 x :4 t 5016 D 0 x 4 NTN 25-0 6.c<LP 144..5E 0P .5E 4V'v51 A "O�-9LC A. 5.V 2:.145.'1 5:54.555556.21.7 -4.5 SEE. PREPARE0 AND • 5 V_ASLE. A 50.1_3AS.RVEY SEE. PVE RET. ZONING a SITE INFORMATION 1. 6OVERW'ENr AUTIptITY CITY OP n.KNILA. 2. CODES. 5054145 OW or r.KwLA BUILJINS 500e .8C 44. clrT OF TIAN/LA 5. 2045: NM. 4. LOT AREA 4152166s,'t. 5. COLONS 5OVE54.55 . 6UILOIN8 'A' [465T:N6 666.65s4/t. Wel 1715 TOTAL 06306564.1t. 8.44.04 S '3' 540516.9 3060 0 Wt. TOTAL '25'582ss/t. 6. LOT GOJG5*Fi5 1297405/4:5.260. 505 7. OUILJ'145 TYPE 6.61_96145 'A' A-2 A555"VLY 5-2 51054.55° 841.0 S 'B' B-4 5r05ASE D. COV66.4T'ON TYPE V '-4 4. PARK..6 REO.R5D (SEE PRE-APPLICATIOW 74 CARS. eat COLUMBIA RIVER ARCHITECTS 1916 PI55 PLACE SEATTLE WA 96101 TEL 441-8897 "THE DUWAMISH- "A NOT FOR PROFIT" .ROFFESIONAL ASSOOATION FOR CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES 2519 50. JACKSON SEATTLE WA 98444 TEL 322_0830 INTERURBAN ARCHITECTS 64t. t. 4.M.I.n4 t PAUL PIERCE Project 4w c_..t. Pte„ It 514-t A2 014416.00 111:11 MICR HMR RS TLV OF BANK 6RS 1CP 05 RN F61 0545 DONAMISH RIVER 3 011 1005 seams nal 116 Maw s0701,...00,11.,1., MOM x•020ATac eCE R5 %C "e 2 545 64 g �0 ie r 0 • 'OU Oioief .' 00 mI,pc re`s I, sF* Tio,F-I LANDSCAPE RAN .704 ■ PACIFIC HWY, SOUTH •�o .a/, ao OltEA -'_e 12011 1- 00500 A6m 16'�'mc00 PLANT SCHEDULE BOWL BOTANICAL NAE / COM10N NAE SIZE NOIE3 S. 13C7IMIGAL NNE / GONION NNE 51¢ 4401E saes TREES PL ERN LRAM LLSITANGA / 6004.640 L 3016. 6. &B.4' 00. / VO R6N/ L 'CRYO LUMEN / ORO LDr1iN LA/REL 21-2s' 3615 010. 3' 054. • AGE R'AW61RO6- / A6661..066 RED HARE 2-1/2. CAL, BIB, MATCHED FORM ON OS 16.9 614' / MOLLY -LEAF 0914441165 09X4)1M. VARE116 CORM / FEUD.* COSMO011 16-21' HT. 30'-%' 1. BNE.3' 00. BSB. 4' OL. Q 5ALIX 1540-L 444 / 5LOILEO 1'101011 3'-s' M. BIB, 7.11.11-STE14 CF CORES 5 FLAVIRAIEA/ 181051166 00644200 30-36' HT. &B. 4' OL. RH 00554 4/n:ANI. / X001.A ROSE 15-16' 11. 541. 4' 054. SHIN P154ATA / SE57064 RED CEDAR 6' M. 5111 1 9FJIY, B 1 B RS MESS 'FECtABIL15 / 5ALHOM3Bat4 R>-21.15. BFB. s' OL. BRAND 60.86 I .1 A00T05TAPI14.09541051 / KINICISHO: 4' POT 2' 00. I -'7' 1 SOD LANI SIM 5PEL. ® IPLA10 5SLR05EEDD NX 100165 / ACRE ABROP.120. SMUTS. / W1E 915444 60455 20% DAGTtt15 6.016tUTA / ORL0A10 60455 20% ELMS SLA CA / MILD RYE CRASS 20% FE515CA 641)05543614 / TALL FE50E 20% POA 5E0U04 / WOW% ELLE BRASS 20% 1 SROM GOVE12 SPAGNS KIS MOTE: SPAGd6 TO EE TRANS. 692 DIST/ACE 55014 ON PLANT 50ERLE 11=1111 1111= 11 �N= 11�1na `IIID=111111=111111-q10-11111 111111-W1: 1 =1111=1@=11111=1111 -MOM f 1 SHRUB PLANTING t1 MTS EA LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. AB6RADE5 FOR AL1066RADE LAIm5LA1E AREAS 601LATED a 11E LA IDSOA111 PIANS TO BE SET AT 6' 1)041511049411.0341550.43061630110. PL60E 6' OF 2-4454 TOPSAIL IN ALL IBS Fl/JRNS AREAS NO TNOROLI94.Y RO1011L INTO AE6RADE TO A DEPTH OF 6'. 2. 