Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEPA E99-0031 - GROUP HEALTH - NEW RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT / OUTPATIENT BUILDINGS
GROUP HEALTH R & D SUPPORT FACILITY CONSTRUCTION OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AND OUTPATIENT BUILDINGS 12401 E. MARGINAL WY S. E99-0031 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Leslie HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing X Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) Addendum Mailer's Signature: kalij Yth-u0k---- Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Hearing Examiner Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Decision Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit , Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __FAX __Mail: To Seattle Times Classifieds Gail Muller, Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this•30th day of Augus$n the year 20 00 P:\wynettaforms\FORMS\AFFIDAVIT-Mail.doc, 06/29/00 Person Requesting Mailing: Nora Project Name International Gateway East II Project Number: E99-0031 Mailer's Signature: kalij Yth-u0k---- P:\wynettaforms\FORMS\AFFIDAVIT-Mail.doc, 06/29/00 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Project File FROM: Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official RE: E99-0031 SEPA Addendum Construction of two R&D Buildings with site improvements DATE: August 28, 2000 The City of Tukwila issued a DNS for the proposal to develop a 12.9 acre industrially zoned site with two 81,000 square foot research and development buildings and 792 parking stall on April 10, 2000. During the development of the storm drainage plan it became necessary to alter the location of the stormwater discharge for the additional impervious surface along the improved 126`h Street right-of-way. The original plan called for the runoff to be conveyed through the site to the detention pond, the revised plan would discharge the water directly to Riverton Creek through a new outfall. This addendum to the previous SEPA Determination covers the changes to the drainage plan including the revision to the discharge location. The drainage plan has been designed in accordance with the regulations in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. An HPA permit will be required for the discharge into Riverton Creek. No additional conditions are required to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts. C:\Nora's_Files\Group Health\Addendum_memo.doc • • &HA VS S's �y 'G ENG' Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: International Gateway East 11 Our Job No. 7390 SEPA File No. E99-0031 Dear Steve: CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES August 25, 2000 Facsimile: (206) 431-3665 Due to a minor change in the overall scope of the above -referenced project, we are requesting an amendment to the SEPA determination dated April 10, 2000. The storm drainage system serving the roadway improvements proposed along South 126th Street has been redesigned to discharge into Riverton Creek, rather than be conveyed through the project to the on-site detention pond as shown in the original SEPA Application package. With the proposed change, the location of stormwater discharge will be identical to existing conditions. The overall impervious area increase exceeds 5,000 square feet; therefore, a separate detention will be provided for South 126th Street. Since the pollution generating impervious surface area of the South 126th Street improvements is less than the 5,000 square feet threshold as described in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, water quality treatment will not be required. Please proceed to process the SEPA amendment at your earliest convenience and contact me is you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance. Karl W. Lundberg, P.E. Project Engineer KWUcb/bd 7390c.003 cc: Bernie Martell, Sabey Corporation Roger Carlson, Lance Mueller & Associates Daniel K. Balmelli, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX www.barghausen.com • • CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( ) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ()DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( ) TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. co. DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELAND DIV (V.),DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT#11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DIVISION ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS & REC () K.C. ASSESSORS OFFICE ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) TUKWILA LIBRARY ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) QWEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ()PUGET SOUND ENERGY ( ) HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) AT&T CABLE SERVICES ( ) KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: () PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE ( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. () MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES UTILITIES CITY AGENCIES ( ) HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) K.C. DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ) K.C. LAND & WATER RESOURCES () FOSTER LIBRARY ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE ( ) VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 ( ) WATER DISTRICT #125 ( ) CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS () BRYN MAWR-LAKERIDGE SEWER/WATER DISTRICT ( ) 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 ( ) STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICE* * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( ) MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( ) SEATTLE TIMES () SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 7/21/00 P:\wynettaforms\FORMS\CHKLIST.doc () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) HIGHLINE TIMES , 1 170,_C S v� '�-`v csoi —GALL • • PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section *Applicant *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send these documents to DOE: SEPA Determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed or sent to newspaper) SHORELINE MAILINGS: Notice of Application: Notice of Application for a Substantial Development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 500 feet of subject property, comments are due 30 days after the notice of application is mailed/posted. The notice of Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit must include a statement that any person desiring to submit written comments on the application or desiring to receive notification of the final decision on the application may do so within 30 days of the notice of application. If a hearing will be held on the application, the hearing notice must include the information that written comments may be submitted, or oral presentation made at the hearing. Shoreline Permit Notice of Decision: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 21 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General *Applicant *Indian Tribes *Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). *Any parties of record * send only the staff report, site plan and the SEPA Determination Send these documents to DOE and Attorney General: Permit Data Sheet Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) Shoreline Permit Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) — Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements — Cross-sections of site with structures & shoreline — Grading Plan — Vicinity map SEPA determination (3 -part from Sierra) Findings (staff report or memo) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed) 08/14/00 P:\PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS.doc Group Health Parties of Record Brian and Philomena Kennedy 12802 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Gina Nielson 12527 35 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Charlotte Cloutier 4058 S. 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Albert and Carla Petes 12614 35 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Brian and Michelle Herman 3505 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Michelle Burkholder 3725 % S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert and Sharon Bernhardt 3418 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Bob Fadden Lance Mueller Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Mr. & Mrs. Sam Alvarez 12624 35th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 (206) 243-6639 (206) 270-4915 w (206) 242-1296 Wilma Patapoff 3703 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Linda Hilmas 370 South Reynolds Rd. #8 Othello, WA 99344 Ann and Todd Willis 3717 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Karl Lundberg Barghausen Engineers 18215 72"d Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Ms. Max Werran 12048 10th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Phillip Hibbs 12633 37th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 • • Cizy of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Steve Lancaster, DCD Director FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: July 12, 2000 RE: Group Health Cooperative — International Gateway East II Building A Permit D99-0438. Sensitive Area Mitigation Review I have reviewed this submittal (date —stamped Received 6/5/2000) related the wetland mitigation plan for Phase 1 and 2 of this project. This review is for the building permit for Building A located on the Phase 1 portion of the site. The wetland mitigation for both Phase 1 & 2 sensitive area impacts will occur on the northwest corner of the Phase 1 site. The mitigation site provides more than the standard area for wetland creation at the required replacement ratio of 1.5 to 1.0. I recommend approval of the Wetland Mitigation Plan (Overview Plan Sabey Construction - Group Health Support Facility, Altmann Oliver Assoc. 5/30/2000) based on my review comments. The Plan is very thorough but I have also listed one condition related to design. Review Comments: 1) Total wetland fill for Phase 1 and Phase 2 is 6,216 square feet instead of 4,968 square feet as shown on the Plan. The Plan is providing 11,887 square feet of created wetland (1.9 to 1.0 replacement). 2) The Plan would provide an enhanced wetland buffer, adjacent to new development, for the minimum buffer distance of 15 feet. The enhanced buffer area is 6,101 square feet. 3) The mitigation site would allow preservation of existing wetland (approximately 1,250 square feet). This small area will be enhanced as part of the overall plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Group Health Mitigation Memo July 12, 2000 Page 2 4) The mitigation site is physically separated from the stormwater pond as it will be slightly higher and drain into the pond. However, hydrology for the new wetland will include rooftop runoff. This may be a benefit if the water quality is not detrimental. Wetland monitoring for a 3 -year period will include water quantity and quality. The runoff water will be detained in an underground tank. Adjustment to the inflow rate from the roof top runoff will be possible with the outlet of the tank. 5) In addition to the wetland mitigation, the stormwater pond would be enhanced with native plants to integrate habitat with the wetland mitigation. The enhanced stormwater pond is an area of about 25,000 square feet. 6) A Tree Permit, related to wetland alteration, is required. The applicant has provided tree survey information and tree replacement calculations per the tree regulations (TMC 18.54). It appears that 84 trees will be planted for this requirement This requirement is being provided within the Wetland Mitigation Plan because there will be 185 trees planted in this area. Review Conditions 1) The elevations within the created wetland are critical as they allow water to evenly flow through the wetland. The Plan Specifications recognize the need for accurate survey data. The series of log weirs will control and direct the flow of water moving towards the stormwater pond. It appears that most of the log weirs are notched at the same elevation as the wetland area behind them. If this is the design, there will be no storage or holding of water behind these features and this may affect creation of new wetland. Prior to construction, this design element must be re-evaluated to determine if weir elevations should be higher. Please let me know if there are any questions regarding this review and recommendation. Cc: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator 07/12/00 WED 09:46 FAX 206 28920 Sabey Corporation 002 410 mm - May 21, 2000 Sabey Corporation 12201 Tukwila International Blvd., 4th Floor Seattle, WA 98168-5121 Attention: Bernard Martell Subject: Group Health IGE-II Rooftop A/C Unit Noise Study Dear Bernard: .U000STICS,I11C, Consulting Services in Sound & Vibration C'ntrol Jerry G. Lilly, P.E President 5266 NW Village Park Drike Lsaquah, WA 98027 Phone (425) 649-9344 max: (425)649-0737 This report summarizes my findings regarding the issue of outdoor noise radiation'from the rooftop units serving the proposed Group Health project at International Gateway East —II in Tukwila, WA. These findings are based on the 8/19/99 site plan and zoning map that you mailed to me on May 17, 2000. The site is bounded by 35th Avenue S. to the west, S. 124`h Street to the north, East Marginal Way S. to the east, and S. 1261 ` Street to the south. This design shows two buildings, each with two McQuay model RP'. -105C packaged rooftop units mounted near the center of the roof Based on this information, the source property and all adjacent properties to the west, north, and east are zoned MIC/L or MIC/H. These are industrial zones as far as the Tukwila noise ordinance is concerned. The property to the south is zoned LDR, which is residential. According. to your marked -up site plan, there are six single-family residences directly across S. 126th Street to the south. Your plan also shows the existing grad.: to decrease in elevation from the west corner of the site to the east corner of the site. The Tukwila Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.22) restricts noise levels between adjaccrt industrial properties to no more than 70 dBA (day or night). If the receiving property is zoned residential and the source is on property zoned industrial (as it is along the s:,uth property line of this project), noise levels must be less than 60 dBA during the da;, and 50 dBA at night. Night is defined as extending from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Noise data for the McQuay rooftop A/C units were obtained in a fax dated 5/10/)O:from John McCallum of the Norby Company, the local representatives for McQuay. I he noise data was given in terms of the octave band sound power levels, with an overall A- . weighted sound power level of 101 dB (ref. 1 picowatt) for each rooftop unit. 07/1.2/00 WED 09:47 FAX 206 281 0920 Sabey Corporation 1 Group Health IGE-II 05/21/00 Page 2 of 2 BCOUS1ICS,IOC. The sound pressure level from each rooftop unit'was independently calculated at each receiver location, then summed logarithmically to determine the total noise level with all four units running simultaneously. This acoustical analysis took into consideration the spectrum of the source, the distance to each rooftop unit, and the acoustic shielding provided by the building roof parapet. Although the mechanical units will be shielded around the perimeter by a visual screen, this analysis did not consider any noise reduction that might result from the presence of the visual screen. The predicted maximum noise level along the west and east property lines with all four units operating is 57 dBA. This is 13 dBA below the 70 dBA permitted by the noise ordinance. The predicted noise level along the north property line is 52 dBA, which is 18 dBA below the noise ordinance limit. The predicted noise levels along the south property line (which is residential on the south side of S. 126t Street) are presented in Chart 1. Noise levels are predicted for each house, with House #1 representing the residence farthest west (closest to 35th Avenue South) and House #6 representing the residence farthest east (closest to East Marginal Way S.). Daytime noise levels are expected to be higher than nighttime noise levels because the cooling loads are reduced at night, and fewer condenser fans (the primary outdoor noise source in these units) will be running during these hours. As you can see from Chart 1, the daytime noise levels are well below the 60 dBA daytime noise ordinance criteria along the entire south property line. At night, all six houses are expected to be at least 1 dBA below the 50 dBA nighttime criteria. Based on these findings, it appears that the proposed equipment will be in full compliance with the Tukwila Noise Ordinance. Consequently, no special noise mitigation is recommended. If you have any questions regarding these findings, do not hesitate to give me a call. Very truly yours, JGL Acoustics, Inc. 6441 7 Jerry G. Lilly, P.E. President Member INCE, ASA, NCAC encl. , 07./1.2/00 WED 09:47 FAX 206 281 0920 60 55 50 as 0 J 0 45 0 a 0 40 Sabey Corporation U004 • • Group Health IGE-Il Chart 1. Predicted HVAC Noise at South Property Line 35 - 30 1 2 3 4 House # ■ Day 133 Night 5 6 SBEY CORPORATION April 26, 2000 VIA FAX: 206-431-3665 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director, Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Steve: RE: Group Health Cooperative -- Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan Per your request, we are submitting this letter to confirm that International Gateway East II LLC will allocate funding for the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan as part of the permitting process for our tenant Group Health Cooperative's R&D buildings. The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan (NTMP) has been requested by the City of Tukwila for the Riverton neighborhood located just South of two new buildings being developed for Group Health Cooperative. It is our understanding that the participation of International Gateway East II LLC for Group Health's R&D development will be based on an amount not to exceed $200,000, with the participation amount to be posted by bond. It is our understanding that the need for mitigation is to be reviewed annually and that two years is considered adequate time within which any additional need for mitigation would be recognized and implemented. As such, the bond would expire two years after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the second building. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Tukwila and your staff to allow Group Health Cooperative a greater presence in Tukwila. Please feel free to call me or my staff with any questions. REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES VENTURE FUNDING Regards, Sabey Corporation as agent for INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST II LLC David A. Sabey President 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. Fourth Floor Seattle, Washington 98168-5121 206/ 281-8700 main line 206/ 282-9951 fax line www.sabey.com 04/27/2000 11:23 FAX 2062829951 SABEY CORP Z002 011 / SABEY CORPORATION / April 25, 2000 VIA FAX: 206-431-3665 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director, Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Steve: RE: Group Health Cooperative -- Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan Per your request, we are submitting this letter to confirm that Sabey Corporation will allocate funding for the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan as part of the permitting process for Group Health Cooperative's R&D buildings. The Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Plan (NTMP) has been requested by the City of Tukwila for the Riverton neighborhood located just South of two new buildings being developed for Group Health Cooperative. It is our understanding that Sabey Corporation's participation for Group Health's R&D development will be based on an amount not to exceed $200,000, with the participation amount to be posted by bond. It is our understanding that the need for mitigation is to be reviewed annually and that two years is considered adequate time within which any additional need for mitigation would be recognized and implemented. As such, the bond would expire two years after the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the second building. We appreciate the opportunity to work with the City of Tukwila and your staff to allow Group Health Cooperative a greater presence in Tukwila. Please feel free to call me or my staff with any questions. David A. Sabey President REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT / 12201 Tukwila International Blvd. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Fourth Floor VENTURE FUNDING / Seattle, Washington 96168-S121 206/ 281-8700 main line 206/ 282-9951 fax line www.sabey.com • Ciiy of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ADDENDUM Description of Original Proposal: Develop a 12.9 acre industrially zoned site currently partially used as a parking lot with two 81,000 square foot research and development buildings and 792 parking stalls. There are 4,968 square feet of isolated Class III wetlands on site that will be filled. A wetland enhancement/mitigation area is planned at the northwestern edge of the site adjacent to the stormwater detention/water quality pond. A 7,225 square foot wetland will be preserved along the eastern edge of the site. Frontal improvements will be constructed along the adjacent streets, S. 124th Street, S. 126th Street and 35th Avenue South. Description of Addendum: The storm drainage system serving the roadway improvements along South 126th Street has been redesigned to discharge into Riverton Creek, rather than be conveyed through the project to the on-site detention pond.. Proponent: Sabey Corporation Location of Proposal: 12401 East Marginal Way South, Parcels #734560-0490, -0430, -0385, -0580 Addendum concerns the South 126th right-of-way and adjacent site property to the north. Lead Agency: City Of Tukwila File Number: E99-0031 The City has determined that the addendum 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 the project scope and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The original DNS was issued April 10, 2000. This addendum is adopted on August 30, 2000. LA - Steve Lancaster, SEPA Responsible Official City of Tukwila, Washington 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 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, DECLARE THAT: 7U,11, AOL - Cni (l Ie., HEREBY 6) rer-Lvrr Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Project Number: Egg -003i Determination of Significance &.Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ __Mail: FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds' Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mai led to each of the addresses listed on this Imo. day of fp-i/ in the year 206D P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM Al SJ p o -on Sf -1-11h)/z.(700 - A o 6) rer-Lvrr Project Name Qf0U 1-11a21141 Sthe y Project Number: Egg -003i Mailer's Signature: 11111110 P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/24/0011:44 AM • • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT TWO 80,000 SF 2 STORY R&D/OUTPATIENT BUILDINGS ON A 13 ACRE SITE IN THE MIC/L ZONE PROPONENT: GROUP HEALTH/SABEY CORPORATION LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 12401 EAST MARGINAL WY 5 PARCEL NO: 734560-0490 SEC/TWN/RNG: SW 10-23-04 LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E99-0031 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. k*****k* *******•***7***************A*•****'kyl**********it• ...k*******k****** ** This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2). comments must be submitted by f.t:1 2Y?ciuQ . The lead agency will not act on thisproposal for >( days from the date below. 14 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Date Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. CHECKLIST IRONNENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILS ( ) 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 INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WPS1DATA\CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( )yDEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV ( DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING 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 -( K ,VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( ) WATER DISTRICT #20 �( )yWATER 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 ai ‘(% METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MFDIB Lance_ M vii der -Ass�x i3S� Lt, a 5 v e_ c 4- -lam) gc5iaa �� � ocr 12e.Gof-of • Group Health Parties of Record Brian and Philomena Kennedy (206) 243- 12802 37 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Gina Nielson (206) 270- 12527 35 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Charlotte Cloutier (206) 242- 4058 S. 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Albert and Carla Petes 12614 35 Av S Tukwila, WA 98168 Brian and Michelle Herman 3505 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Michelle Burkholder 3725 1/2 S. 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Gina Vale (206) 318-8570 • Memorandum Date: 4/6/00 To: Brian Shelton From: Raid Tirhi RE: Group Health- Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation • Brian- As per our latest conversation, this memo will be sent to Mark Mizuta. We are seeking mitigation towards the PAC Hwy/Boeing Access Rd intersection LOS drop from E to F with project trips. The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program is the only part that will be addressed through SEPA; other mitigation measures are addressed through Concurrency. Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program — Revised: For SEPA transportation mitigation purposes, the City Of Tukwila has conditioned the property owners of parcel numbers (734560-0490, 734560-0430, 734560-0385, 734560-0580) to sign a developer agreement to establish and provide a neighborhood traffic monitoring program. The program is to assure that traffic impacts related to the development arising in the residential neighborhoods will be addressed and resolved. If deemed necessary, the property owners of the proposed development will provide traffic calming devices and improvements that are approved by the city engineer. To determine if and when appropriate traffic calming devices are needed, the program shall monitor and analyze the following criteria: • License plate and directional daily traffic counts • Accident History analysis • Speed study • Review of neighborhood complaints • Perform public meetings to compile and understand complaints and proposed solutions Above criteria need to be collected at the following locations: • S 126`h St. -west of E Marginal Way • S 128th St. -east and west of E Marginal Way • S 130`h St. -east and west of E Marginal Way • 40`h Ave S -south of S 130`h Street The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program will be done on an annual basis or as directed by the city engineer depending on type and number of complaints received. The program will commence one year from the issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first building and continue for a period up to five years thereafter or as directed by the city engineer. 04/06/00 16:24 FAX MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Subject: April 6, 2000 ENTRANCO ENG. Brian Shelton, P.E. City of Tukwila Marc Mizuta Torsten Lienau, P.E., P.T.O.E. Entranco Updated Group Health Parking Garage and ternational Gateway East Development Mitigation Fees and Neighbor •od Impacts Entranco Protect No. 99181-61 • el 002/007 This memorandum is an addendum to the Group Health C Garage and International Gateway East Development Tra and replaces the mitigation section on pages 31 to 33. The completion of the GHC Parking Garage and Intematio will impact the following projects: • New Traffic signal at East Marginal Way South/So • flew Traffic signal at East Marginal Way South/Sou perative (GHC) Parking c Study, dated March 22, 2000 al Gateway East Development 112th Street 130th Street • 'Iew Traffic signal at South 133rd Street/SR 599 On & Off Ramps • East Marginal Way South widening between Boeing Access Road and South 115th Street • South 124th Street/GHC Main Entrance driveway realignment and signalization For allyof the projects mentioned above, it was determined that the a.m. peak hour produced the greatest amount of project trips from both developments. Therefore, mitigation costs were associated with a.m. peak hour project volumes as a worst-case scenario. Costs associated with each project have been separated for the GHC Parking Garage and International Gateway East Development. The GHC facility was previously occupied by other tenants, who had participated in traffic impact fees when they occupied the building. The previous tenants of the GHC facility paid impact fees for 395 a.m. peak hour trips and 377 p.m. peak hour trips. The GI -IC facility would be responsible for the current traffic impact fees of the City of Tukwila for trips over the vested trips covered by the previous tenant. Because no documentation could be provided by the GHC facility regarding the use of a Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program and/or the continued use of thls program after the garage is constructed, the City requested that 800 employees be used for the impact fee calculations for the existing GHC facility, instead of 650 employees which was w;proJec /09181/Ielmem00lmstm10391.doe (03191/00) Imp 1 04/06/00 16:24' FAX 411 ENTRANCO ENG. -6 lI003/007 doc ted in the March 22, 2000 traffic study. The reasoning is that the City has no gua e (through a documented CTR program) that the 2 shifts and flex schedules curr used at the GHC facility will continue in the future. The use of 800 employees resu a slightly higher trip generation rate for the GHC Parking Garage development. It sh also be noted that the 800 employees are used for calculating traffic impact fees only , Nev Traffic Signal at East Marginal Way South/South 112th Street Sign warrants were satisfied in 2000 without the projects, as well as 2000 with the projects. In addition, the LOS in 2010 with project trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours was LOS F. Because the signal is warranted without the projects, the City only requires the developer to pay a proportionate share toward the total cost of the improvement (approximately $200,000) rather than paying for the entire signal installation. Project trips from each development were divided by the difference between 1999/ 000 existing modified a.m. peak hour volumes (1,104) and 2010 a.m. peak hour volum s (1,971 trips) to determine the percentage each project pays toward this signal. Th International Gateway East development produced 28.5 percent of the trips through this intersection while the GHC Parking Garage produced 7.3 percent of the trips through this intersection. • International Gateway East — $57,057 (247 trips) • GHC Parking Garage - $14,553 (63 trips) New Traffic Signal at East Marginal Way South/South 130th Street A signal warrant analysis in 2000 and 2010 with project trips did not warrant the installation of a signal. However, the LOS at this intersection during the p.m. peak hour will be LOS F in 2010 with the project trips. For this reason, the City has requested that a signal be installed at this intersection. The two developments will be responsible for installing a signal at this intersection. Each development will pay a percentage of the total cost based on the number of trips each project sends through this intersection. • International Gateway East — 79 percent of total project costs (247 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — 21 percent of total project costs (65 trips) New Traffic Signal at South 133rd Street/SR 599 On & Off Ramps This project is on the City of Tukwila's TIP list and has a cost of $81/trip. • International Gateway East — $8,910 (110 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — $2,349 (29 trips) East Marginal Way South Widening between Boeing Access Road and South 115th Street The International Gateway East and GHC Parking Garage both impact this City TIP project. According to the City of Tukwila, this project has been updated from the original TIP list and the widening of East Marginal Way South extends from Boeing Access Road to South 115th Street. The City has determined that the impact fee associated with this wrproJecr&00181AelmernOO/mahoP331,doc (03/31/00) Imp 2 04/06/00 16:25 FAX • • ENTRANCO ENG. project is $613/trip and has requested that 804 employees be used to calculate the mitigation costs for this project. • International Gateway East — $148,959 (243 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — $39,845 (65 trips) South 124th StreetJGHC Main Entrance Driveway Realignment and Signalization i A peak -hour signal warrant analysis in 2010 with project trips was conducted at the East Marginal Way South/GHC Main Entrance Driveway Intersection. Results indicated that a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection. A peak -hour signal warrant analysis in 2010 with project trips was also conducted at the East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street intersection. Results did not warrant a traffic signal. However, potential developments within the vicinity could warrant a signal at this inter4ection in the future. A signal at both of these locations would not be recommended and vrould not be practical because these intersections are too closely spaced; the intersectior1s of South 124th Street and GHC Main Entrance Driveway with East Marginal Way Sopth are approximately 150 feet offset from each other. Therefore, the City has requestedhat South 124th Street and the GHC Main Entrance Driveway be reconstructed so that thy are directly across from each other. This signal would benefit trips entering and exiting the International Gateway East development because queues could potentially block the East Marginal Way South/South 124th Street intersection if the streets were not re-ali4ned. At this time, no costs are associated with this projec However, each project will pay a percentage of the total cost based on the number of rips each project sends through this intersection. • International Gateway East — 56 percent of tital project costs (274 trips) • GHC Parking Garage — 44 percent of total project costs (214 trips) Summary of Mitigation Costs International Gateway East GHC Parking Garage Project Cost/ 1 Project Cost/ Project Trips Trip Total cost Trips Trip Total Cost E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street Signal 247 $231 $57,057 63 $231 $14,553 E Marginal Way S/S 130th Street Signal 247 -- 79% of 65 -- 21% of total cost total cost S 133rd St/SR 599 On & Off Ramps 110 $81 $8,910 29 $81 $2,349 Signal E Marginal Way S (Boeing Access Road 243 5613 5148,959 65 5813 $39,845 — S 115th Street) S 124th St/GHC Main Entrance 274 -- 56% o f 214 -- 44% of Driveway Rechanneliiation and Signal total cost total cost Total Impact Fees 5214,826 556,747 w:protecta/BB1e1/Ielmam00/m4tie10331.0oe (03/31/00) hp 3 004/007 04/06/00 16:25 FAX 411 ENTRANCO ENG. Ijj 005/007 In addition to the mitigations that were mentioned above, we would also recommend constructing the three left -turn lanes that are recommended along East Marginal Way South or providing a two-way left -turn lane along East Marginal Way South beginning north of South 124th Street and ending south of the south entrance to the International Gateway East Development. With either of these mitigation measures, on -street parking on East Marginal Way South (along frontage of both developments) and South 124th Street (north of International Gateway East Development) should be eliminated and no parking signs should be installed in these areas. The developer would protide street frontage improvements along the public street frontage where improveme is are not in place, such as on EasttMarginal Way South, South 124th Street, and South 126th Street. Further investigation orf parking restrictions along South 126th Street (south of International Gateway ast Development) will be conducted by the City of Tukwila. When the parking restrictions ave been determined, the developer will provide the parking signs, which would minimize the impacts of on -street parking in the neighborhood. Parking on other neighborhood streets would be mitigated by the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. i‘ Neighborhood Traffic Management Program For SEPA transportation mitigation purposes, the City of Tukwila has conditioned the property owners of parcel numbers (734560-0490, 734560-0430, 734560-0385, 734560- 0580) to sign a developer agreement to establish and provide a neighborhood traffic monitoring program. The program is to assure that traffic impacts related to the development arising in the residential neighborhoods will be addressed an resolved. If deemed necessary, the property owners of the proposed development will rovide traffic calming devices and improvements that are approved by the city engineer. To determine if and when appropriate traffic calming devices are needed, the program shall monitor and analyze the following criteria: • License plate and directional daily traffic counts • Accident history analysis • Speed study • Review of neighborhood complaints • Perform public meetings to compile and understand complaints and propose solutions The data mentioned above need to be collected at the following four locations: • S 126th Street — west of E Marginal Way S • S 128th Street — east and west of E Marginal Way S • S 13Ot Street — east and west of E Marginal Way S • 40th Ave S — South of S 130th Street The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Program will be done on an annual basis or as directed by the city engineer depending on the type and number of complaints received. The program will commence one year from the issuance of certificate of occupancy of the first building and continue for a period of up to five years thereafter or as directed by the clty engineer. w:proJede/8B1 B VIDImom00/mcne10331.dee (03131/00) Imp 4 04/06/00 16:26 FAX • ENTRANCO ENG. MTM 2010wpam.for (1) GEC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 E Marginal ay S/Pacific Highway S/S Boeing Access Rd 2010 vol w/project trips - AM Peak Hour SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01) - Dilay of Intersection Parameters 2 9 4 0 201 24.0 2 / =..w=000=a gymc.CDCCma 712 24.0 2 638 24.0 2 -- 4 0.0 0 227 12.0 1 a 2 Z006/007 03130/00 17:11:09 Key: VOLUMES -- > 1 WIDTHS v LANES \ 1202 12.0 1 1M, MP 562 24.0 2 + / 750 12.0 1 ..=====...=====m... 0 408 0.0 24.0 0 2 393 12.0 1 / \ North Phasing: SEQUENCE 24 PERMSV NNNN OVERLP YYYY LEADLAG LD LD 04/06/00 16:26 FAX • ENTRANCO ENG. MTM 2010wpam.for (1) GHC Tukwila Office 2 99181-60 E Marginal Way S/Pacific Highway VS Boeing Access Rd 2010 Volumes w/project trips - AM Peak Hour l7I007/007 03/30/00 17:11:02 SIGNAL97/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01] - Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection Averages: Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.83 Vehicle Delay 74.8 Level of Service E Sq 24 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 **/** / \ North ****> **** v <++++ O/C=0.122 G= 14.7" Y+R- 5.0" OFF= 0.096 G/C=0."].14 G= 134.6* Y+Re 5:0" OWF=16496 G/C=0.418 G= 50.2" Y+R= 5.0" OFF=31.996 G/C=0.179 G= 21.5" Y+R- 5.0" OFF=77.996 C=120 sec 421-100.0 Dec = 83.396 Y=20.0 sec = 16.7% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.046 1 Lane Group 1WL eel Regde/C Used I @Cr(vph) GEce elVolume' v/c I DelEay I S 190% Maxi Queue BB Approach 32.4 C Ba - == ==== =C G -- === == === ==-= == = p.= --C=== 5 = _ __ -== = = _ __ =o-= ======....============ RT 242 0.270 0.738 2051 2055 223 0.109 4.5 A 49 ft TH 12l10.296 0.278 177 512 252 0.487 36.9 D+ 307 ft LT 2472 0.267 0.122 1 391 254 0.606 52.4 *D 188 ft NB Approach 76.9 E C ==.--C=====__======0==CC ===d=c--==========--= aCQ--====CCCCo-s7= RT 12/1 0.387 0.574 0.481 TH 1 24/2 10.290 10.114 1 821 1 374 1 I 437 453 11.124 1 136.2 15.5 ,*F 1 339 ft314 WB Approach =============== ===-= ========.== TE 24/2 0.313 0.179 LT l 12/1 10.531 10.418 1 96.5 F 1 623 624 571 1 740 1 833 10.984 1.126 1 108.3 80.7 l*F 1 817 ft 432 ES Approach 73.1 E =========COMM-q========CC-gO= =10e01=====Coo--400 Coo --C.7 ==CaOC====C 623 713 1.125 1183 1 1436 1 791 10.551 1 126.8 l*F C+1 388 ft1 LTtRT1 24/2 10.344 (0.418 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Jack Pace, Planning Manager FROM: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner' 1 RE: Group Health R&D Facilities DATE: April 5, 2000 Project File: E99-0031 Associated File: L99-0074 Design Review Applicant: Group Health Cooperative Project Location: 12401 East Marginal Way South Parcels #734560-0490, -0430, -0385, -0580 Studies submitted with the applications include: Traffic Impact Analysis by Entranco dated 3/21/2000 Wetland Report by Altmann Oliver Associates dated 3/31/2000 Level 1 Drainage Analysis by Barghausen Engineers dated 9/27/1999 Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Consultants dated 9/17/1999 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand dated 11/22/1999 Attachments: Project Description: A. Comment Letter B. List of Concerns C. Landscape and Site Plans Develop a 12.9 acre industrially zoned site currently partially used as a parking lot with two 81,000 square foot research and development buildings and 792 parking stalls. There are 4,968 square feet of isolated Class III wetlands on site that will be filled. A wetland enhancement/mitigation area is planned at the northwestern edge of the site adjacent to the stormwater detention/water quality pond. A 7,225 square foot wetland will be preserved along the eastern edge of the site. Frontal improvements will be constructed along the adjacent streets, S. 124th Street, S. 126t Street and 35th Avenue South. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • • Agencies With Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Comments to SEPA Checklist: A comment letter was submitted by a group of neighbors at the public information meeting on February 2nd, see Attachment A. Staff's response is as follows: 1) The December 1s` plans represented the most current design at that time. The design has continued to evolve since then in response to neighborhood comments, design review considerations and wetland mitigation requirements. The SEPA determination is based on the plans dated 3/31/2000. 2) A. Tree permits are only required for removal of significant trees within sensitive areas, see TMC 18.54.050 Permit exempt activities. Required tree replacement will be incorporated into the final wetland mitigation plan. The applicant submitted a tree replacement calculation on 3/31/2000 indicating that 84 replacement trees will be required. The latest landscape plan shows the existing trees that will be retained along S. 126th Street. Frontal improvements are required per Tukwila Ordinance. B. 1. Earth As stated in the Notice of Application, geotechnical, traffic, wetland and drainage reports have been submitted and are available for viewing along with the project files at the City of Tukwila DCD office. The comment letter's reference to soil instability is unclear, according to the Geotechnical Study performed by Earth Consultants no soil instability is expected to result from clearing and grading the site. Standard erosion control methods must be followed during sitework and an erosion control plan will be required with the Miscellaneous permit application. B. 2. Air Additional vehicular trips are a natural and expected outcome of land development. No special studies are required by code to quantify the air quality effects of permitted development. B. 3. Water There is a Type 3 watercourse within 200 feet of the southeast side of the site that the applicant should have mentioned in the checklist. This has been corrected in the current version, see checklist B. 3. a. 1). The buffer for Type 3 watercourses is 15 feet on either side of the channel so the Sensitive Area Ordinance requirements would not impact the project site plan. The applicant's wetland mitigation plan will need to meet the SAO before approval by the DCD Director. The current plan calls for wetland replacement at 1.5 to 1.0, as required by code. This is not a SEPA issue as the City has an ordinance in place to regulate this activity. The applicant's drainage plan will need to meet the standards of the King County Surface Water Design Manual for both water quality and detention. • • B. 4. Plants Staff has requested that the applicant attempt to preserve as many trees as possible on the site, and identify the trees to be preserved on the landscaping and grading plans, see Attachment C. Staff has requested that the applicant provide information about the 75 foot greenbelt agreement. The proposed dedication along 126th Street is in response to Tukwila Public Works Department minimum street standards and has been reduced to the 5 feet necessary to construct a half -street. B. 5. Animals The applicant was instructed to include the wildlife observations from the wetland delineation report, see checklist B. 5. A. B. 7. Environmental Health At the public information meeting the applicant agreed to attempt to relocate the service areas away from the residences. This redesign will be part of the design review process. The applicant has agreed to submit a noise study demonstrating that the HVAC equipment will meet the standards in Tukwila's Noise Ordinance TMC 8.22 prior to issuance of building permits, see B. 7. b. 3). The applicant has also agreed to a limitation on exterior construction activities to daylight hours between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. A list of project concerns was also submitted at the public information meeting, see Attachment B. Summary of Primary Impacts: 1. Earth - During construction the site will be graded, isolated Class III wetlands will be filled and the building pads will be preloaded. Minor soil erosion during construction is a possibility, but the site has a slight slope and this should be easily controlled. No negative earth impacts are expected to result from the project. 2. Air - There will be exhaust emissions from construction equipment and trucks carrying the fill soil and construction materials during the project. The project's air emissions when complete will consist of automotive traffic to and from the site. A trip generation report and traffic study were submitted as part of the environmental review. 3. Water — Two existing wetlands will be retained. Wetland AA in the middle of the site will be maintained and enhanced using runoff from the building roofs and additional plantings. The roof runoff must meet state standards or proof must be provided that no significant pollutants will enter the wetland. A portion of Wetland A/B/C will be preserved and enlarged to provide at least 7,452 square feet of new wetland as mitigation for the wetlands to be filled An enhanced 15 foot wetland buffer will be provided adjacent to new development. The plan will have to meet the criteria and standards in Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Overlay District. • An existing detention pond in the northwestern corner of the site will be enhanced to provide water quality treatment and act as a site amenity. Oil/water separators will be added to the storm drainage system as required by Tukwila's Storm and Surface Water Ordinance. No hazardous wastes are expected to be released during or after construction. 