60010 CORR TO DODO UM ALL DEMOS CANOPES AT 11E SPECIFIED 1SPACES TO PROVIDE LCNCL.ETE GOVERA354 M ALL 9.AMMT1446 13325 DEA641A11D TO RECEIVE 600!0 WYE.. 3. ALL 1E11 !FD AREAS SHALL I45vE 11211.06191E EARS RICA INSTALLED TO A 1610145 DEPTH OF T. 4. LMOSGPE 60441165 ARE BAS® ON 11E SITE PLASS FREPA0ED BY DAVID KE1LE ARCHITECTS . IMEDIAIELY N7164 LMO5OME AOOIPTFLT OF ANI FEED CHANSE TO TIE 511E PLAKa 114011454 SECURE ADJ1T5ENT OF MICE S. REFER TO CML 13114111321/6 DOMES FOR 6RAME NO DRARV646 6FORlA11011 1450514184 ROPEY atm OF ANY 40406E O AINA6E CO101TI06 MICN MAY AFFECT TIE 1EALTX OF F1ART IM1E114L. 6 ALL 1E11 LANL'6LAVE AREAS TO 1E IR26A1ED /1111 AN AUTOMATIC 100ER68011, 660661104 5351134. 1. 131379t TO SFFCFICA110Ka FCR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 460 DIRECTION. n!: 5ECAE 614602 EBAIN rCLE RND AP N 10456E 6ALV. 566 MAPPED 11 4010640 V6lfL TCT 41644-4 T SPA INC 1166170.5 PDE 1REE 5TNE5 NIH 6' COIEL& POINT Nin &RADE TREE PLANTIN5 %'DIA TEE MALS 04 LNF1 AREAS. FILL NIX TOP 91EC61ED 111.01 REMOVE TOP 63 OF 431664.1.065064116 BASKETS 54X,6-401- RT NMI SA TOPSOIL AND 3074 NATIVE SOIL. ADD SPECIFIED FER1Uffit TO NX 4. Brumbaugh a Associates Landscape Archlteclure m PO4 P 67w. IP. 117 Uwe.. w sue Fain* .m Ina .5100 0.0.10 00.90 Oa P11111.. COMD.II 411 13 FERE Dana loALA .TING aRAcw DRAM Ka AERACAR Itrg 0.03 =MR A 006101 MA+®.01 7A 0 T.J D05110 0.1. iaibo L t8TALL / NAI nee RATA. 01. Art 00E0 00 • isft A. AT MOT ORE en TS F00 n un'T'R0•06 L m r.nu ,RR.0000040.•OA EPATm TO VOLCOATE AM, IMO trz LOCROGIEILL 41 coon m mom 001 000. ILA IT 3Re0O1 1603616 DpaT 0.0.00.00 WK. uwm LATER a. CAR /— EXISTING DOOR REPAIR D• . I1 OR REPLACE IV Sr O+EaeAD DOOR IST6G HAN DOOR /-1EW ELECTRICAL SERNCE 2EEAERE NO REPLACE EXISTING/ 200 NPS - 111109 VO1.15 3 PRASE 3ERFT WPCLLER COMPANY (IODFT CARTS. PRO.'IDE STEEL 03401. AT DOCK JAr66 TO GIRT 05103E .021.1616.1 MIME ROW 01. ,ro0 FETAL ma COIT00 4ww.xT. PENAL 01.6. WPM 11 FACRO 01.1 000.10 IEPAR eRwrmnw LT A N .1..1.00OOMR AO 10•01 OF Rm.aRl . CM OAR wur anmlra sR IaRALA6 . co04 at nPullO RwQ AMOYR 6101.0 ROOM NR .06•0 rA mS e. A. Rrrc 4w LA«ATI cor WS OMR CIA0 60 Do rPERRALL 10 ACM AATGan10•10 in 0001 AT N..LL A 0111AS OMR 6.es*RS Asp OEM ALL iEcaien 002 TrARI®. At 0.00 open 4161 Ra6m 0 TO SE Ruaw RM. AO s IDO�ell 00100emiAES 04 FIRM. L6mLT:n nam wnall wv:wL Rtn. 1 000 tit OLT WOO R. NRALk C000 All aou AI 1006 / FIR TEC 102 MI SEM A T3 s a0 4 DEW RI u. a WM.. 041w 100 Ai rETAL 100 0 WPM 1.0.1 A NW V-0,1,0 .101 0.1. OCCA.1011ED,111110.0101. AWE SO MO OR 21 0 w0100600.00 MEYOD. 10TNa ARP, DRP CY0 W R ALad N? a9 300 0..1 REAREON4 aCEEAR AD 461. Dam 0110-Aft*6601 MLAIGM. RED ROARS a?e e irtt ME ALAI. IVO own !VT w - l ce AA.a, T 00 SO 0.7 aEaaI..a 4 WWWO OM NM r0I. ooRt rRou 0.301 AO ADDLE A.AR6 r!ARES POI nal Renal SIAR L ro114RO SA U. LEND A.O., no.. roe MOM*CALM *I.1 FLOOR PLAN 5u).: va•.r.o 0. SCALE W . r -O' 40005F. 1206 OWKE. 50051./ 600. a OCOPANTS 2605 WYE. 3200 5F. / IMO . 