4. Plants - The majority of the existing trees and shrubs on site will be removed and replaced. Some existing street trees will be kept around the wetlands to be preserved, along East Marginal Way and along South 126th Street. New landscaping will be installed along all edges of the site, around the buildings, adjacent to the enhanced and expanded wetlands and throughout the parking areas, see Attachment C. 5. Animals — Other than the wetlands the site does not contain significant animal habitat. 6. Energy and Natural Resources - The project will require energy for construction equipment, vehicles coming to the site and building operation after completion. The project will be required to meet current energy codes. 7. Environmental Health - A Phase 1 environmental site assessment report submitted with the checklist found no significant environmental contamination. Exterior construction will be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. due to the site's proximity to residential uses and zoning. A noise study that demonstrates that the HVAC equipment meets Tukwila's noise ordinance will be required prior to issuance of the building permit. 8. Land and Shoreline Use - The proposed project will not affect the shoreline. The Green/Duwamish River is approximately '/4 mile east of the site. 9. Housing - The proposal will not result in a change to the housing supply. 10. Aesthetics - The project is subject to the design review process including a hearing before the Board of Architectural Review. The building permit drawings must agree with the BAR approved design. 11. Light and Glare - Additional site lighting will be provided by new light standards and bollards along the pedestrian path, but light levels are expected to be about .5 footcandles at the property line. The project is located in an industrial zone and the additional lighting will enhance safety without causing negative impacts to the residential zone to the south. 12. Recreation - The proposal will not affect recreational facilities. 13. Historical and Cultural Preservation - The site is not known to have any historical or cultural significance. 14. Transportation - A trip generation study by Entranco Engineers was submitted along with the checklist and then revised. The final version dated March 21, 2000 and the Mitigation Memo dated April 6, 2000 outline the traffic mitigation measures that the applicant and the City have agreed on. • • Five feet of additional right-of-way will be dedicated along South 126th street and frontal improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk, street widening, storm drainage and street lighting will be required along South 124th Street, South 126th Street and 35th Avenue South. Pedestrian paths will be provided between the buildings and from the buildings to the corner of 124th and East Marginal Way, and to 126th. Three driveways are planned, one onto 124th Street, one onto East Marginal Way and a third for emergency vehicles only onto 126th Street. No direct vehicular access will be provided to the residential areas adjacent to 35th Avenue South and South 126th Street. 15. Public Services - The project will increase demand on public services as 162,000 square feet of building and the associated employees will be added to the site. 16. Utilities - The project will increase the use of utilities on site. The site is in the Val Vue Sewer District and Water District 125. Power is available from City Light and natural gas from Puget Sound Energy. Recommended Threshold Determination: Determination of non -significance. • City of Tukwila • Steven M Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Steve Lancaster, DCD Director FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: April 5, 2000 RE: Group Health Support Facility Permit #'s L99-0074, E99-0031: 3/31/2000 SEPA Revision. I have reviewed this submittal (date —stamped Received 3/31/2000) related to tree removal and the conceptual wetland mitigation plan for Phase 1 and 2 of this project. The site plan has been redesigned to allow the wetland mitigation to occur on the northwest corner of the Phase I site. The mitigation site is directly south of the open, water quality/detention pond and provides enough area for wetland creation at the required replacement ratio of 1.5 to 1.0. I recommend approval of the conceptual mitigation plan (Group Health — Wetland Delineation & Mitigation Report, Altmann Oliver Assoc. 3/31/2000) based on my review comments, listed as follows. 1) Total wetland fill is 4,968 square feet. The Plan would provide at least 7, 452 of new wetland (1.5 to 1.0 replacement) within a wetland mitigation area that totals 11,887 square feet. 2) The Plan would provide an enhanced wetland buffer, adjacent to new development, for the minimum buffer distance of 15 feet. 3) The mitigation site would allow preservation of existing wetland (approximately 1,250 square feet). 4) The mitigation site would be separated from the stormwater pond by some type of berm design. However, hydrology for the new wetland will include rooftop runoff. This may be a benefit if the water quality is not detrimental. 5) In addition to the wetland mitigation, the stormwater pond would be enhanced with native plants to integrate habitat with the wetland mitigation. The enhanced stormwater pond is an area of about 25,000 square feet. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • • Group Health Mitigation Memo April 5, 2000 Page 2 To summarize, the only code standard issues that could be resolved with technical design review are a minor, reduced buffer condition on the Phase II wetland. Also, water quality from rooftop runoff would need to be documented to not contribute pollutants into the new wetland area. A Tree Permit, related to wetland alteration, will be necessary for the project. The applicant has provided tree survey information and tree replacement calculations per the tree regulations (TMC 18.54). Technical review will verify the information but it appears that 84 trees will be planted for this requirement. Due to the size of the site with the wetland mitigation area and enhanced stormwater pond area, it should be feasible to plant the replacement trees on the site. The revised SEPA checklist has indicated the described changes to the conceptual mitigation plan for wetland replacement. Please let me know if you have questions. Cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager GROUP HEALTH SUPPORT FACILITY SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WETLAND DELINEATION AND MITIGATION REPORT Prepared For: SABEY CONSTRUCTION Seattle, Washington Prepared By: ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC Carnation, Washington March 31, 2000 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT CENTER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 GROUP HEALTH SUPPORT FACILTY SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WETLAND DELINEATION AND MITIGATION REPORT Prepared for: Sabey Construction 101 Elliott Avenue West Seattle, Washington 98119-4220 Prepared by: Altmann Oliver Associates, LLC PO Box 578 Carnation, Washington 98014 March 31, 2000 Table Of Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY 1 2.1 Background Data Reviewed 1 2.2 Field Investigation 2 3.0 RESULTS 3 3.1 Analysis of Existing Information 3 3.2 Analysis of Field Conditions 3 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES 4 5.0 WILDLIFE 4 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS 4 7.0 WETLAND MITIGATION 5 7.1 Goal and Objectives 5 7.2 Construction Management 5 7.3 Monitoring Methodology 6 7.4 Success Criteria 7 7.5 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) 7 7.6 Performance Bond 7 References List of Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: National Wetlands Inventory Map Figure 3a: Existing Conditions Map — Phase 1 Figure 3b: Existing Conditions Map — Phase 2 List of Appendices Appendix A: Data Sheets Appendix B: Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. Wetland Report List of Drawings Drawing W1.0: Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan GROUP HEALTH SUPPORT FACILITY SITE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON WETLAND DELINEATION AND MITIGATION REPORT March 31, 2000 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is the result of a wetland delineation by Talasaea Consultants on the 6.6 - acre Phase 1 portion of the Group Health Support Facility site located at the southwestern intersection of S. 124th Street and East Marginal Way South in the City of Tukwila, Washington (Figure 1). The Phase 2 portion of the site was delineated by Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. (CSS) in January of 1999. A report prepared by CSS that documents the results of the Phase 2 delineation is included with this report as Appendix B. The eastern half of the Phase 1 site consists of an existing paved parking lot and the western half of the Phase 1 site is undeveloped. The undeveloped portion of the site was apparently used as a receiving area for soil during construction of adjacent properties, and currently consists primarily of a large fill mound dominated by shrubs such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius). An existing detention pond, apparently constructed as part of the development of the parking lot, is located in the northern portion of the undeveloped part of the site, adjacent to S. 124th Street. Scattered trees are located throughout the southern portion of the undeveloped part of the Phase 1 site and surrounding the existing detention pond. The project site (Phase 1 and 2) is the proposed location of two office buildings and associated parking area. The purpose of this report is to: 1) describe the wetlands identified and delineated on the site, 2) identify impacts to wetlands from the proposed project, and 3) describe measures that will be implemented to mitigate for wetland impacts. Information in this report will be utilized by the City of Tukwila to evaluate impacts to wetlands from the proposed project. 2.0 METHODOLOGY The wetland analysis of Phase 1 involved a two-part effort. The first part consisted of a preliminary assessment of the site (and its immediate surroundings) using published information about local environmental conditions. The second part involved a field survey in which direct observations and measurements of soils, hydrology and vegetation were made to determine the type of wetlands present and the extent of their boundaries (see Field Investigation section below). 2.1 Background Data Reviewed Background information reviewed included the following: • National Wetlands Inventory Map (Des Moines, Quad), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1987 • City of Tukwila Watercourse and Wetland Maps, 1990 Group Health Support Facility 1 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt all all MI all all 11111 111 111111 Nal NM 111111 NM NB 1 11111 1111111 MI NM 21ST AY S 22tis AY S 23RD AY S WhE=ast .. ,,t5IE4.1 2::•:F1°arts u� cr s �—•s . 2.2 Field Investigation A general reconnaissance was conducted on Phase 1 on April 12, 1999 to gain an overall impression of the existing environment. Observations were made of the general plant communities, wildlife habitats, and the locations of potential wetland areas. Present and past land use practices were also noted, as were significant geological and hydrological features. Several small wetland areas were identified during this initial reconnaissance. The identified wetland areas were then delineated on June 24 and 30, 1999 using the procedures outlined in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (1997) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987). Following additional site reviews by the City of Tukwila, the wetland boundaries were revised during field investigations conducted on January 17, 2000. Plant species were identified according to the taxonomy of Hitchcock and Cronquist (1973), and the wetland status of plant species was assigned according to the List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed 1988, 1993). Wetland classes were determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's system of wetland classification (Cowardin, et. al. 1979). Vegetation was considered hydrophytic if greater than 50% of the dominant plant species had a wetland indicator status of facultative or wetter (i.e., facultative, facultative wetland, or obligate wetland). Soil on the site was considered hydric if one or more of the following characteristics were present: • organic soils or soils with an organic surface layer, • matrix chroma just below the A -horizon (or 10 inches, whichever is Tess) of 1 or Tess in unmottled soils, or 2 or less if mottles were present, or • gleying immediately below the A -horizon. Indicators of wetland hydrology may include, but are not necessarily limited to: drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposition, watermarks, historic records, visual observation of saturated soils, and visual observation of inundation. Appendix A contains data sheets prepared for representative locations in both the uplands and wetlands on Phase 1. These data sheets document the vegetation, soils, and hydrology information that aided in the wetland boundary determination. Wetland boundaries were marked with flagging and surveyed. Due to the highly disturbed condition of the site (i.e., historic filling) much of the delineation was necessarily based on the edge of fill and the apparent location of more natural hydric soils within the delineated wetland. Group Health Support Facility 2 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Analysis of Existing Information National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps developed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) do not indicate that any wetlands are located on or adjacent to the project site (Figure 2). City of Tukwila mapping also does not indicate the presence of any wetlands or watercourses. Since the NWI and City mapping are only general inventories, and because wetland areas change over time, actual field investigation was necessary to ensure that any wetlands were identified. 3.2 Analysis of Field Conditions Four small wetland areas (Wetlands A, B, C, and D) were originally identified and delineated by Talasaea on the Phase 1 portion of the site. Following further review by the City of Tukwila, three of these wetlands were combined to form one larger wetland (Wetland A/B/C). Figure 3a depicts the revised wetland boundary for Phase 1. The wetlands on the Phase 1 portion of the site are described below and consist of isolated topographic depressions that have been heavily disturbed (and were possibly created by) historic land use practices. In addition, CSS identified and delineated two wetlands on the Phase 2 portion of the site. The wetland boundary of one of these wetlands (Wetland AA) was also revised following review by the City of Tukwila. Figure 3b depicts the revised wetland boundary for Phase 2. The two wetlands on Phase 2 are described in the CSS report that is included with this report as Appendix B. Drawing W1.0 depicts the revised boundaries for all of the wetlands delineated on the site (i.e., both Talasaea and CSS delineations). Wetland A/B/C Wetland A/B/C (4,427 s.f.) consists of a linear wetland located throughout the southern portion of Phase 1. The western portion of the wetland (formerly Wetland A) contains a palustrine emergent plant community dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), and Himalayan blackberry. This portion of the wetland is connected to the remaining wetland by a ditch that appears to have been cut at the toe of the fill mound as a surface water conveyance. The remaining portions of the wetland (i.e., formerly Wetlands B and C) consist primarily of a palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub -shrub plant community dominated by reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, willow (Salix sp.), and small black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees. The entire wetland is heavily disturbed and much of the area appears to have been created as a result of historic filling and grading activities. At the time of the June 1999 field investigations soils within the wetland were generally saturated near the surface. During the January 2000 site visit, several inches of ponding was observed throughout much of the wetland area. The wetland system consists of an isolated topographic depression that receives hydrologic support from surface runoff from the surrounding uplands. Group Health Support Facility 3 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt Du; U.5. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map Des Moines Quadrangle, Ic1S-1 FIGURE 2: Nat. Wetlands Inv. Map Group Health Support Fac Tukwila, Washington 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /". i/ ""•••••., ,,,,,, ,,,,, ,,,, , . ,,,,, ,, 11 / • • ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, • - • jr. ,,,,, ••• • ,•• „..,•••••• , • ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, • ,,,,,,„, • ,,, .-••••• , , •••••,. „/' /' A u-1 d ) ,, • • • 3 X•• • rHase , ^ , SOURCE: Base information supplied by Barghausen Gonsulting Engineers, March 2000. North 0 25 50 100 PHASE 11 MMI. =EEO AA0 DESIGN ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES LLC FIGURE 3a: Existing Conditions Map Phase 1 SCALE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & UNDUE AR RE Group Health Support Facility DATE Tukwila, Washington 3-31-00 REVISED PO Box 578 • Carnation, WA 98014 office425333A535 • fax4253314509 DRAWN 50 PROJECT 0563 Cfh ihhhhh-h-h-hhh, 4.4.3 h•h; , eh' ..... /44.1 .•;h5S1f.: .. ./h , .......... I. ' // -,.. -....•;;;M ....h/h"%hhh.- , , . .11S.9 •hh: 0.1"; hlthhhhhhhh ezr • ,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,, . ;do • hhhhh ..46•00thhi.h., Az / loHA.SE I I 4....ogr) lots -„" 1 / I ; ••••M 0•IMo ., • h ,,ih h:thihh- .e. ::;;., 4. '?• '5/ •::•.:4h, Z-:•;,::: nr- hhhh.,.-• : /,....., / ..-.7,'.. /1.... ee / ( -1 sf regulated) 0 ,„:„,„„,,,,,„3„:„„ • , NE TLAND 15/0, „.., - , „„ , „:„.„..„„...i„..,,,,„. / ,„.., :„..„„:„.,„541p.. .., ...,, „.... S7, r-hh hhh 75...h.h;7<54; ,MMO MIMED SOURCE: Base Information supplied by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, March 2000. 0 25 50 100 North .111 .11111. *AA0 ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES LLC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING &1ANDSCAPE ARO' RE PO Box 578 • Carnation, WA 98014 of fice425333A535 . fax4253314509 FIGURE 3b: Existing Conditions Map Phase 11 Group Health Support Facility Tukk411a, Washington DESIGN DRAWN 50 PROJECT 0563 DATE 3-31-00 —REVISED Wetland A/B/C would be considered a Type 3 wetland according to Section 18.45.020.0 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TWC). Wetland D Wetland D (179 s.f.) consists of an isolated topographic depression located in the southern portion of the Phase 1 site that appears to have been created as a result of historic grading and filling activities. The wetland appears to receive surface runoff from the fill slope to the north and contains a palustrine scrub -shrub plant community dominated by reed canarygrass, Himalayan blackberry, and Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana). At the time of the June 1999 field investigations, much of the soil within the wetland was saturated near the surface. Wetland D would be considered a Type 3 wetland according to Section 18.45.020.0 of the TWC. 4.0 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Wetlands, in general, provide many valuable ecological and social functions, including stormwater storage, water quality protection, groundwater recharge and discharge, and wildlife habitat. The wetlands on Phase 1 of the project site all have low value for these functions due to their small size, hydrologic isolation, and highly disturbed condition. The wetlands appear to function primarily as minor stormwater storage areas that collect runoff from the surrounding uplands. 5.0 WILDLIFE Although an extensive wildlife study was not performed, observation of wildlife usage was recorded during the field investigations. In general, the site does not appear to contain significant wildlife habitat due to its low plant species diversity, high degree of disturbance, and isolation from larger habitat corridors. Wildlife observations on the site were restricted to the American crow, song sparrow, eastern gray squirrel, and Pacific chorus frog (adjacent to the existing detention pond). The number of wildlife species that utilize the site, however, is likely higher than the number actually observed during our limited field investigation due to the seasonality and secretive nature of most wildlife species. No endangered or threatened wildlife species or habitats were identified during the field investigations. 6.0 PROJECT IMPACTS ON WETLANDS Under the proposed project, 3,179 s.f. of Wetland A/B/C and Wetland D on Phase 1 of the site, as well as Wetland B/C (1,789 s.f.) on Phase 2 of the site would be filled (Drawing W1.0). Since Wetland D on Phase 1 is less than 1,000 s.f. it would be exempt from the compensatory mitigation standards of the City of Tukwila (TWC 18.45.115.A). The total regulated wetland impact on the site (i.e., 3,179 s.f of Wetlands A/B/C on Phase 1 and Wetland B/C on Phase 2) would therefore be 4,968 s.f. In addition to the wetland fill, buffer averaging would be implemented on a small area adjacent to Wetland AA on Phase 2. As part of the averaging plan, encroachment Group Health Support Facility 4 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt would occur within 456 s.f. of buffer located in the northwest comer of the wetland. This buffer encroachment is necessary to allow for construction of the access road and would be replaced with 484 s.f. of additional buffer along the west edge of the wetland. In no case will the buffer be less than 15 feet and along much of the buffer additional undeveloped area extends beyond the required 25 -foot buffer to preserve additional trees. 7.0 WETLAND MITIGATION Mitigation for the 4,968 s.f. of impact to Wetlands A/B/C on Phase 1 and Wetland B/C on Phase 2 will occur through the on-site creation of new wetland within an 11,887 s.f. mitigation area adjacent to the proposed stormwater facilities in the northwestern corner of the site. The created wetland would be integrated into the preserved portion of Wetland A/B/C and will consist of a series of shallow topographic depressions that will be planted with emergent vegetation. Scrub -shrub and forested wetland plant communities will surround these depressions. Final design will depict a physical separation between the stormwater pond and the created wetland to allow for impoundment of water within the created wetland. Hydrologic support to the created wetland will be provided by low flows from roof runoff and possibly groundwater. The total area of created wetland will represent no less than a 1.5:1 replacement to Toss ratio. The created wetland would then be provided with a 15 -foot enhanced buffer adjacent to the proposed development. In addition, the stormwater pond would be planted with native vegetation and integrated into the wetland mitigation area to provide screening and create a more valuable habitat area. 7.1 Goal and Objectives Goal: Replace the functions lost through filling of 4,968 s.f. of regulated wetland. Objectives: • Create a minimum of 7,452 s.f. of new wetland (1.5:1 replacement to Toss ratio) within an 11,887 s.f. mitigation area. • Increase plant species and structural diversity throughout the mitigation wetland area and the enhanced buffer. • Control invasive and exotic species throughout the mitigation area and its buffer. • Screen the created wetland from the proposed project with a variety of native plantings. • Enhance the proposed stormwater facilities and integrate the ponds into the wetland mitigation area. 7.2 Construction Management Prior to commencement of any work by contractors in the wetland creation or buffer enhancement area, the construction limits will be staked and any existing vegetation to be saved will be clearly marked. A pre -construction meeting will be held at the site to review and discuss all aspects of the project with the selected contractor. Group Health Support Facility 5 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt A wetland consultant will supervise plan implementation during construction to ensure that objectives and specifications of the mitigation plan are met. Any modifications to the design that may be necessary due to unforeseen site conditions will be jointly approved by the City of Tukwila and the wetland consultant prior to their implementation. 7.3 Monitoring Methodology The monitoring program will be conducted twice a year for a period of three years, with annual reports submitted to the City of Tukwila. Vegetation Permanent vegetation sampling points or transects will be established at selected locations within the mitigation area to incorporate all of the representative plant communities. The same monitoring locations will be re -visited each year with a record kept of all plant species found. Vegetation will be recorded on the basis of relative percent cover of the dominant species within the vegetative strata. All monitoring will be conducted by a qualified consultant. Photo -points will be established from which photographs will be taken throughout the monitoring period. These photographs will document general appearance and progress in plant community establishment in the mitigation areas. Review of the photos over time will provide a semi -quantitative representation of success of the planting plan. Monitoring and photo -point locations will be shown and described in the first monitoring report. Wildlife Wildlife species that are readily observable (either by direct or indirect means) will be identified and recorded in the mitigation area. Direct observations include actual sightings, while indirect observations include tracks, scat, nests, song, or other indicative signs. Water Quality and Hydrology During each monitoring event, an assessment will be made of the water regime within the mitigation area to ensure that proper hydrological conditions exist within both the wetland and its buffer. General observations will be made of the extent and depth of soil saturation or inundation. Water quality_ will beassessed qualitatively, unless it is evident there is a serious_ problem. In such an event, water quality samples will be taken and analyzed in a laboratory for suspected parameters. Qualitative assessments of water quality include: 1. oil sheen or other surface films, 2. abnormal color of water or odor, 3. stressed or dead vegetation or aquatic fauna, and Group Health Support Facility 6 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt 4. turbidity. 7.4 Success Criteria Success of plant establishment within the mitigation area will be evaluated on the basis of both percent survival and percent cover of desirable species. Undesirable species include exotic and invasive species such as Scot's broom, Himalayan and evergreen blackberry, reed canarygrass, moming glory, and Japanese knotweed. For the planted trees and shrubs, success will be based on at least an 85% survival rate, or at least 50% cover of equivalent recolonized native species, by the end of the three-year monitoring period. Exotic and invasive plant species will be maintained at levels below 20% total cover. Removal of these species will occur immediately following the monitoring event in which they surpass the above maximum coverage. Removal will occur by hand whenever possible. 7.5 Maintenance (M) and Contingency (C) Established performance standards for the project will be compared to the monitoring results in order to judge the success of the mitigation project. Contingency will include the items listed below and would be implemented if these performance standards are not met. Maintenance and remedial action on the site will be implemented immediately upon completion of the monitoring event (unless otherwise specifically indicated below). • replace dead plants with the same species or a substitute species that meets the goal of the plan (C) • re -plant areas after reason for failure has been identified (e.g., moisture regime, poor plant stock, disease, shade/sun conditions, wildlife damage, etc.) (C) • remove/control weedy or exotic invasive plants by manual or chemical means approved by City of Tukwila. Use of herbicides or pesticides within the mitigation area would only be implemented if other measures failed or were considered unlikely to be successful (C & M) • after consulting with City staff - minor excavation, as needed, to correct alterations of surface drainage patterns (C) • clean-up trash and other debris (M) • selectively prune woody plants to meet the plan's goal and objectives (e.g., thinning and removal of diseased portions of trees/shrubs) (M) To assure the success of the mitigation, a performance bond or other financial guarantee will be posted with the City of Tukwila for the cost of implementing and monitoring the mitigation plan. At the discretion of the City, the bond may be released in partial amounts in proportion to work successfully completed over the three-year monitoring period as the applicant demonstrates performance for implementing the conditions of the plan. Group Health Support Facility 7 March 31, 2000 563aoawetl .rpt References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. FWSOBS-70/31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Hitchcock, C.L., and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 730 pp. Munsell Color. 1988. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Kollmorgen Instruments Corp., Baltimore, Maryland. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. Reed, P.B. Jr. 1993. Supplement to: National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). USF&WS Biol. Report 88. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Des Moines Quadrangle. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1994. Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Vascular Plants of Washington. APPENDIX A DATA SHEETS DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION hiETHOD1 Field Invesi•raator(s)• ALTwA pct. -c Dae• ' -Li �� 5 ProjecVSile: G��"' KG .LT*{ State L3A County. 14-� n1b ApplicantiOwner• '1(L/""^`"'‘E-t- C EJ Plant Community /Name• TP I ' Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bads of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes iC No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) 14 t Sia; t e— 1i t, t b J 41) (:42-P' I >J L7 Dominant Plant Species 1. YkeAo.ci5 Acv4,Yinc.[Ce., 2. R-ILIS c scotoC. 3. C;rS;,,w. gcVznS . 4. -.14. 5. -15.- 6. 16. 7. 17 a. 15. • 9. 19. 10. 20.• Percent of dominant sp• ecles that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Yes No • VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 64cw i-4 .11. Fac o . S ..12. /4 13 fAi,u'f Is the hydrophylic vegetation criterion met? Rationale: IJoi 33 °0 Sc°iL V-tkC d 2 LJ £TTi;tZ SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histoscl? Yes Is the soil: Monied? Yes X Matrix Color: 10 '0. N2._ hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ) No Rationale. LoW CH11.0,^•44- Li : DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s). Ar'T0'10444J - Date• 6-14—‘1c'1Projec'Jog' Site: (2,g4 -i? State• WA' County* t L9 Applicant,'Owner: T frr^�U � '' Plant Community /Name• TP Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the bade of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes 1( No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes ') No " (If yes, explain on back) k -1‘5•-c ‘L , Jb 6rt•At711.1(.> Dominant Plant Scecies • VEGETATION Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Stratum 1. cVScbiGC t'kv 5 •11.- 2. � i r'S; cic.ren SL. .12. 3. ?lncicsc- 5 cam,..?: �•: czti FPC�.1 �_. -.13. 4. 14 • 5. .15 6. 16 7. 17 8. 18 • 9. 19 10. 20 Percent of dominant s,•pecies that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 3.3 `/v is the hyd;ophyic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale• Nur > 50 c FAc- CO- +,IerCc SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? Yes Matrix Color: 1 OYr2.- '3 Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No )(- Rationale: Rationale: N0 titi..rt T l -t= S r r+ t. C •i+;�.� ..'A 0 'r Yes No Undetermined No x• Hislic epipedon present? Yes No No X Gleyed? • Yes No x Mottle .Colors: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No )C Surface water depth. Is the soil saturated? Yes No ,C Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole• List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No$ Rationale: • fJL, (`3SCfzJ T'o.�1 CL CJ,b�rUCE pr ?or,J.r'V c•t_ �-t sA'T.4-a'r CEJ JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No _C Rationale for'jurisdictional decision: Nr. CRIT€ -IA smei 1 This data form can bo used for the.Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B•2 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 3 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): At--roAANIA Project/She: G �' Applicantbwner: 1-p,M.rct - (Li Date. 6 - 2 y"rt 1 State• 1"j'4 County' 14'^t i- Plant Community Mame• "CP t 3 Note: H a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes X No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes .X No (If yes, explain on back) t4ts-ro .' c F't LLt rJr, p�.JA 6tthi)r.J(, Dominant Plant Species 1. ?4c.c, VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Sratum FAc.ut . t -k ...1.1 2. 12. 3. 13.- - 3. ..14.: 5. • 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. a. 18 9. 19. 10. 20.' Percent of dominant spades that are OBL, FAC'N, and/or FAC lou i� Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histosol? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? Yes x Matrix Color: 1OY1Z 31 1 Yes No Undetermined No X Histic epipedon present? Yes No c2—_ No Gleyed? Yes No X Mortle,.Colcrs: vAF 1.44 r • Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes,{ No • Rationale: Lot,/ C c -r •Tr TTLF 5 HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth. Is the soil saturated? Yes No K Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole• List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Se.:" -q. salt (-hCE STAtrritab Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes C� No Rationale. ASS AALP DQE re E1i70.\L S�t� 1a.m Sutieo-cE 5Th( 1,1(. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes )c No Rationale for'jurisdictional docision: 13Pt5'CO LA -(4-6,C. (tiJ (V,ai2- c Sc, 1 This data form can be used for tho•Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 -VP 11 - DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): A4 -1•0404.6/N1 Date• (:)-Zy-c Project/Sit e • Gaw? AoplicantOwner: •TtZAn^w.E-L-t- CtZo„J Slate• 1'''+i• County' I rvJ Plant Community:Name. TP 4 Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) ;4%S -mitt c 6 642.ADI (JC., • Dominant Plant Species VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum 1. .g./6s cViscelp r FAcu S 11. 2. ..:12... 3. 13.. 4. 14.. 5. 15 • 6. 16 7. 17 8. 18 9. 19. 10. 20.' Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC t:O Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No Rationale• No -r > So c/o C -A C rt_ r.S�c�-- SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Matrix Color: Coo &?Acr- 41_1 Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes Rationale. Covs& eAc_ No Undetermined Histic epipedon present? Yes No _ Gleyed? Yes No Mottle :Colors• No ?C HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No /‘C Surface water depth' Is the soil saturated? Yes No X. Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil prob-a hole• List other field evidence cf surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No x —Rationale: • Ivo arssca.spc-c oo:-t g di= Sw� JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RAT1ONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for•jutisdictional decision: NS to Cx r z t: z l ck- wit -r 1 This data form can bo used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessrnent Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 SPS • DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s)• `TN.kr-0 Project/She- Gs-"-" Applicant/Owner r(RY^+E�` Cts Date- "Zi`.ter State• County Plant Community Mame• ' 11- s • Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes x_ No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes X No (If yes, explain on back) ik l 51t`it-t c t. NI 6 pc, i-7 G I•P i7` rJ (,9 Dominant Plant Species VEGETATION Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Stratum 1. 71,N\c.r;s an....:"cre1 ( Mt•d H _11.. 2. 12. 3. •r'otutuS 4r.cL,,ciCSc"?s FPc- S 13.- 4. cc..cc..k r K 5? • f Clar, iii{... 7 .,...1 4. 5. -... 15 6. 16 7. 17 a. 18 9. 19 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that ate OSL, FACW, and/or FAC (00 '/C Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes )C No • Rationale• ? 5o% SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup -2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No _ Is the soil: Mottled? Y s X No Matrix Color:.. 1oY? tV - No Undetermined X Histic epipedon present? Yes Gleyed? Yes No A Molle Colors: VAS-rn6LL No X Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: W -J C f`- LJ Th HYDROLOGY !s the ground surface inundated? . Yes No X Surface water depth - Is the soil saturated? Yes No A Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other fiotd evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. S�,ME SJp-r'hk.E- STA T.1(; Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes X No Rationale: A Ss..,M e -p DoE To EE`CD+t-‘C • SA0t-$TP, 4WD JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND•RA11ONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes X No Rationale for jurisdictional decision• CTL?- -^ I This data form can bo used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and tho Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' 8-2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8-2 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): A'-T"^ia,►/rN1 ProjeCJSite• 143.-J? NE1"-Ttt A plicantOOwner: Date- 6.-2-4 -S Slate* w" County• ,Q(:' Pant Community /Name• ' 4s- G Note: H a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes 'X No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes )C No • (If yes, explain on back) VS0S-roRp, 'Po 6cc(I.t) rr3l, Dominant Plant Scecies • VEGETATION Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Indicator Status Stratum 1. •?t^a\tris c,�.,n�incc-ec, FACv. 1A, ....1.1.- 2. d;skalbr FAcu -•S .,12.. 3. N7LA us v1;5ra, N a. 'Z`" - .13., 4. -14 5. .15 6. . 16.. 7. ,. 17 3. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20.. Percent of dominant species that are OEL, FACW, and/or FAC • 3 lO Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No <• Rationale: N. >So% f.c SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Is the soil a. Histoscl? Yes No )( Is the soil: Mottled? Ye No X Matrix Color:, I0Y(L `112-- No ' Undetermined Histic epipedon present? Yes No X Gleyed? Yes No lC Mottle _Colors:, Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes •Ration.afe:. No C.140.0M N. O 2 W/o HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No 1(. - Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No ,X Depth to free•slanding water in p'rJsoil probe hole• List other field evidence cf surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Rationale: Yes No �— aE- S,�� SA'tt(rN"-r *3 dz_ (n1V:JD{+�'c JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No K Rationale for'jurisdictional decision: p1O C 't 1 This data form can bo used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procoduro. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy: •-1? 1 DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigator(s): Date• Project/Site: Plkctaktia Grta r, State• c••rA County: ADpticant,Owner• 7-‘2-00^^1•-•€.0.- Plant Community /Name• T? 10- 4 -Ci`i IL I J L• Note: H a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes )c. No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes iC No " Of yes, explain on back) APjp,cE,rr cv-r 1>r-tt-tt ' 41161'8" VI n. rir>S Dominant Plant Species 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. a. 9. 10. ay1u5 CG'n�1'�•� cV:$cd.'or VEGETATION Indicator Status Stratum FAL Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Siratum Fatu'._.12.- PAcv ..13. Ftk i ...14. 15.. ._.16. .17. .18. • 19. 20.' Percent of dominant sj cies that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 7_S io is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No x. Rationale: No T ' SO`3a PAC.. vrA- SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup -2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Is the soil a Histoscl? Yes Is the soil: Mottled? yes Matrix Color:. t0`(•• 573 Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No X Rationale- N� rk ctFtewA Yes No X No X No Undetermined Hislic epipedon present? Yes No >< Gleyed? Yes No X Mottle.Colcrs• HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No X Surface water depth• Is the soil saturated? Yes No )C Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole• List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Ration'a'le: N O o; i; S e-(-.1 A•? k.1 Z,,`;'tJ C E b 1 .S 1 1 L v rJ b %i 1% 4 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND.RATIONALE Is the plant ommunity a wetland? Yes No X Rationale !or'jurisdictional decision• fsO CNcvfit--t Ir `— T 1 This data form can bo used for the •Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy.' -rp DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD1 Field Investigat,or(s ) . f� LTM-kr ProjeWSite: Y�"`rti'' ,(t . `'N Aopticant1Owner• T 4•^*43-t- cRot'1 State• WA, Date• 10--4 -95 County• 1r-1 'IL' Plant Community Mame• ZI E Note: tf a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. Do normal environmental conditions exist al the plant community? Yes )C No (If no, explain on back) Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes x No Of yes, explain on back) Ht si z L 'FiLL.IPJb U'4'arNc, Dominant Plant Species 1. . R.1bus cktscoloC VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species , Status Stratum 66<.0 S . -..11. 2. 12 3. ...:13. 4. -.1.4. 5. 15_ 6. _.1.6... 7. 17. 8. 19. 9. - 19 10. 20.• Percent of dominant species that are OSL, FACW, and/or FAC 0 Q/o Is the hydrophyic vegetation criterion met? Yes No X• Rationale: 1s E-_'• 7 Sere fac c - WcTr SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup•2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes . No X . Histic epipedon present? Yes No K Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No )( Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color: tOYR 31Z Monle.:.Colcrs•. Other hydric soil indicators: - Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No )< Rationale: Cr1Rt.-'; C - L Ti E. S HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? - Yes .. No k Surface water depth* Is the soil saturated? Yes No X Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole• List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation. Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No X Rationale: • N:u 63SL vlt•t"i J ? - .JiDENCE Grp S6 t- Stet -174-v% .'4 r r►.1:4tDAT%er� JURISDICT1ONAL DETERMINATION AND•RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No X Rationale for'jurisdictional docision: N c c (t r Tt -,. v' --r 1 This data form can bo used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procoduro. 2 Classification according to 'Soil Taxonomy." 8-2 APPENDIX B COOKE SCIENTIFIC SERVICES, INC. WETLAND REPORT (documents wetland conditions on Phase 2) Craig Brandt Boeing Realty Corporation P.O. Box 3707 MC 7A -PE Seattle, WA 98124-2207 • January 22, 1999 WETLAND DELINEATION LETI ER REPORT BOEING EAST MARGINAL WAY CORPORATE PARK PROPERTY Dear Mr. Brandt: Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. (CSS) was contracted by Boeing Realty Corpora- tion to perform a wetland delineation on three parcels near the Tukwila Boe- ing facilities. The purpose of this report is to document the work performed, to map the locations and approximate sizes of wetlands and drainage ditches, to describe the characteristics of the wetlands, and to evaluate the functions and values of the wetlands. SITE DESCRIPTION The East Marginal Way Corporate Park properties are in an area of the City of Tukwila located between Pacific Highway to the west, East Marginal Way to the east, and South 126th Street to the south. The fence line south of Building 21-05 is the northern boundary of the East Marginal Way sites. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map. Vegetation The East Marginal Way properties are characterized by native and ornamental trees, including red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC), fruit trees, laurel (Prunus sp.), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii, NI). The wetlands are characterized by emergent and scrub -shrub vegetation, including grasses, rushes, and willows. No endangered, threatened, or sensitive plants were observed on the site (Washington Natural Heritage Program 1997). t*q -?rives' l' ?...rte... . ... ..