6 OCOPANTS TOTAL M OCOPAN1 IIELLIZEA eD::0ARAArat „ D ..RE..I.aATMODAToo -ETIs.. OR EA.ICC RATES0010NAM R.1DAR..LAIn AR A01 COROT FLOORTRICK OW/Ke Yr COO � EASE • AT C �R , lag ` CALK 4161 TO ROTA :ALL WOO AO NELL ALO CIE ATT. 00 � R .RDR4}.T •SGILtLAM. ADONALL A.EENCOYLE /WALL TO SLAB I SCKE 11/2. ' 2 INTERIOR DOOR JAMB $EKE• 1 I/2' � 1'-p' taloa SECTION AY CENTERED AFP, 1/ - GRADE }, ...PER CLO 1/31.31. 3r RARE TYPICAL DDDR CIGNA. NOT TO KALE NOTE, ALL e6r< TO MONTED ON 60 eTRre aoE OF DOOR. PLAeTIC LAMINATE ECM WTN 0Traa FOR 6.IERN4. 0AL 0cceee. T OP ROOM NE eau. ROWED, COTN RAISED MAIL. ARAOTERE CN COLOR pAOTE ON CLUE OHANDICAP RESTROOM SIGN NO SCKE mawLaCAnl BARRIER FREE 0 -SCALE: 2/4• A I• -0- !A3Uhh!ih!RdAJ3A!Ai!it_ WA it �1= J CO TYPICAL RESTROOM SECTION SECTION SCALE: I/2' - I•-0' 5ECT10M � y e 66160106 !!41.61 �2 Oce 1101616134161102 0Rl z i XIE 3l• 02/10/99 1028 OR C:\CAO\9737S64ST PT. -2.6.0 • POPVII P35114 WI WIC OWIPPE POMO 4,00 1.10141 10 POP OLIN Oil PALI 141.441014 PER.PLI 04.0 W(.741 40 WOO 44.11.110 IRCILW MO PAPP EAST ELEVATION Sul. VO••r riihnob .K LOGS POMP POGO DWI, PAO POLLI WOG wo rue NORTH ELEVATION Ou4.. 11•.M1P .v.••w••r-o POLMOWED O100 010194.42 POOP POLIO!eMP SOUTH ELEVATION 5.141. vr.r-er POMO wwguru, mimi.csMMO NW WEST ELEVATION a »• Sue: ue••r-v e a d b a 02/10/99 1009 on C\C00\9737SKR\TI\Ti-3d.g —■ rir.l••r. •• S b f • d SEATTLE CeTY O N. 3-43 0. MIC / H INDUSTRIAL OFFICE/WAREHOUSE 4624.. ' STATE ....HAN ••t..1 (W r•=y �•I 1 • pr WAREHOUSI INDUSTRIAL'. f • 'o r"O o Mks Z "2,INDUSTRIAL ��2 . u /j% e oeor \� ; LAND USES MAP • Pacific Highway So. sq9 wit. ef, . . _ ,-... ---N____.,_, ___ ___ _r,„2-- __ — — •-.1--- ----- — --"ka... —__ . ---4 -.9/ ---:...-r• ., ----...„....4 -,_e____:...e. -----.1=, ..... - — --... _1-- . ---- .1- ..--,-., - -.,--- -7----___ — ..,_---__ , .:-- ,..-..... - Wernish, •••••--AMrifigr • • r, etwitosio4 lb* M 64~ et we Mt Octf EtaMibth• 511.04. 1,opert8.3 61123 Se 1900 S0•40 %.t. 1310S 88.1. 88 98032 MAR I ass Schroeter Surveying PROFESSIONAL LANO SURVEYORS 110 ••• 813 low, v....8. soma Mao 9.9-688k radi 48•0881-9329 .12 V.S,00 3/12/99 D41 0328822 3/17/80 40 11.124281 MO. 139012 SCALE 201 • StC. Tv..—_12„. ...1_ • per •ROS V. 106/182 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,.-.. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT.LOTS 9AND 10 IN•SECTION 4; TOWNSHIP 23' NORTH,. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M..DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:- ' BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE "WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH FROM • THE WHICH THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 91111 THE SOUTH -UNE OF SECTION 3, OFSAID TOWNSHIP AND RANGE. BEARS SOU -M.15'4730- EAST 1155.44 ,TOWNSHIP THENCE SOUTH 8516%30. WEST. ALONG THE NORTH UNE -OF - - A CERTAIN. PRIVATE ROADWAY. .T0 A POINT IN, THE WESTERLY MARGIN - OF STATE ROAD NO.:1 AKA U.S. HIGHWAY 99 AND PACIFIC. HIGHWAY: 'SOUTH. SAID POINT BEING. ON A CURVE FROM