+�. • bTRANCtmWEST ¥ WAY BOW N 4 Urn — SIM MO L MO N .SIle .11ff /IA M- 1011 111111a. I — SIN Soils The Boeing East Marginal Way Corporate Park sites are not shown on the soil survey for King County (Snyder et al. 1973), although upland soils meet the description of Urban land and Alderwood series soils. Urban Land is soil that has been modified with the addition of fill material up to 12 feet thick in some areas. The texture ranges from gravelly sandy loam to gravelly loam. It is not on the national list of hydric soil (USDA 1991). Soils in the Alderwood series are moderately well drained soils that formed under conifers in glacial deposits. In a typical profile, the surface layer and subsoil range from very dark brown, dark brown, to grayish -brown gravelly sandy loam to a depth of about 27 inches thick. The substratum is grayish- brown rayishbrown glacial till that extends to a depth of about 60 inches and more (Snyder et al. 1973). Hydrology Evidence of wetland hydrology including moist soils, bare soils, standing wa- ter up to 12 inches deep, and hydrophytic vegetation were observed in eoch wetland. The hydrology of each wetland will be described separately. METHODS Background Research A review of reference materials was made before the site visit to determine if wetlands had been identified on the site by other sources. These references included site maps from Boeing Realty and the Soil Survey of King County Area (Snyder et al. 1973). No wetland inventories were available for this area. City of Tukwila sensitive areas regulations require the use of the Corps of En- gineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) with the letter of guidance issued in 1992 (USACOE 1992). The State of Washing- ton ashington requires the use of the Washington State Wetland Identification and De- lineation Manual (WSDOE 1997). The site was traversed, and locations of wetlands were identified. During the delineation, detailed sample plots were located in the wetland and upland in order to characterize the wetland community and determine the wetland rat- ing based on specific jurisdiction guidelines. A sample plot consists of record- ing the types and cover of vegetation present in a defined area. In addition, a general assessment of the wildlife, soils, hydrology, and general ecology of the site was performed. Wetland community types will be discussed as they are described by Cowardin et al. (1979). In this report, the common and Latin names of plant species are used the first time a species name appears in the text. Subsequently, only common names are used. Field Each wetland was delineated by examining its vegetation, soils, hydrology, and topography. Wetland edges were marked with pink surveyor's flags printed with "WETLAND BOUNDARY.". Vegetation The vegetation data were collected consistent with the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (WSDOE 1997) and the Wet- land determination procedures in the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Dominant (greater than 20 percent cover) and subdominant (greater than 5 percent) plant species in each vegetation stratum (tree canopy, shrub zone, and ground cover) were recorded for each plot. Each plant's wetland indicator status was assigned using the LIS Fish and Wildlife Service National List of Species that Occur in Wetlands: North- west—Region 9 (Reed 1988) and the Supplement to Wetland Plants (Reed 1993). The indicator code for plant species is in the table below. Code Designation Wetlands probability*1 OBL Obligate wetland species >99 FACW Facultative wet 67 to 99 FAC Facultative 34 to 66 FACU Facultative upland 1 to 33 UPL Obligate upland < 1 NI No indicator status *lpercent chance that plant occurs in a wetland When greater than 50 percent of the dominant plants in a vegetative unit have an indicator status of OBL, FACW, and/or FAC, the vegetation is con- sidered hydrophytic. In addition, a positive or negative sign is used to indi- cate that the plant is more frequently (+) or less frequently (-) found in wet- lands in the region. Each vegetation unit was classified as hydrophytic or non-hydrophytic based on the percentage of the area covered by the dominant species. Synonymy used in this report follows Flora of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). Soils Soils were characterized using standard Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) protocol (USDA 1991). Soil colors were identified using a Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen Corporation 1988). The following were used as indications of hydric soils as outlined in the guidelines provided in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (WSDOE 1997) and the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987) and subse- ;mss v- w;.".x-:;� ,sz• quent letter of guidance (USACOE 1992): presence of a chroma of 1 or less (if no mottles are present), 2 or less (if mottles are present), gley characteristics (for mineral soils), or organic characteristics (for peats and mucks). Depths to soil saturation and surface inundation were recorded for each plot. On-site samples were taken in each wetland, plot using a 24 -inch soil auger. Addi- tional probe samples were examined along the wetland/upland boundary in order to determine the exact boundary line location. Hydrology Hydrology assessment included on-site inspection to determine field indica- tors of hydrology. Hydrologic indicators were determined using the wetland determination guidelines provided in the Washington State Wetland Identification and De- lineation Manual (WSDOE 1997) and the Corps Wetlands Delineation Man- ual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). These indicators include visual obser- vation of inundation, soil saturation within 12 inches of the surface for two continuous weeks during the growing season according to the Seattle District of the Army Corps of Engineers. They include water marks on vegetation, drift lines, waterborne sediment deposits, water -stained leaves, surface scoured areas, wetland drainage patterns, and morphological plant adapta- tions. WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Wetlands play important roles that provide valuable benefits to the ecosys- tems in which they exist. Each wetland serves some function that has some benefit, although specifics vary from wetland to wetland. Understanding and identifying these benefits and roles is currently limited to qualitative and semi -qualitative judgments and knowledge of potential functions and their benefits. Wetland functions and values identified by many sources (Adamus et al. 1987, Mitsch and Gosselink 1986, Sather and Smith 1984, and Reppert et al. 1979) include the following: • hydrologic support • storm and floodwater attenuation o flood peak desynchronization O sediment stabilization and erosion control • water quality improvement through biofiltration and retention of sediments • nutrients and toxicants • high primary productivity • accumulation of organic material • nutrient cycling and utilization O food chain support • • habitat diversity for fish and wildlife • refuge for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species • passive and active recreation. The entire site was examined for the presence or absence of these functions and a qualitative assessment of the value of the function was made using a semi -quantitative method (Cooke 1996). See attached data sheets. EVALUATION OF WETLANDS The site map (see Figure 2) shows the location of the wetlands on the Boeing East Marginal Way properties. A description of each wetland is included in the following section. Parcel 1 Parcel 1 is the easternmost property of the Boeing East Marginal Way Corpo- rate Park sites. Two small wetlands were delineated in this area of the site. Wetland A Wetland A is located in the northeast corner of Parcel 1 (see Figure 3). It is an emergent (PEM) wetland vegetated in reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea, FACW) soft rush (Juncus effusus, FACW), and giant horsetail (Equisetum telmataea, FACW). Scrub -shrub species include Pacific willow (Salix lucida) and black cottonwood saplings (Populus balsamifera, FAC). This wetland has a small forested component with red alder, giant horsetail, and creeping but- tercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW). The soil in the lower part of the wet- lands is dark gray (10YR 3/1) silt loam. The root zone shows an oxidized cast on the fine roots, indicating growth in the recent season in an inundated en- vironment. Hydrology at the time of the delineation was evidenced by sur- face water. The primary source of hydrology to Wetland A appears to be perched rainwater, and water drains to the east via a culvert. Wetland A is approximately 0.5 acre in area. Although it is small, Wetland A is in a well-defined topographic depression and has a culverted outlet. Therefore, its ability to control flood and storm - water is moderate. The presence of emergent vegetation and a fairly long residence time in the wetland allows for moderate biofiltration, sediment removal, and other water quality improvement functions. The parcels are surrounded by chain link fences, so habitat is probably limited to small mammals, birds, and some amphibians such as Pacific chorus frogs (Pseudac- ris regilla). Overall habitat value is low. Wetland BC Wetland BC is located approximately 100 feet south of Wetland A. It is an iso- lated depression (PUB) characterized by at least a foot of standing water with i .i^ e-8 •� �Ya • •�}-aa��ytL%*'vq' , r3�L'- 7a ;2i1O 3'4'rf S 124TH STREET PRIVATE PROPERTY PRIVATE PROPERTY S 126TH STREET 1 Wetland BC i Parcel 1 s • Figure 2: Site Map I r S- MIMI OS NO 01111---411MI- M ON Ili ION AM OM sparse emergent and scrub -shrub vegetation along the edge. The vegetation is dominated by giant horsetail and Sitka willow. The soil is dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam. No inlet or outlet was observed; inputs to the wetland probably include precipitation and runoff, with most of the water leaving the wetland via evaporation. This wetland probably dries out during the summer months. Wetland BC is approximately 1000 square feet in area. Wetland BC has little emergent vegetation for biofiltration, and there is no direst hydrologic flow to or away from it. Therefore, its ability to control storm or floodwater control and provide water quality improvement is low. Low species and structural diversity along with its small size indicate that the habitat and refuge value of this wetland is low. Overall, the habitat value of Wetland BC is low, although it may be used as an amphibian breeding site in the spring. Upland Upland portions of the Parcel 1 are vegetated in young (approximately 4 to 6 - inch dbh) black cottonwood with an understory of blackberry (Rubus proce- rus, FACU) and holly (Ilex aquifolia, FACU). The soil is dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) loamy sand from the surface to a depth of 6 inches, and gravelly sand from 6 to 18 inches. No indicators of wetland hydrology were present Parcel 2 Parcel 2 has two distinct vegetation communities: unused pasture and groves of trees. The eastern part of Parcel 2 is abandoned pasture. The plant com- munity is made up of pasture grasses and weeds, including bentgrass • (Agrostis spp.), blackberry, reed canarygrass, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea, FAC-), soft rush, orchardgrass (Dactylic glomerata, FACU), teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris, NI), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius, NI), and rib plantain (Plantago lanceolata, FAC). Several trees, including apple trees and pines, were ob- served, as well as sapling paper birch (Betula papyri fera, NI) and black cot- tonwood. The western part of the site has a grove of trees including Lombardy poplar, Douglas fir, and black cottonwood. The understory is dominated.by blackberry. The soil in Parcel 2 is dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) sandy loam from 2 to 12 inches below the surface. This layer is underlain by com- pacted till or fill material. The soil in Parcel 2 does not meet the criteria to be considered hydric. In addition, no indictors of wetland hydrology were ob- served. No wetlands were found on this parcel. Parcel 3 Parcel 3 is the westernmost parcel. No wetlands are present, although the top of bank of a stream was delineated. The vegetation on Parcel 3 was dominated by blackberry. Tree cover is ap- proximately 25 percent and consists of red alder, western red cedar (Thuja pli- y4iq'"'r'.�T °r:'�y�""?`•''o�-".'!'•„��.'�, cei.Y 'rla.".�*�'�.='�T-'�`•+.,,c v��"�:t��'�w?o x`;,�;.7:�'#_•'�,'�''+`:s��':�- .. �. 1+a...v..e"'t.cs.{ �sr�'iM1s'�'r�'Li.�.�iJ �44+'r' '4:� {� i�.f:riG..•`'Zy_:ojr.. st e-4; cata, FAC), and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU). Other plant spe- cies observed on Parcel 3 include Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspida- tum, FACU), vine maple (Acer circinatum, FAC-), and patches of reed canary - grass. One stream was located and the top of bank delineated on Parcel 3. The stream would be classified per Cowardin et al. (1979) as upper perennial with a sand and gravel substrate. REGULATIONS According to City of Tukwila sensitive areas regulations (City of Tukwila Municipal Code Title 18.45 1998), wetlands delineated on the East Marginal Way properties would be considered Type 3, which are equal to or less than one acre in size and have two or fewer wetland classes. City of Tukwila regu- lations require 25 -foot buffers plus 15 -foot setbacks from building foundations for commercial and industrial development. The stream has been identified as Watercourse #10-2 by the City of Tukwila The stream is rated Type 3 by the City, because it received a score of 9 under criteria in the City of Tukwila Watercourse Study (1990). Criteria include stream width, channel capacity, fish use and fish habitat, corridor quality, and surrounding land use. Isolated Type 3 wetlands may be altered or relocated with the permission of the Director of the Tukwila Department of Community Development if miti- gation is provided at a ratio of 1.5 to 1. No minimum size has been identified for wetlands impacts, so all wetland losses must be mitigated. This condudes our findings on the Boeing East Marginal Way site. Please call us at (206) 440 3130 if we can provide further assistance. Since ely, arah Spear Cooke, PhD. Cooke Scientific Services, Inc. REFERENCES Adamus, P.R., E. J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland evaluation technique (WET); Volume II: methodology. Operational Draft Technical Report Y-87. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Sta- tion. Vicksburg, Mississippi. City of Tukwila. 1998. Title 18 City of Tukwila Zoning Code. Tukwila, Wash- ington, City of Tukwila. Cooke, S.S. 1996. Wetland and buffer functions, A semi -quantitative assess- ment methodology. Seattle, Washington, Cooke Scientific Services. Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetland and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv- ice, Office of Biological Services, Washington, DC. Publication No. FWS / OBS -79/ 31. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water- ways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Hitchcock, CL. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Seat- tle, Washington, University of Washington Press. Kollmorgen Corporation. 1988. Munsell soil color charts. Baltimore, Mary- land. Mitsch, W.J., and J. Gosselink 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., Inc. Reed, P.B. 1988. National list of species that occur in wetlands: North- west—Region 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Welut 86/WIZ. 47. Reed, P.B. 1993. Supplement to the National List of Species that occur in wet- lands: Northwest – Region 9. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Reppert, R., W. Sigelo, E. Stakhiv, L. Messman, C. Meyers. 1979. Wetland values. Concepts and methods for wetlands evaluation. Virginia, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources. Sather, J.H., and R.D. Smith 1984. An overview of major wetland functional values. US Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/ OBS -84/ 18. Snyder, D.E., P.S. Gale, and R.F Pringle. 1973. Soil Survey of King County, Washington. USDA Soil Conservation Service with Washington Agri- cultural Experiment Station. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1992 Guidance letter. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric soils of the United States. Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Tech- nical Committee for Hydric Soils. Miscellaneous Publication #1491. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication #96-94. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Washington Natural Heritage Program. 1997. Endangered, threatened, and sensitive vascular plants of Washington. Olympia, Washington, Depart- ment epartment of Natural Resources. • s��`n: ::1:'1'+i:;sTfw::-.a:.• '�,�;�,,,:.+-S'..� 'SG -=•i:- �:J-'- 9„`=.�=�> !+;::.rr."" ';✓ ..._ e..:_.c�,...........!' ,•♦ s;.._.•,..�. .._�_.. ��5-'-� „!"'-!y'_S-,.F"._�i 3.�.Y �:>i-'�''.' .';`.k_-f''tl �:.'i+: :'{�_T :'-.• Appendix A: Plant Species List Indicator Status Common Name Latin Name FACU FAC NI FAC NI NI FAC Trees big leaf maple red alder paper birch pine black cottonwood Lombardy poplar Douglas fir western red cedar Shrubs FAC- vine maple NI Scot's broom NI holly FACW crabapple ornamental laurel FACU Himalayan blackberry FACW+ Pacific willow FAC Scouler's willow Herbs FACU+ Canada thistle NI teasel FACU hairy cats -ear FAC rib plantain FACU Japanese knotweed FACW creeping buttercup FACU red clover FACU+ white clover Grasses FAC bentgrass FAC bentgrass FAC- tall fescue FACW reed canarygrass Ferns and Fern Allies FAC field horsetail FACW giant horsetail NI sword fern Rushes FACW soft rush Acer macrophyllum Alnus rubra Betula papyri fera Pinus sp. Populus balsamifera Populus nigra Pseudotsuga menziesri Thuja plicata Acer circinatum Cytisus scoparius Ilex aquifolium Malus furca Prunus sp. Rubus procerus Salix lucida Salix scouleriana' Cirsium arvense var. horridum Dipsacus sylvestris Hypochaeris radicata Plantago lanceolata Polygonum cuspidatum Ranunculus repens Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Agrostis capillaris Agrostis gigantea Festuca arundinacea Phalaris arundinacea Equisetum arvense Equisetum telmataea Polystichum numitum Juncus effusus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • r • fA mai % - . ITA FORM p 4. _A041TIIvg ON-SRE DETERbItNAT10N METHOD Cowarcin: Pro}ect/SHe: �puo h� t � Init Date: 9'i •r State:. • County: A • Norrn Coeds?10a? / Approximate size (acres): < 1 1-2 2-5 1. bS .. 21°.(12 ybTj '' 3:n1-L1 s_s :nso-.�i.s �.>ss-:sTs Dominant Plast Species VEGETATION Cover Indicator statue Sinewy Dominant Plant Species Cow Infx�br loss status 1. T6ullu a vy n,l ,..tC ? Fka g 11. uv ci. e� ?A G, • t 12' 3 4p�te. r. cit e Z. FACtA,t g 13_ 4• tt4A1 X rA,l (dln 7- 14. 5. firfi S .l 4.1'41".- 2... 3 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. . 19. 10. 20. 08L, FACW, and/or FAC HYdTophy8'T • Notes: No En) 'S T )043 Series/Phase: Histosot? (from SCS maps) Sol Probe Other hydric soil ir>aicetors: Hydric soil? No Notes: SOIL Ner Arum irk I`+t• StriMottle /1 . ` (Color) Histic epipedon? Horizon Depth Matrix color Texture )/ fvp Inundated? Yes Saturated? HYDROLOGY Surface water depth: No Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: Ust other evidence of =dace inundation or soil saturation: Wetland hydrology? lKm) - No Notes: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wetland? No . • ( `es. ,e,iJrvc' 3 g it-tra l� Rationale for .. _.. derision. ti . . . 'g-. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PPC Pm`ecVSlte: D�! Jlnit • ••- &r"e see (acres): A Proxi nat Date: I - • NO 1otm Coeds?10 - - c t s svx+^ VEGETATIONloss ppvEA mxlsso•75 -_y,l sq•o�6 so j'17.s}y sr.s c Indv�� port+�^t P► �- ■00000 0lown-00000° womais20. 0111,1111111111 a T. TO S y No oN.S(►E D DETERNATION MOOD FORM ROUTINE r State: __W._ County: 2.5 piot tr. A Cowardin: �' u. OBL. FACW' armor FAC HydzaphyticvegetaOon? Notes: SeriesNhase: Orem SCS epiPlYedon. Hlstosol?liodzon Depth Matrix oobr Textute rcp ,sH es (Color Sol Probe sol Indicators' Other t,yd No liYdric Notes: Inundated Yes Saturated? es roe or sail saturation: List other evidence al �rtaca inundation HYDROLOGY Surtax water depth: water in PdJ50a Probe hole: Depth to tree -standing , I Wetland nydroio9y Notes: Yes pTION AND RATIONALE1uatsot�oNAL D .:.. No Wetland? ! decas>on: Rationale for 1�r�� '•1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • Pro)ect/Site: ,&06, Date: ;; % t , Norm Conds7vD 3trban a?: -'a�►ss / - ROUTINE ON-SITE DETERMINATION METHOD D %TA FORM [ u�t . 2550~.. .S 6.3.43 -+ 97.S Dominant Ittaat Spoon MR '►'t i e-3* )-0LJFJ1 •� Irl :• Piot it: A•„ Cowardin: State: W A •/ Approximate size (aces): • < 1 VEGETATION r r Dominant Plant Spoaoa Cbwor Indicak,c dila status Stratum County: �r 2-5 Cover' Indinzr class staeus 1. 1 MIM+f ai><l,dl' •b arc,) R 11. 2' ;x r..° ;;,„ r'") z ? 5 12. 3. 13. . 4. 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. DBL, FACW. arldfor FAC tiydrophyic vegetation? Notes: /170 C.Ye 7• _s .No a T to Series/Phase: Histosot? Sol SOIL (from SCS maps) 11x9 " "ktry. ti, t; i i .N9 Histic epipedon? /Vo i errumt Horizon Depth Matrix color Texture 51 - (Color) Profile Other hydric sol'cic5cators: Hydric soil? ' e No Notes: # '/b 4 /b rr3 Jr`/ Inundated? Yes Saturated? pc) HYDROLOGY Surface wafer depth. • Depth to free-star4g water in pit/sod probe hole: 5c tlst other evidence of surface inundatiorror soil saturation: Wetland hydrology? Notes: No JURtSCtCT1ONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wetland? No %'>rwrtt Rationale for decisiorx 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' • DATA FORM Plot M: UP/— , ROUTINE ON•S1TE DETERMINATION METHOD Cowarmrc ProjetVSile: { 1.1 a-44- rA Q/� 4 Date: 1►slay Initials: -y Ste: kM C«uxy: K.�. Norm Cordis7/0i tdb2nce?: =VIA C7.+liS Sei 1.01 S-lt-0ri Oonasarx PLrw Scoots / Approximate size (acres): < 1 1-2 2-5 a 5 VEGETATION Cow Irdiobr Chi/ • seas Straasn DorniuM Plant Scodes Coyer R.r dm sacra Straarn Zy tkL *t%N -r 11. >S 3 A D.t,iij P 11-04M- 2- �T S 13. 4,� 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. s 8. 18. 9. ' 19. • 10. 20. ! - •. DBL• FACW. andfof FAC Hyrfrophytic vegetal ze ? . r• - TOTA Series/Incise: (from SCS maps) MMosa!? ►1 A Hislic epipedon'1 /t) Horizon Soi Depth Profile Halite cobr Texture Other hydric sof indicators: Hydrijviii ty,es Proles: faome / (Cob() HYDROLOGY Inundated? Yes IJo Surface water depth ::atuated7 Yes • Q Depot to Into -star ng water in piUsoi prvte hole: List other evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation: 1 /ntla a ttvdrology? Yes mites: No .fh I "..t.`l JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL wetland'? Yes too 141)-2( • tot PAPA • Ilationa1e for jurisdictional decision: nr 4“,41PM(arYrw' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • • • • Prefect/Site: • Date: DATA FORM UTINE ON...ITE DETERMINATION/47 THOD Initials: Norm Conds?JDisturcar+ca?: ''h, Approximate size (acres): 1 CO11111 CLASS '�p I.04 S./Sri Caw doss VEGETATTON rrl6eYtor ssiaa . -S3atxn. Dem:..nt Plant Ss.e.s Piot it: Cowanz n: County: 2• Caw Irciewor dm sou • J 1 1. 44 i • ._A ,' r/ -. .$41. ':•_�.,?- : 11. 2 !J C g- �.•y ,. ¢ 'n•'k`:':-*• 12• 3' • 4007. .-- •.• • _ ,z.—.• . 14. 84111(41677 4.-r/i•"/... 1.1;•? -' • , tk•L: -• / i$ - ant?-•-• ' •:--z4=•-k;- :-_ • 19. .. Y OBL. FACW. andfoc Hydrephytievegetatron? •.. 114 Nolen: • Sy:. ' •, .I T- • ,A , �.'~•�;Ii��.%r $C.':. -.... • Ser es/Ptrise: gerorsSCS maps) .' A/ ft 4 r ,/y . r - » ' �S ' liislosoR '•' a l-listic epipedon? • Ma taozne . ' , Horizon A' Soil Depth- Profile blap Profile sibd color Texture Other hydric soil ioc5=ttors. • �frrtikeriV GJali Hsoi tai No . . Proles: (Color) Irruridaied? Yes HYDROLOGY No Surface water depth: :saturated? Yes No Depth to Tree-standr.g water in pit/sag probe hob: List other evidence co surface inundation or soil saturaban. 5 b wetland Irvdrology 'No Nnles: '?O • 1fl61QIC} • JUJitSDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Wetland? No" . • i Iiztionalo lo : 1sdict onal detision: 9uMM -- /`'1DN 1.•Snn1..4/14/ Il />./ . r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .r . ' • ProSite: Data: Norm Condit? %fed 2 - DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-StTE DETERMINATION METHOD Cowarcen: 050-6riat -P—;k qr _MAXI/ tt1411 6 In.44/ t:fiats: a.= 1 4v -canals size (es): <1 1-2 CM* CLASS 0 • . sos01 • S.; S . • vs Csooswont Plant Swops VEGETATION Cover trecadot class . stusas Straka, Ocaoisegat Pird Smoot County: /6:rt2 2.5.?>5f Omer Indicaloar . dor sfteris S7301110, LA .fi' r 11 Ap`i 3 G.,/c. » ii. • • / • viii,41,0-ccet. 1 tri Ii' 12. 11.4.a.A5 2- FXIC 0 H. 13. ,A, c4, . •-• %* g--1- ? W 14. 5. .... 15. . 6. 16. . • 7. 17. 8. 18. . 9. 19. 10. 20. . SOIL Sesies/Ptutse: '01.;...7.51777145t4.17 ." Hist:sic:1T . • ,:1•40 1-Fcgic ePTPedon? MO • th4ottla (Coor) Horizon- • So a - Depth 0 " etiest?.. Profile Matrbc color Texture • Other twctric soil indicate Hydric so&it? Yes No ••• VV..' • s -Ya_ . • -1 15 Crt4.4.,7k"\ Fk L4.0 sttecirtela . inundated? Yes HYDROLOGY Suers water cteptir tIaturatert? No Depth to tree -standing water in pit/soi probe hake List other evidence toe surface inundation or soil saturation: idzkuL— wetland hydrology ? Yes Notes: A . JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONAL! Wet1ere7 Yet: 51a5&14./ -4-1//t. .4441—"Art-V1— Ilotiortate for jurisdicticrtal decision: .s...mr7sTaamfla . tAa0.4.7. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ••• • . • ....• • • . • • . • Project/Sae: Data: DATA FORM ROUTINE ON-SITE DETER110,1ATICN fAEINO3 J•tt 6 -AWL iii°t4 tai Inetws: /74 e:LIctg Nam Car? •dstot =IR CUSS 0 • SO -71 • 01 S IN -94 .•••• S• • 3 Doonwant Pis* SIMCans Pt4 r: 2: Coarantrd SI-Irr:iJ4county: ?:1. Approximate site (2cres$: <1 1-2 zs >51 VEGETATION Cows Lickssar class sous Ssrairso D Plant Swiss Cow Indosbar class mom Simon I . ni ALIA'', 61 V 144‘111.1.4r,,N L Oc,„3 11. • 2. • ,41. 1Z. 3. 13. 4. 14. 5. ., 15. 6. • 15. - 7. 17. • _ IL 15. 9. 1fe- , 10. 2.. 0 r . 0131. FACW. arrYor FAC IttfeoPtirtio vegetation? Notes: No S T (co - TOTAL SOIL Series/Phe: Omer pelFiEnt.._:-7'..0,-4.41•11.t -05‘—.53,14= • ' Histosof7 Ns.%) Histic epipedon? .:10 :,.ta*-, (C3621" Hori=n , • • veowv--- Soi • mot Prot9e Whitt color • • Texture Other hydric so Hydrk sail? Yes Plates: 10 IL 4.04/AVi Inundated? Yes HYDROLOGY C7 Surtace water depttc Saturated? Yes Depth to free-Van:Ong water in pC pent* hoist List other evidence of surface inundation or sod saturation: 1,,urtkft_. Wetland hydrotogy? Yes Notes: Al iv- ( • dit. ce,Or JURISDICTIONAL DETERMNATION ANO RATIONALE lVettand? Yes &:--) 50'15 tr. tkrimirary M;'--- eier h•NOr_______--- Ilaiianale tar /urisdictianai decision: ..rwracrokrebn.t1.1.600..ro 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I Wetland and Buffet Functions arA Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # T R Staff 61}t— Wrt- Date 1-5—%6/1 N/A =Not Appiicable, Nl1= No informa>3on availatte Dominant Vegetation: TAS r y Wildlife: Function Criteria Group 1 I pt Group 2 2 pts Group 3 3 pts Flood/ St orm Water Control points II. (marc 15) _I/size <5 aces rtvetite a lalmettae wdtaid —" <10%forested cover — ahecic�'d — located in lower 113 d the damp — siza 5-10 acres mid -sicced wetland •=210-30 %forested cover redo` tlet looted h middle 113 of ltd drainage _ size >10 aces _Zdeoressfau. hem bogsAsts Aj 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - P. 1 1 1 1 1./ Wetland and Buffer Functions and Semi-quantttative Performance Assessment uatt(pAioi 4 i Natural i . ,„ , _I D 101091 t•-zil Support • • pointsit (mac 36) .A.Zstre <5 wrest low wg structure 27,241"1.seasonal autace waiter — ow NNW tYPe PAB POW PEM PSS PFD EST low plait diverstty (<6 species) • >50 % invasive air primary productivity • .. , °merle acclimriallon •-"-low organic ecpert - iew hatitat iesitres _ butters wry disbxbed — from upiand habitats sate 5-10 acres -7-'1 liner veg surface water- PAB PSS 12151EST ye -de -ate plant diversity (7-15 • edes) --"---10to 50 % Invasive species _ . moderate primary ped moderate organic accumtiedion bw organic expert 4---torre habitat teatres -tuners sightly distute<1 _L-----fertlaky connected to upland habitats size > 10 acres high veg structure open water pock trough summer z.3 habitat typos PAB POW PlEM PSS PO EST _ high pant diversity (>15 species) < to% trns.miw. lerardioode — liCtl PelmarY PrceudivitY — high crgaric taxsnulatton — htt, organic =poi many habitat leaures . butters not charted wei connecied to tpiand habitabs Overall Habitat 'Function, . poinis_a . (max 9) _Zaire <5 aces bw habitat diversity _ low sanctuary or refuge • ..2rize 5-10 acres }TOO -erase habitat diversity ...Z moderate sanctuary cc refuge . size >10 acres — high habitat drowsily — high sanctuary cr refuge ., Sp eC !fie. Habitat Functions points.k. (mcc 15) -502W InVenebraSe haat 7,2214arnititit habitat -47 tsh habitat low mammal hebt.al — bvi bird lubbt - . moderate invertebrate heard mcderale amphibian habitat . mcderate fish habitat ' • moderate mammal habitat ze moderate bird habitat high knerietraie hatast _ high amphibian hal:act higti bsh habitat - high mamma habitat high bird habitat Cultural/ • • Socloeco- no mlc . pokier / (max 21) • :1,ackceionld cciDaturlffee lkw aesthetic value . ..3/1scks commercial fisheries, • /agrIcutaxe, renewable raaarsala lacks historical or archecloakei /resources Web passive and active • z ricreatIonal opporturdies .../ privately owned _r_t not neer cpen space moderate educabonal cpcolunars moderale /aesthetic vairie moderate commercial *shades, spictiase, renewable recces= _ historical or archeobgbal she scme passive and active -- recreetionad °mortuaries — pivot* °maid, some pubic • MOM= — scrre con to men VIM - high edtraticnad opfxrkrillea ' high aestedc were • • high commercial fisheriss, agrlailtre, renewable resources — knporfarrt historical or archeciogical site — many mese and active recreafcrad cpportaillea utestected pubic access direcly =snacked b open space • . Notes: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d Wetiand and Buffer Functions and Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Wetland # Location S T R Staff t -W -1r . Date i'' r- 79 • Function • Criteria . • Group 1 1 pt Group 2 2 pts Cr;up 3 3 Pts v Flo o d/ St 0 rm Water Control • .—i. (marc 15) �sizg <5 acre _ ,�#vetine a lai e w sd 0 %foreefed cover uoonsstraried allot — loud in bweer U3 d the drainage _ alta 5-10 acres — m{dskped wetland • _-10 - 30 %6faested cave, — ,red crotid _ d b mama 1!3 Wile drainage — shin >10 awes -�6eI.. ..sr, heca, bogs Mets — >30 %lamed cover — aivertberned collet — located In upper 1D d ba dratrstge 1 Base Flow/ Ground Water S u p port Ores! res_ (rte 15) ✓siva<5aaros • riverine a Wash= %%ela d _ located In lower ir3 d the drainage — flooded a sainted / ✓ no Oow ser sthe fah xixiaraia " on-site or downatearn _size 5-10aaes wetland size>10aaes .._ t ese i — leafed fed In upper 1 d 1M drsk ape 1 peonanerily flooded or astrided a _Y �kx d In midd:e 1!3 d the drairrege _. seesorraly a serr><cem Y floodedasat:abed — low now-serallve fah populations on-sle or dowrntreern — hermits 1y ' — high flaweer a paprfaslans cartgerocrs stet ale h Wily peRrreebb __._ Erosion/ Shoreline y Protection' (max 9) —sparse grassterte or no vet; • OHWM _— vee4lardexiads<30mfrom • OHWM - — highly derelcped storeirre a — sparse wood or veg along OHWM — wetlandadends30-t117mtmn1 OHWM — shakoes subcaedment _ de se wood a veg along OI iM •. — weariede >2D0mfrom OHWM — =level:pad shoo ine a Water Quality Improvement pokers (max 12) — "Cid now thr Ch silo .�C <50 % veg ower — In basin tan vadat b - undeveicped holds <25%overland rut . m derat°nowftror'gr'le 50 - e0 % cover _ s5096dbasin upstream tornal vvetlarrdisde' dwerlat holds 25-50% overland rural' . i slow flow throc ,sae > % veg ear basin upstream is from • holds >50:'6overlaid nnoti WA = Not Applicable, NA = No information avaaabfe Dominant Vegetation: Wildlife: 1 1 1 1 11•k yen .17 Wetland and Buffer Functions an Semi -quantitative Performance Assessment Kt, Dv, stc- Natural Biological Support - - en, <5— acres — Jig ittr4 ION leleg SAM, -- ' • ..,z- Sessalll sulaavesier am habitat type :PON. PEW PSS PM EST • plant diversity (<5 Specks) > 53 % Invaibe species _4,w primary pro:its:I/Ay. -:-..-, .! • -/--bw organic recanuladion _IZiow crc etxrt law habitat ieedures Ixaers wiry disturbed kotalecl tom upiancl hat:Ikea .• - eta 5-10 acres .:**1 itrsied veg surtace water rabbit types PAH (aOrff.9 PSS PM EST Moderate *tit ctverety (7-15 • 1010 50 % Wash., species - moderate ;xi:nary productMly - - are > 10 scree high Veg ISTUCtIre open water coc-cugh summer z.3 NOW types PAB POW PEk4PSS PFO EST _ high plant civet -sty (> 15 species) < 10% irnimive tirw.-4,.• — bth PrifrarY 1=d -el* _ high manic exurntialon _ high cyanic =Kit many habitat %cures not cleated wail connected to talarri hehltres i • : • ' • • • . . • • points •1 & rnoderate organic acarmon _ bw organic aced sane habitat leatires • _jeursters sightly dictated Way connected b Wield hattats (mix 35) -.Overall •7/16,6, Habitat Functions _TA <5 acres habitat diversity tow sanctuary or reiuge • . • SiTa 5-10 acres moderate habitat thersity — hi:derails sanctuary a refuge t > 10 acres ••••.• _ high habitat civerrIty _ high saretuary or refuge - pcirici I (mar . Specific .. Habitat Functions pentsa. (ma 15) )aw th•eneixabs- hrbttat arrebbirn NOW :—Ziow fah mitt 7/1°'"Intfnmml hthitat w blnl lohabitat _„d moderate Invertebrate habitat - moderate amphbian t =der* fah habitat rroderaie mammal habitat moderate bind habitat . high hertetnis habitat _ high anchttan habitat — high Ssh habitat high mammal habitat high bird hrbitat • 1 c u tt u re I/ : • SO cioeco- nomic polite/ (mix 21) ....t.,:pw edocalcnal opixattriliss ...lf be aesthetic value • z. licks ccomercial fisheries, agncriltre, renewable reecoces -/ lee hetet:al or archeoicgtai tVrefalsairce6pasahe rad active tscreadonal spoon:mike t/ p-ivaisly mined _VW nes• open space • — moderate educational txcorlurilise moderate hestegc vidue moderate commercial Isherlas, tab:se, renewable resources ...... Metrical or arctieciogicai site _ cma passive and active recreational opp•arturillea — privately armed, some pubic ii=essit - crne carnation b open space _ high °Aced:nal OppFkratit high aesthete vibe high commercial Siberiee, Kin:ultra, mews% mucuses _ km:abet hted cr archrsobgisid • site — many passive and active raced:or:al coot:arias unrestricted 1:01:4c access *sly =necked b open space Notes: LANCE MUELLER S. ASSOCI A R C 111TE CT $•A1A 130 lakeside • suite 250 • seattle, washington 98122 325-2553 fax 328-0554 -J1. 4J1�JL PcrEiv/A-1 date job I ' I RE. PLAGE t•./‘ G.N1 T -raz.se. ! (....:A Lc() La ri 0,0 01 Ps . 12..e IZIE•p, IZAiri 6•Reel:, 1Jaof 1'04s Lb. t* / 1.4.6f6 Ht e- is I oc.bi IL. , , 1 6 • -3 co le4.- I 6 tk..)6 H 4 . 4 i cir, , 2_ '7 1.4 14-1c44 6 . I a "FDTEN.L. , 'bi . 8+ RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT CENTER PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) Please complete the following checklist to demonstrate that all significant adverse environmental impacts have been clearly avoided or mitigated. Please respond on separate sheets as needed. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: October 1, 1999 Revised Nov. 30, 1999; Revised March 29, 2000 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction April 1, 2000 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain The site will be fully developed at this time. Tenant work will be done under a separate permit. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA determination, Lot Consolidation, Tree Permit, Sensitive Area Approval, Board of Architectural Review approval, Grading Permit, Utility Permits, Building Permit, Construction Permits for work in public right -a -way, Mechanical & Electrical Permits, Street Vacation, Building Permit for Group Health garage and future T.I. permits. 1 Agency Comments: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT CENTER • • 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project will be developed as two 80,000 S.F. research and development (R&D) facilities. The southern building will be a speculative building and the north building will most likely be occupied by Group Health Cooperative of Washington. Uses within the building will consist of lab, research support, storage and records, record processing, administrative office, and other uses permitted by Zoning Code. UBC occupancy groups will be primarily F, S, & B. The phase / site is currently partially developed with a parking lot which serves the Group Health support facility located across the street. The western portion of the site contains a detention pond and a material stockpile and has been disturbed by grading. The site slopes to the northwest and is covered with grass, blackberries and scrub trees. Within this area are isolated Class III wetlands totaling 6,395 s.f. The phase II site is currently. undeveloped and covered with various types of vegetation. Within the site there are disturbed areas where structures once stood and a depression with a piped outlet that has been created by construction activity that has occurred adjacent to the site. Inside this large depression is a wetland. The site falls 35' north to south along the 35th Ave. south side. The site also rises going east to west along South 126th. Located on the site near the depression is one other small low value wetland. The various boundaries of site have different physical conditions. The east boundary of the site borders East Marginal Way South and has curb, sidewalk, and gutter. The north side of the site borders S. 124th, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires curb and sidewalk. The west side of the property borders 35th Avenue S. It is paved but requires frontage improvements. The south boundary of the site borders S. 126th Street, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires widening, curb and gutter. Access to the site is through existing driveways on S. 124th Street and East Marginal Way South. A new access point will be provided, located on S. 124th and the existing drive abandoned. 2 • • The proposed R&D building will be similar in appearance to many of the R&D buildings located in Bothell at Canyon Park. They will feature higher floor to floor heights than an office building, service area and additional mechanical and electrical services to support the activities inside. The exteriors of the buildings will be a combination of smooth painted rusticated concrete and tinted exterior glazing. The exterior will feature a curved curtain wall at each side to annotate the main entry. Continuous bands of glazing will be provided at each level. The combination of materials will provide well balanced visually interesting facades. A parapet is featured at the central area of the building to provide vertical modulation and reinforce the symmetrical design. The centrally located mechanical unit has been screened and visually creates a central penthouse. The proposed site plan has been developed to adapt the development to the existing site conditions. The storm drainage pond will be located at the low point of the site in the northwest corner. This allows the site to drain based on the existing topography and to retain the existing parking area during construction and to utilize these improvements as part of the project. The site has also been designed to avoid the Class 111 wetland which occurs in the depressed area of the site and another small wetland located next to 35th Avenue South. The site plan has been designed to use landscaping to create a park like feel. Where feasible, existing trees will be retained. In addition to the planting treatment at the building base and in the parking area, a landscape feature is included at the northeast corner as part of the design theme. This feature is emulated at the main entry. A common paving and planting treatment will be used to further Zink these design elements with the Group Health facility on the neighboring site on the east side of East Marginal Way South. The buildings will be constructed as type III -N or V -N fully sprinklered building of unlimited area. The building will be supported on conventional footing with a structural slab on grade. The second floor will be a concrete slab on metal deck supported by bar joists and open web girders. The roof system will be a 3 - ply Class "B" roof membrane over °R-19 rigid insulation. The supporting structure will be metal deck with a sub structure of bar joists and open web girders. The exterior concrete walls will be furred with metal studs with R-19 batt insulation and covered with GWB as part of the shell permit. 3 • • The interior of building will be initially permitted with shell and core improvements only. The exit stairs, lobby stairs, elevator lobby and bathroom core will be provided. The shell mechanical will include the core HVAC and main duct runs. Basic exit lighting, core and stair lighting will be provided under the shell work. Interior work such as tenant walls, lighting, emergency pathway lighting, and mechanical distribution will be provided with the tenant work. The intent will be to C.O. the shell by late August of 2000. 7. 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 legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached legal and vicinity maps. This project if located in the City of Tukwila on: The southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street. . 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 4 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The existing site slopes to the northwest. It has various depressions due to previous grading activity and fill actions on surrounding site. The site currently has an old stockpile of fill located in the eastern portion. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% except for ditches, drainage pond and material stockpile. 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. See attached soils reports for each phase. The site has not been used for agriculture in recent history. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, 'describe. No. The building foundation will be designed for liquidation during earthquake. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No fill quantities are available at this time. The import materials will be minimal and limited to granular fill under paving and structural slab. Imported materials will come from an approved off site barrow. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. • Erosion of soils could occur during grading and clearing even though the site is level except for existing material stockpile. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 80,000 s.f. of the site will be covered with building and 380,000 s.f. with paving. The balance of the site (about 15% will remain pervious. 5 • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Follow best management practices according to a T.E.C.P. that will be approved by the City prior to construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we anticipate vehicle and equipment exhaust and dust generation during dry weather grading. After completion, emission from vehicles and gas heating equipment will occur. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with' vehicle emission standard, air quality standard for heating equipment and best management practices during project grading. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. The site currently has several small isolated wetlands and one larger wetland, which are described in the attached wetland report. Storm drainage from existing detention pond flows to East Marginal Way South through an enclosed culvert. See attached Talasaea report dated Feb. 2, 2000. To the east of the site a small stream occurs on the neighboring property. This stream is mapped on the City inventory as Stream 10-3. 230 feet west of the site lies Riverton Creek, which is designated on the City map as Stream 10.2. 6 • • 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Existing isolated Class III wetland totaling about 6,300 s.f. will be relocated to be part of the existing larger wetland in the east central part of the site. Wetland mitigation plan to be approved per SAO by the DCP'Director. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. About 50 yards of on site fill material from existing stockpile will be placed in the existing Class III wetland areas, which will be filled for construction. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. All wetland areas that will be filled are depressions or ditches. No withdrawals or diversion of water courses will occur. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No — Site elevation falls above the floodplain. 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. None b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Current soils do not percolate well. Runoff from parking areas will be collected in an underground system and discharged into public drainage system. Water from roof surfaces will be used to recharge the existing wetland area and the new wetland mitigation area. 7 • • 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the site is seasonal rainfall. Storm water runoff generated from parking and maneuvering surfaces by the proposed project will be collected and conveyed by a series of catch basins and tightlines to an open combined wet/detention pond for storm water detention and water quality treatment. The pond is located in the northwest corner of the site. It will discharge into an existing underground pipe system that conveys runoff east to the East Marginal Way storm drainage system. Storm water leaving the site will comply with the City of Tukwila Water Quality Standards. A portion of the storm water from roof surfaces will be detained into underground pipes and discharged at a predetermined rate into the wetland basin centrally located on the site. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Based on the collection system designed, no waste materials can enter the ground except for fertilizers in planting areas. Impervious surfaces will channel all runoff to the water quality pond which will provide treatment of water from vehicle maneuvering and parking areas. This facility will be designed to meet current City of Tukwila Design Standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. The site will be designed with a drainage system that will collect all site runoff. This runoff will be conveyed to a detention facility. This facility will regulate the site runoff to a level that will meet City standard. Design of this system will be approved by the City in accordance with the KCSWD Manual. 8 • • 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation - Blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Except for existing landscape areas along East Marginal Way South, S. 124th Street and within and surrounding the parking areas, existing ground covers, scrub Alder, Poplars, Willows, Cottonwood, Evergreens and blackberries will be removed during the grading process. Significant trees in ungraded area will be retained as feasible. See attached survey drawing and landscape plans. Tree replacement will be done per ordinance in all sensitive areas. This calculation is attached. 84 trees replaced. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The newly developed portion of the site will be landscaped in accordance with an approved City plan. The wetland areas will be mitigated with a City approved planting plan that will utilize native planting. The area around the detention pond will be planted with native planting where feasible. A visual buffer consisting of a high percentage of evergreens will be provided on 35th Ave. South & S. 126th Street. 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 Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, o er; Fish: Bass, Salmon, Trout Herring, Shellfish, other Other: /' abbits 1' odents ro• �.Y:7lThT1 9 • • b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Other than Pacific Flyway, which covers much of Western Washington, no. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native planting at wetland mitigation area and water quality area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling, in lab areas, and convenience outlets. Gas will be used in the heating equipment. Service to the building from the public right -a -way will be underground per TMCL .08. In areas where street improvements are done adjacent to the lot (on the project side of the right -a -way) overhead services will be underground where permitted by electrical code and practically feasible. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The facility will meet or exceed requirements of Washington State Code by use of high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, glazing and insulation and energy conserving lighting systems. 10 • • 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No — Any and all hazardous materials, flammable and combustible, used in labs and print shops will be below exempt amounts. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None — Normal fire, police and aid care services could be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at this time is minimal. No other offsite noises are present that could affect this use. 