WHICH THE CENTER OF THE CURVE BEARS. NORTH 7304'23' WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1860.00 FEET AND -THE TRUE PLACE OF BEGINNING OF THIS- DESCRIPTION:- ' THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT AND SAID MARGIN TO A _ POINT IN A UNE PARALLEL. TO AND 1800 FEET FROM MEASURED AT .RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION- 4; THENCE - ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 8929'17' WEST TO THE BANK' - OF THE.DUWAMISH RIVER: THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT BANK TO A POINT FROM WHICH THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. BEARS' SOUTH '852911- EAST; THENCE SOUTH -8579'11' EAST TO THE BASIS OF ELEVATION: - City of Seattle Benchmark # 192 ' 1 north of south end 6' concrete retaining- wall 0 west end small parking lot 0 N. • side Norfolk St. & across from Associoted. Grocers parking lot- to A -&.B Buildings - ELEVATION 20.348 feet (NAVD 88) Conversion from NAVD 88 -to NAVE) 29 Is as follows . NAVD 88 minus 3.60 feet NAV0..29 • • "'8osis of. Survey Record of.Survey by Gary L. Von Recording No. 9511309002, Vol: 106/182• •\` 7. \ °n edge ' asphalt % STOP of 80nk �_- \ \ h i6 N - _ .- . i,j, west edge asphol\- 1 ` is—'" - - —.- - _ - — 1 a. ro - - • ��. o. - .1n \ !`>.-- _- N --t0p a - _ m pga, ro _o—d 8an O iv•r O. qt I - 1. a So LEGEND ® Concrete Monument in Case ▪ Monument X :. Tack in Lead - or Nail & Disk ;Bronze plug . . i - O ;Set rebar w/cap #23604 0 0 - �� � _ • -Found pipe or rebar ta° L2' r.:: - O ' 2 x: 3' with • tack. & disk co " 0 io El 2 z 2 N n Hydrant . m a u ''Power pole f o. .169 �� becidwuoTree v` `SLE/6 _ > Evergreen. Tree 6 Roo1860.00 L-.381.74 Si Catch Bosin • e •, Main- Hole �� Gass Volve.• 8 Water Vault >( ._ Wire Fence D..1 Water Valve TrV traffic vault' wry water meter The, locatl°0-of- uttlbes. as show serving the subJect pra0P•ty nave been taken iron public records. Ve cannot certify to •their accuracy and/or cmgletenesa BeFore • Conntnane construction involving •xcavation or renOval- - of exlstelp structures. call a locating, fervid or 1-8007424-5555 for underground utility locations. . .- - Mid data for this survey was. obtained by direct Mid ' • ' - meas,enenss. Angular and' linear 'relationships were measured :. nth a sat se0dd theodolite and electrode distance neasurn9- device. supplemented by .5 st551 tape.. . Contours 'as shown have been interpolated betmn spot' elevations. ''actual proud 5501005' 5.Y vary.. T>es'nr,ty hes.been prepared For the exclusive use of. Parties whose -names appear herein Only., and does not extend to any weaned third partes 5.00 t express recertification by ...the toed- surveyor. David Kehle Architects.• 12720 Gateway Or. Suite 116 • Seattle, WA Schroe-ter �' '. Surveying:. PROFESSIONAL LAND' SURVEYORS Pd` Bos 813 $.Ws..L Washington 98062 1206) 242-6621 FAX 3206)243-9679. . DATE (FIELD) 10/7/99 DATE (OFFICE) 10/15/99 JOB i 328/1 PROJECT 00. 98012