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: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise from vehicles and building activities will be the source of short-term noise. Vehicle noise on the site after it is developed will be the primary source of post construction noise. HVAC unit will be located on the roof of the building. These units will be enclosed within a screen that will provide a visual and acoustic buffer. The screens will be designed to limit noise levels at the lot line to those permitted by noise ordinance for the Industrial Zone. 11 • • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Exterior construction activities consisting of but not limited to clearing, grading, paving, etc. will be limited to daylight hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to control construction noise. Vehicle noise from cars will be controlled by current vehicle noise standards. Noise created by HVAC equipment will be mitigated based on noise abatement standards. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, a noise study will be submitted to the City that the HVAC equipment will meet the standards of the Tukwila noise ordinance, TMC 8.22. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently about 25% developed with a parking lot. The parking lot provides accessory parking for the existing Group Health facility which is not required by Tukwila Code. This parking will be provided in a new parking structure located on the Group Health Operations Center site. Other uses near the site include a tavern, existing undeveloped land, storage/manufacturing structures and residence to the south of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in years. c. Describe any structures on the site. No building structures are present. Underground storm drainage structures are in place along with landscaping and paving. d. Will any existing structures be demolished? Some utility structures will be modified or removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site Manufacturing/Industrial Center— Light (MIC/L) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/L g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 12 • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: On-site wetlands — see attached report by Talasaea Consultants, dated 2/2/2000. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j• The new facility will increase employment in the area. The proposed facility could add up to 800 new jobs. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with good design practices, zoning requirements and conditions of BAR approval. The proposed project will provide visual buffering at the building face, within the parking areas and at the lot perimeter. Special landscaping treatment is being provided at areas near residential uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 13 • • 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? The estimated building height is about 32' to roof structure. The top of the box mechanical unit will be about 44' above ground floor. The exterior materials will be glass and painted articulated concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install building base landscaping, parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping. The landscape design should visually buffer the building from public spaces. The building exterior design will utilize colored glazing and articulated painted concrete that will give the building a contemporary appearance. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Interior building lights and parking lot lighting will be a source of light that will be visible from outside the property perimeter. The parking lot lighting will run in the evening and occasionally building lighting will be run at night. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Low glare parking lot Tight fixtures through photometric design will limit lighting effects to this lot. The applicant as part of the building permit application will provide a lighting plan that will meet the standards in the TMC 18.50.100. 14 • • 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and running on public streets is the only available informal recreational activities. Private athletic clubs are available in the community for public use. The project is also located within a mile of the Tukwila Community Center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Provide information to employees about athletic facilities and golf courses available for their use. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. East Marginal Way South, Interurban Avenue, Tukwila International Blvd., S. 130th Street, and S. 128th. 15 • • b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Bus stops are provided on East Marginal Way South. The Metro bus facility is in close proximity. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? About 792 parking stalls will be provided on site as part of this project. About 277 stalls currently on the site will be relocated to the new parking garage at the Group Health Operations Center site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes— Street frontage improvements will be provided on S. 124th Street. Additional frontage improvement on S. 126th Street & 35th Ave. will be required by the Director of Public Works. Additional improvements such as traffic signage, roadway widening and signalization improvements are identified in the Traffic Study: In addition the traffic studying identifies neighborhood traffic impacts and describes a program to access and mitigate them. e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached traffic study. 2/18/2000. g. Proposed measures to impacts, if any: Dated 11/30/99m revised Study dated reduce or control transportation The applicant will provide car pool stalls, van pool parking, transit passes to encourage ride sharing to minimize use of single occupant vehicles. Group Health currently has an employee transportation plan that will be expanded to include this facility. The applicant will participate in off site traffic mitigation identified in the traffic study. In addition the applicant will participate in a neighborhood program and mitigation program as described in the traffic report. 16 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. Existing police services and fire protection services are provided by the City of Tukwila. No significant additional increase in service demand is anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle 'lities current available at the site: refuse service septic system, other: Optic fiber. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer, water, and storm drainage is provided by the City in the bordering right -a -way. Power is available from City Light, gas from Puget Sound Energy and phone from U.S. West. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted 5/(15700 GRPHEALTH-BLDG.CHK 17 PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) Please complete the following checklist to demonstrate that all significant adverse environmental impacts have been clearly avoided or mitigated. Please respond on separate sheets as needed. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: October 1, 1999 Revised Nov. 30, 1999; Revised March 2, 2000 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction April 1, 2000 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain The site will be fully developed at this time. Tenant work will be done under a separate permit. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA determination, Lot Consolidation, Tree Permit, Sensitive Area Approval, Board of Architectural Review approval, Grading Permit, Utility Permits, Building Permit, Construction Permits for work in public right -a -way, Mechanical & Electrical Permits, Street Vacation, Building Permit for Group Health garage and future T.I. permits. ' FILECOF" Agency Comments: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 2 2000 PERMIT CENTER • • 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project will be developed as two 80,000 S.F. research and development (R&D) facilities. The southern building will be a speculative building and the north building will most likely be occupied by Group Health Cooperative of Washington. Uses within the building will consist of lab, research support, storage and records, record processing, administrative office, and other uses permitted by Zoning Code. UBC occupancy groups will be primarily F, S, & B. The phase I site is currently partially developed with a parking lot which serves the Group Health support facility located across the street. The western portion of the site contains a detention pond and a material stockpile and has been disturbed by grading. The site slopes to the northwest and is covered with grass, blackberries and scrub trees. Within this area are isolated Class III wetlands totaling 6,395 s.f. The phase 11 site is currently undeveloped and covered with various types of vegetation. Within the site there are disturbed areas where structures once stood and a depression with a piped outlet that has been created by construction activity that has occurred adjacent to the site. Inside this large depression is a wetland. The site falls 35' north to south along the 35th Ave. south side. The site also rises going east to west along South 126th. Located on the site near the depression is one other small low value wetland. The various boundaries of site have different physical conditions. The east boundary of the site borders East Marginal Way South and has curb, sidewalk, and gutter. The north side of the site borders S. 124th, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires curb and sidewalk. The west side of the property borders 35th Avenue S. It is paved but requires frontage improvements. The south boundary of the site borders S. 126th Street, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires widening, curb and gutter. Access to the site is through existing driveways on S. 124th Street and East Marginal Way South. A new access point will be provided, located on S. 124th and the existing drive abandoned. 2 • • The proposed R&D building will be similar in appearance to many of the R&D buildings located in Bothell at Canyon Park. They will feature higher floor to floor heights than an office building, service area and additional mechanical and electrical services to support the activities inside. The exteriors of the buildings will be a combination of smooth painted rusticated concrete and tinted exterior glazing. The exterior will feature a curved curtain wall at each side to annotate the main entry. Continuous bands of glazing will be provided at each level. The combination of materials will provide well balanced visually interesting facades. A parapet is featured at the central area of the building to provide vertical modulation and reinforce the symmetrical design. The centrally located mechanical unit has been screened and visually creates a central penthouse. The proposed site plan has been developed to adapt the development to the existing site conditions. The storm drainage pond will be located at the low point of the site in the northwest corner. This allows the site to drain based on the existing topography and to retain the existing parking area during construction and to utilize these improvements as part of the project. The site has also been designed to avoid the Class 111 wetland which occurs in the depressed area of the site. The site plan has been designed to use landscaping to create a park like feel. Where feasible, existing trees will be retained. In addition to the planting treatment at the building base and in the parking area, a landscape feature is included at the northeast corner as part of the design theme. This feature is emulated at the main entry. A common paving and planting treatment will be used to further Zink these design elements with the Group Health facility on the neighboring site on the east side of East Marginal Way South. The buildings will be constructed as type III -N or V -N fully sprinklered building of unlimited area. The building will be supported on conventional footing with a structural slab on grade. The second floor will be a concrete slab on metal deck supported by bar joists and open web girders. The roof system will be a 3 - ply Class "B" roof membrane over R-19 rigid insulation. The supporting structure will be metal deck with a sub structure of bar joists and open web girders. The exterior concrete walls will be furred with metal studs with R-19 batt insulation and covered with GWB as part of the shell permit. 3 • • The interior of building will be initially permitted with shell and core improvements only. The exit stairs, lobby stairs, elevator lobby and bathroom core will be provided. The shell mechanical will include the core HVAC and main duct runs. Basic exit lighting, core and stair lighting will be provided under the shell work. Interior work such as tenant walls, lighting, emergency pathway lighting, and mechanical distribution will be provided with the tenant work. The intent will be to C.O. the shell by late August of 2000. 7. 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 legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached legal and vicinity maps. This project if located in the City of Tukwila on: The southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street. 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 4 • • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The existing site slopes to the northwest. It has various depressions due to previous grading activity and fill actions on surrounding site. The site currently has an old stockpile of fill located in the eastern portion. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% except for ditches, drainage pond and material stockpile. 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. See attached soils reports for each phase. The site has not been used for agriculture in recent history. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The building foundation will be designed for liquidation during earthquake. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No fill quantities are available at this time. The import materials will be minimal and limited to granular fill under paving and structural slab. Imported materials will come from an approved off site barrow. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Erosion of soils could occur during grading and clearing even though the site is level except for existing material stockpile. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 80,000 s.f. of the site will be covered with building and 380,000 s.f. with paving. The balance of the site (about 15% will remain pervious. 5 • • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Follow best management practices according to a T.E.C.P. that will be approved by the City prior to construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we anticipate vehicle and equipment exhaust and dust generation during dry weather grading. After completion, emission from vehicles and gas heating equipment will occur. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with vehicle emission standard, air quality standard for heating equipment and best management practices during project grading. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. The site currently has several small isolated wetlands and one larger wetland, which are described in the attached wetland report. Storm drainage from existing detention pond flows to East Marginal Way South through an enclosed culvert. See attached Talasaea report dated Feb. 2, 2000. To the east of the site a small stream occurs on the neighboring property. This stream is mapped on the City inventory as Stream 10-3. 230 feet west of the site lies Riverton Creek, which is designated on the City map as Stream 10.2. 6 • • 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Existing isolated Class III wetland totaling about 11, 887.47 s. f. will be relocated adjacent to the storm drainage pond at the northwest corner of the site. This mitigation area will be connected to the existing wetland area adjacent to 35th Avenue South. Wetland mitigation plan to be designed per SAO and approved by the DCP Director. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. About 50 yards of on site fill material from existing stockpile will be placed in the existing Class III wetland areas, which will be filled for construction. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. All wetland areas that will be filled are depressions or ditches. No withdrawals or diversion of water courses will occur. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No — Site elevation falls above the floodplain. 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. None b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. • Current soils do not percolate well. Runoff from parking areas will be collected in an underground system and discharged into public drainage system. Water from roof surfaces will be used to recharge the existing wetland area and the new wetland mitigation area. 7 • • 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. Not applicable. c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the site is seasonal rainfall. Storm water runoff generated from parking and maneuvering surfaces by the proposed project will be collected and conveyed by a series of catch basins and tightlines to an open combined wet/detention pond for storm water detention and water quality treatment. The pond is located in the northwest corner of the site. It will discharge into an existing underground pipe system that conveys runoff east to the East Marginal Way storm drainage system. Storm water leaving the site will comply with the City of Tukwila Water Quality Standards. A portion of the storm water from roof surfaces will be detained into underground pipes and discharged at a predetermined rate into the wetland basin centrally located on the site. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Based on the collection system designed, no waste materials can enter the ground except for fertilizers in planting areas. Impervious surfaces will channel all runoff to the water quality pond which will provide treatment of water from vehicle maneuvering and parking areas. This facility will be designed to meet current City of Tukwila Design Standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. The site will be designed with a drainage system that will collect all site runoff. This runoff will be conveyed to a detention facility. This facility will regulate the site runoff to a level that will meet City standard. Design of this system will be approved by the City in accordance with the KCSWD Manual. 8 • • 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other _ Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation - Blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Except for existing landscape areas along East Marginal Way South, S. 124th Street and within and surrounding the parking areas, existing ground covers, scrub Alder, Poplars, Willows, Cottonwood, Evergreens and blackberries will be removed during the grading process. Significant trees in ungraded area will be retained as feasible. See attached survey drawing and landscape plans. Tree replacement will be done per ordinance in all sensitive areas. This calculation will be provided as part of the Building Permit package. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The newly developed portion of the site will be landscaped in accordance with an approved City plan. The wetland areas will be mitigated with a City approved planting plan that will utilize native planting. The area around the detention pond will be planted with native planting where feasible. A visual buffer consisting of a high percentage of evergreens will be provided on 35th Ave. South & S. 126th Street. 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, slTiTararrl Crow Sparro Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, other; Fish: Bass, Salmon Trout Herrin • , Shellfish, other Other: Rab • it • • b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Other than Pacific Flyway, which covers much of Western Washington, no. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native planting at wetland mitigation area and water quality area. 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling, in lab areas, and convenience outlets. Gas will be used in the heating equipment. Service to the building from the public right -a -way will be underground per TMC B.08. In areas where street improvements are done adjacent to the lot (on the project side of the right -a -way) overhead services will be underground where permitted by electrical code and practically feasible. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The facility will meet or exceed requirements of Washington State Code by use of high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, glazing and insulation and energy conserving lighting systems. 10 • • 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No — Any and all hazardous materials, flammable and combustible, used in labs and print shops will be below exempt amounts. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None — Normal fire, police and aid care services could be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at this time is minimal. No other offsite noises are present that could affect this use. 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: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise from vehicles and building activities will be the source of short-term noise. Vehicle noise on the site after it is developed will be the primary source of post construction noise. HVAC unit will be located on the roof of the building. These units will be enclosed within a screen that will provide a visual and acoustic buffer. The screens will be designed to limit noise levels at the lot line to those permitted by noise ordinance for the Industrial Zone. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be limited to daylight hours outside the building. Vehicle noise from cars will be controlled by current vehicle noise standards. Noise created by HVAC equipment wil be mitigated based on noise abatement standards. 11 • • 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently about 25% developed with a parking lot. The parking lot provides accessory parking for the existing Group Health facility which is not required by Tukwila Code. This parking will be provided in a new parking structure located on the Group Health Operations Center site. Other uses near the site include a tavern, existing undeveloped land, storage/manufacturing structures and residence to the south of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in years. c. Describe any structures on the site. No building structures are present. Underground storm drainage structures are in place along with landscaping and paving. d. Will any existing structures be demolished? Some utility structures will be modified or removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Light (MIC/L) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/L g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: On-site wetlands — see attached report by Talasaea Consultants, dated 2/2/2000. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The new facility will increase employment in the area. The proposed facility could add up to 800 new jobs. 12 J. • • Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with good design practices, zoning requirements and conditions of BAR approval. The .site proposed project will provide visual buffering at the building face, within the parking areas and at the lot perimeter. Special landscaping treatment is being provided at areas near residential uses. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 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? The estimated building height is about 32' to roof structure. The top of the. box mechanical unit will be about 44' above ground floor. The exterior materials will be glass and painted articulated concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None 13 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install building base landscaping, parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping. The landscape design should visually buffer the building from public spaces. The building exterior design will utilize colored glazing and articulated painted concrete that will give the building a contemporary appearance. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Interior building lights and parking lot lighting will be a source of light that will be visible from outside the property perimeter. The parking lot lighting will run in the evening and occasionally building lighting will be run at night. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Low glare parking lot light fixtures through photometric design will limit lighting effects to this lot. The applicant as part of the building permit application will provide a lighting plan that will meet the standards in the TMC 18.50.100. 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and running on public streets is the only available informal recreational activities. Private athletic clubs are available in the community for public use. The project is also located within a mile of the Tukwila Community Center. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No 14 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Provide information to employees about athletic facilities and golf courses available for their use. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. East Marginal Way South, Hwy. 99 and S. 126th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Bus stops are provided on East Marginal Way South. The Metro bus facility is in close proximity. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? About 800 parking stalls will be provided on site as part of this project. About 277 stalls currently on the site will be relocated to the new parking garage at the Group Health Operations Center site. 15 • • d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes— Street frontage improvements will be provided on S. 124th Street. Additional frontage improvement on S. 126th Street & 35th Ave. South may be required by the Director of Public Works. Additional improvements such as traffic signage and signalization improvements are identified in the Traffic Study. e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. See attached traffic study. Dated 11/30/99yr1 revised Study dated 2/18/2000. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will provide car pool stalls, van pool parking, transit passes to encourage ride sharing to minimize use of single occupant vehicles. Group Health currently has an employee transportation plan that will be expanded to include this facility. He will participate in off site traffic mitigation identified in the traffic study. 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. Existing police services and fire protection services are provided by the City of Tukwila. No significant additional increase in service demand is anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16 • * 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently availa . le at the site: (water refuse service septic system, other: optic fiber sewer b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer, water, and storm drainage is provided by the City in the bordering right -a -way. Power is available from City Light, gas from Puget Sound Energy and phone from U.S. West. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its dec ision. Signature: Signature: cc Date Submitted 3 /a /9 J,7r) GRPHEALTH-BLDG.CHK 17 • MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Steve Lancaster, DCD Director FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist . DATE: March 9, 2000 RE: Group Health Support Facility Permit #'s L99-0074, E99-0031 3/2/2000 SEPA Revision. I have reviewed the most recent submittal related to tree removal and the conceptual wetland mitigation plan for Phase 1 and 2 of this project. The tree information that has been submitted is understood to not be complete for a final tree permit approval. The submittal includes a map (sheet 1 of 1) titled Existing Conditions Exhibit....Gateway East II (Barghausen Engineers) and a set of tree replacement charts and maps prepared by Bob Fadden (Lance Mueller & Associates). The Phase II part of the project includes a wetland mitigation proposal that has not been approved by the DCD for issuing a SEPA Determination. Therefore, my related comment is that only a limited area (Wetland B/C) of the Phase II area would be involved for a tree permit if the mitigation occurs off-site or in another on-site location. The comments listed below are important to assist with preparing an approved tree permit for this project. 1) The revised SEPA checklist does not suggest any change to the conceptual mitigation plan for wetland replacement. 2) The wetland boundary for Wetland AA on Phase II is not consistently the same for all the maps. Specifically, the west side of the wetland boundary has been revised since the first submittal but is not shown as consistent with the recent wetland report. Phase I — Tree Information 3) It appears that not all trees have been mapped within the wetland drainage and 25 -foot buffer. This is most evident at the upper, northeast area of wetland. A site visit will be conducted to verify the submitted tree survey. Phase H — Tree Information 4) Base on past site visits, there are trees around Wetland B/C that are not mapped with this submittal. Cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager March 7, 2000 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Public Works Mr. Marc Mizuta Entranco Enineers 10900 NE r Street Suite 300 Bellevue, Wa 98004-4405 RE: Group Health & Intemational Gateway East Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Mizuta: James E Morrow, P.E., Director This letter with attachments provide response comments to your Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated February 18, 2000 for the proposed Group Health and International Gateway East Development. nrf;I3) ©7 rn The average rates provided in the ITE trip generation manual do not appear to accurately represent the trip generation of the existing or proposed development. The trip generation provided in the TIA appears to be low based on a variable related to parking. The peak hour trips generated are 50% or more when using existing traffic counts and on-site parking. Additionally, the existing development appears to generate approximately 22% more average daily traffic than the trip generation manual would predict. The City previously requested that the TIA include consideration of another variable(s) such as parking in order that a representative trip generation rate can be determined and agreed upon. The information requested has not been provided to date. Additional comments are provided in the attachments, including a calculated trip generation rate using parking as a variable. Please revise and resubmit the TIA. Please contact Raid Tirhi or me at (206) 433-0179 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian L. Shelton, P.E. City Engineer Attachments Cc: Bob Fadden, Lance Mueller & Assoc. Eileen DeArmon, Sabey Corp. Nora Gierloff t✓ 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-433-0179 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • • Memorandum Date: 3/3/00 To: Brian Shelton From: Raid Tirhi RE: Group Health Traffic Report The transportation division has reviewed the draft TIA report dated February 18, 2000 and has the following comments. 1) Unfortunately, the traffic analyst has failed to follow directions from city personnel in regard to the trip generation calculation method. In our two previous meetings, phone conversations, attached 12/16/99 memorandum, and attached 1/25/2000 E-mail, we indicated that the trip generation should be based on the variable that generates the maximum number of trips. The report utilized non -conservative variables that introduced smaller trip generation rates. Trip generation is an essential part of the traffic report. Any errors in the calculations are being carried throughout the report. Therefore, we require a revised traffic report as follows: 2) In our 12/16/00 memo we asked to update the TIA report and include all phases of the project (parking and buildings) and any future plans for (re)development and expansion. We also asked to indicate the total number of employees and the number of employees utilizing the CTR program for both existing and future conditions. The updated report failed to answer all the questions. Instead, the report introduced inconsistencies in the numbers of employees and parking stalls. For example, in the report, the number of employees for GHC Operations Center has ranged between 802, 804, and 806. 3) We understand that Group Health (GHC) is increasing the employee density per square foot for the existing building (report pages 23-24), consequently, GHC are increasing the proposed number of parking stalls, which in turn increases the trip generation. Yet, trip generation used for GHC was based on trips currently being generated based on current driveway volumes (not even including vehicles parked on the streets or even parked in Boeing building at the time the data was conducted). This calculation does not account for the expansion and the parking demand mentioned on pages 23 —24. 4) Pages iii and 11 of the report indicate a total proposed parking stalls of 806 + 772 = 1578 stalls. On the other hand, page 11 indicates a total of 604 (424+180) a.m. peak hour trips generated. It does not make sense that GHC will design parking almost three times as much as the highest peak hour. Therefore, we calculated the actual trip generation based on the existing number of parking stalls and actual driveway counts. 5) Counts conducted 01-27-00 indicated that the total a.m. peak hour volume at both driveways east of East Marginal Way was 294 trips (83% inbound and 17% outbound). The a.m. peak hour occurred between 6:45 — 7:45. The Project engineer indicated that 1 • • the total number of existing parking stalls east of East Marginal Way is 408 stalls. Therefore, the existing trip generation rate for each parking stall is 294/408 = 0.72 a.m. peak hour trips per parking stall. Therefore, when GHC, both operations center and R&D office buildings, proposes a total 1578 (806 E+772 W) parking stalls they are in essence proposing 1578 X 0.72 = 1136 a.m. peak hour trips (943 inbound & 193 outbound). Comparing this logical calculation with the trip generation table on page 11 we find a big discrepancy with an estimated 604 total a.m. peak hour trips for both projects. 6) Of the 1136 a.m. peak hour trips, the new GHC R&D buildings generate 556 trips. On the other hand, 580 trips are attributed to the GHC Operations Center. For the purpose of calculating mitigation fees, the City will give GHC credit for baseline conditions as indicated in the 1996 TIA report. Baseline conditions indicated 216 a.m. peak hour trips. 7) Page 9 of the report calculated the trip generation of the new parking garage as 180 a.m. peak hour trips, it deducted right a way the baseline conditions trip generation. What this means is that all analysis including LOS, signal warrants, and left -turn lane analysis has excluded those trips. This is not an acceptable method. What we are saying is that a credit for impact fees only will be given for baseline conditions. Those trips are on the roadway system and should be accounted for in the analysis. 8) Based on the new trip generation numbers the issue of neighborhood cut -through traffic needs to be evaluated and documented in the report. The City Of Tukwila should not be responsible for mitigating private development project impacts as indicated on page 25. 9) In the signalized intersection LOS calculations the yellow plus red phase (Y+R) need to be changed from 4 to 5 seconds. 10) Signal warrants analysis should be re evaluated based on the new trip generation calculations. The analysis should be performed for the horizon year 2010. 11) All intersections meeting signal warrant analysis must be mitigated, page 22 of the report indicates that S 112 St/E Marginal Way intersection meets signal warrants 2, 8, and 9. Yet, no mitigation was offered. 12) Left -turn lane analysis (page 21) indicates the need for left turn lanes on E Marginal Way at all access points. Sight distance analyses indicate that on -street parking should be eliminated in some areas. Relocating the parking lanes might solve the sight distance problems. This issue needs to be addressed and negotiated with the city. 13) Page 6, the accident summary table number is actually 3 not 2. 14) Page 11 table 5, the actual unit for GHC Parking garage trip generation has been misrepresented as existing driveway volumes instead of 806 proposed parking stalls. 15) As indicated, we are expecting the trip generation table to include the number of parking stall variable for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. We only did the a.m. peak our trip generation just to speed up the comment review period. 2 C —ref to c4g"iu C ) GI/C. 6oui&-in1 lazi is ?k hr. co t daft- 61ciseo/ o--# / -27 -0 I, Ai. Iva Zz7-r 16 2.y,3 006ild '1E3 -t 3 6 / hra1 A4 = (2/4.1) 601)) di/IVY-its ts r, er sf 5ide.. J E1c l c,4.> (bIs-71'145) (63/. QZ) tog /14144(4f d Aewkirei act.is41,7,9 �M /S (z,O) st'alts y C?.an4N/D.7,s- titt Cc ia4,/ei/ "' irde ; 2a/ Q, 9m A hr. fir:PAPS Pra.c.)/i(.7 !kiteetfii, f e y!M 7e s cry /ii cr 3e //k=fr1 T sled& . pc/ie,/cAh f "Vos > 1S cS'o‘ X0•7Z 580 p1 Jr trips Pk( n crovp /1,4t4 � �(��fs i/ t'iLc J%t/��%vf ��'�L•°� • Location : GH Main Drvy off E Marginal Wy City : Tukwila, WA Counter : 26 '1'ratttc Data l;atnering 11410 13th Scree SE Lake Stevens, WA 98258 (nrciaiir — [N 3 - OUT -- Begin AM PM AM PM 12:00 1 6 18 70. 2 15 14 51 3 21 32 121 12:15 3 14 10 12 13 26 12:30 0 19 2 9 2 28 12:45 2 19 1 16 3 35 01:00 0 3 20 55 0 4 19 51 0/ 7 - 39 01:15 1 15 4 14 5 29 01:30 0 10 0 11 0 21 01:45 2 10 0 7 2 17 02:00 0 2 14 52 1 10 11 66 1 12 25 118 02:15 0 9 2 15 2 24 02:30 1 11 4 20 5 31 02:45 1 18 3 20 4 38 03:00 0 3 10 51 0 4 28 120 0 7 38 171 03:15 3 19 3 26 6 45 03:30 0 12 1 40 1 52 03:45 0 10 0 26 0 36 ( 04:00 1 15 6 42 0 2 39 133 1 17 45 \175 04:15 4 14 0 29 4 43 `'`. 04:30 2 9 0 42 2 51 04:45 8 13 2 23 10 36 115:00 3 50 18 47 0 5 53 122 3 55 71 169 05:15 7 8 0 27 7 35 05:30 12 10 4 24 16 34 05:45 28 11 1 18 29 _ 29 06:00 25 164 9 23 4 19 19 37 29 183• 28 40 06:15 33 2 5 \` 3 38 5 06:30 43 10 3 8 46 I R AM PM Site: Date: 06:45 \ 63 27 7 (� 70 9 07:00 ti� 54 190 3 9 a 7 55 5 16 ti� 61(245 ' 8 25 07:15 74 3 6 7 801/ 10 07:30 36 3 28 I 64 4 07:45 26 0 14 3 08:00 18 71 4 9 10 55 2 16 08:15 16 2 17 6 08:30 16 2 13 7 08:45 21 1 15 1 09:00 9 54 4 16 7 40 5 14 09:15 I1 7 8 4 09:30 18 2 16 2 09:45 16 3 9 3 10:00 12 41 3 7 12 38 2 12 10:15 11 2 8 1 10:30 7 1 6 5 10:45 11 1 12 4 11:00 12 44 0 0 12 48 1 9 11:15 8 0 13 2 11:30 12 0 16 3 I1:45 12 0 7 3 Totals Ti43-" .38i • — . — .295 647 Split% 68.6 37.1 31.4 62.9 Day Totals 1,024 942 1.966 Day Splits 52.1 47.9 Peak Hour 06:30 12:30 07:30 04:15 06:45 04:15 Volume 234,E 73 69 147 275 201 Factor 0.79 0.91 0.62 0.69 0.86 0.71 40 3 28 126 6 25 33 8 29 9 36 2 16 94 9 30 19 11 34 4 25 6 24 79 5 19 19 3 13 6 23 5 24 92 1 9 21 2 28 3 19 3 938" 1,028 Data File : 0011101 Printed : 1/29/2000 00-111-01 01/27/00 *Th'0Fs Page : 3 Location City Counter Traffic Data Gathering • 11410 13th Stree SE • Lake Stevens, WA 98258 : GH South Drvy offE Marginal Site: 00-111-03 : Tukwila, WA Date: 01/27/00 : 30 Interval --- UU 1 Begin AM 12:00 0 0 12:15 0 12:30 0 12:45 0 01:00 0 0 01:15 0 01:30 0 01:45 0 02:00 0 0 02:15 0 02:30 0 02:45 0 03:00 0 0 03:15 0 03:30 0 03:45 0 04:00 0 3 04:15 0 04:30 2 04:45 1 05:00 0 6 05:15 05:30 4 05:45 1 06:00 2 13 06:15 2 06:30 3 — PM AM — PM AM PM --- Combined —Day: -(Thursday 1 5 0 0 0 3 0 0 -1---- 2 0 3 0 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 0 4 6 0 0 6 18 I 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 8 0 0 0 8 2 12 0 0 2 5 0 0 4 17 5 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 5 8 23 0 0 3 6 0 0 11 29 7 0 2 0 9 6 0 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 2 5 12 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 12 4 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 1 2 4 11 0 2 2 0 6 13 6 0 0 1 6 0 • 0 • 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 ,0 4 0 06:456 0 0 0 p\ 6 0 07:00 V.2 14 0 0 1 3 0 0 3 17 0 0 07:15 3 0 2 0 5 0 07:30 5 0 0 0 5 0 07:45 4 0 0 0 4 0 08:00 1 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 13 0 0 08:15 2 0 0 0 2 0 08:30 2 0 0' 0 2 0 08:45 6 0 2 0 8 0 09:00 2 12 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 14 0 0 09:15 3 0 0 0 3 0 09:30 3 0 1 0 4 0 09:45 4 0 0 0 4 0 10:00 8 13 0 0 2 5 0 0 10 18 0 0 10:15 1 0 2 0 3 0 10:30 2 0 1 0 3 0 10:45 2 0 0 0 2 0 11:00 5 20 0 0 1 3 0 0 6 23 0 0 11:15 5 0 0 0 5 0 11:30 4 0 1 0 5 0 11:45 6 0 1 0 7 0 Totals 92 - ...75. -.1.8. 22 .. .. . 106 - 97* Split% 86.8 77.3 17.0 22.7 Day Totals 167 40 203 t)ay Splits 82.3 19.7 Peak Hour 11:00 02:45 09:30 02:45 1 02:45 Volume 20 24 5 8 23 32 Factor 0.83 0.75 0.63 0.67 . - 0.73 Data File : 0011103 Printed : 1/29/2000 Page : 3 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIATES C H 1 T EC T8 FAX ('OvFR sHEFT • A I AR � oE°O� py To Follow E MAR ®32OO 130 La •-side Suite 250 Seattle, WA. . 98122 CQ61��;2T Fax (2061 328-0554 To: n,4, i€"2 Qfi2 At: / 41 el= TUB /cam Fax N Subjec Comm ats: From: Pages Including Cover Sheet: Date: <5/z/oa 6 e.A6g c ALv409v/0.x £ / /-t1/64--IR: rag. Ti -Es i7c�r.67%, it7 4.s Afrzi `ew aLlife.. Lu m itOPO If any of these ages are not legible, or if you did not receive all the listed pages, please call us at (206) 325-2553 9/1' d d3113f1W 33Nt11 Wd617: L 0002'2 ' 8UN 7 LANCE MUELLER A ASSOC "ES A 9 CMITE C T E• A I A 130 lakeside • suite 250 • Beattie, wanhingtan 98122 325.2553 tifax 328.0554 /1J-r&if4JA110).10,1/41, .6A-r&v/Pi • date 3 /Zlpd job 19.-142 /rg666 'SupVe. 4up i 4 Ov4G4 DIA. 51&.1 Rcp. Rp-no i dD 'Jo of ?'i 4- Ihx4 1 teleI 0a614, 4. iq 06,0 14w Taess (a '18 lb -2f fiC4 i Z 12 724 0J4446 1 • • 8 ?�rh 1J u h stsg... ic) O,a‘ etc N6w iag4110 IL 92'd 176L'ON 83113f1W 30Nd1 WdOS : L 0002'2 '6U1.1 kW LANCE MUELLER & AS9DCIAS AR C H I T E C T S• A I A 130 lakeside • suite 250 • seattle, washingtan 98122 325.2553 fax 328.0554 • date 1//400 job 69-144, 1/0't1f.4q'tl0l-tkL . 6DcrEApior viy5r _C&Isrixdue____WFri-ttit2r3L Losmeti610).1 _ 9/E'd b6L'0N d3113(lW 30Nd1 WdOS : L 0002'2 '61J1,1 :OiA, 5te.e ,asp. RkYio •RtCid 1JQ OF?'ga $'1' °F & 1440 4- e ii 44 1 ' 1 W. -I 5 INCH ' 4 ; 1 4. I5-2¢ iNG•y iv 7 24 away g I'1RXI MUIJ 1JUh beg Of' 12.E.p1*wiekT Iita.6 11 9/E'd b6L'0N d3113(lW 30Nd1 WdOS : L 0002'2 '61J1,1 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOCIAA A R C M I 1 E C T 6• A I A 130 lakeside • suite 230 • seettia, wsshingnon 90122 325.2553 fax 328-0554 • date 3 /1./06 Job 19 --WL 1/1J-retaik-i.loistik-L.6it\-r&v/A•-r ab\e-fr ce_wr_Luttie_. -62.6i5 DIA, 51&E VC 1 t..i .R1cp- Rk-rto • OtrilD tV 1 fE 2. /JO of1 Lof 146k4 1140 4- e 1.Z14 • e- t2 11,1.4) ' i 2 f 1 i 13 , 3 13 3 12--I13 1iJcH Ib -2f 11,441 4 b I i I. I 2. 2 114E5 11 is ..10 ofoLy , RePLAce I fAizedi REQuigss (Mersiu4 1114160311o»J A J 947'd P6L'ON N3713nw 33Nd1 WdOS : L 0002'2 ' 21tW II • • MEMORANDUM TO: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: February 22, 2000 RE: Group Health Support Facility Permit #'s L99-0074, E99-0031: Wetland Mitigation Planning. Background As part of the initial development/SEPA submittal for the project, the wetland report (Talasaea Consultants 10/5/99) only addressed wetland area on the Phase 1 northern portion of the project site. Under the Phase 1 proposal, wetland mitigation for filling small isolated wetlands would be located in the northwestern corner of the site. This location is adjacent to an existing, unmaintained detention pond that fronts on S. 124th Street. The geotechnical report (Earth Consultants, Inc. 8/11/99) indicates that much of the Phase 1 property has 9 to 12 feet of peat and organic silt under the fill material. This information combined with the older NWI wetland mapping indicates much of this area was historic wetland and was probably associated with the original location of the Riverton Creek channel. The conceptual plan showed new wetland area, replaced at 1.5 to 1.0, adjacent to a new stormwater pond. This stormwater pond would be enhanced with native vegetation and buffered to provide a combined "natural" area for added wildlife habitat. Staff considered this concept as being a very feasible approach. After Phase 2 was introduced, the project's wetland plan changed significantly to move the wetland mitigation and incorporate it into a larger wetland located on the Phase 2 southern portion of the expanded project. Drainage from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 sites flows to the Duwamish River via the same stormwater conveyance system. The revised, wetland mitigation concept was identified in a wetland report that addressed wetlands on both sites (Talasaea Consultants 11/29/99). The concept plan and area was reviewed during a site meeting with Talasaea. The mitigation includes some aspects that will alter and impact existing wetland and wetland buffer areas. • • Group Health Memo February 22, 2000 Page 2 Staff met with the applicant on 1/5/00 to discuss mitigation issues and review my memo (1/3/00, attached). Generally, the proposed mitigation showed the 1.5 to 1.0 wetland replacement ratio was feasible in area but has some design limitations. During this meeting, staff suggested the potential for greater function and value mitigation to occur in Riverton Creek and would include the required wetland replacement. The applicant agreed to seriously consider Riverton Creek as a better way to mitigate the loss of small wetlands. No formal response has been provided to the City. Upon further review of the project's wetland delineation, additional area was added to the Phase 1 site and this caused the need to expand the applicant's proposed mitigation area. This is reflected as a revised delineation and report (Talasaea Consultants 2/2/2000). All wetland areas situated on the project site are rated as Type 3 and can be mitigated with administrative approval. A technical and code compliant review of the applicant's mitigation concept plan is presented below as a summary. Summary From a technical standpoint, the area for wetland mitigation is being provided at the required ratio of 1.5 to 1.0 with the required buffer setback of 25 feet (Talasaea Consultants 2/2/00). However, there are technical design aspects that make it difficult to recommend approval and are still pertinent to my attached memo. The use of this area for wetland creation has potential but would likely be dependent on surface water runoff. Hydrologic support to this area may need to be supplemented by an artificial source related to the project development. Regardless of mitigation occurring in this area, this would still be a real consideration in order to maintain the hydrology that supports the wetland. The subject wetland being proposed for mitigation is vegetated with both native and non-native species including significant tree cover. The majority of trees are not mature but many would be removed in order to create new wetland area. This presents a conflict that is difficult to approve. To create additional wetland, the grading of the wetland buffer would likely lower a surrounding elevation of about 24 feet to about 17 feet. The grading aspect of the concept was not described in the current report but is recognized by the consultant as a difficult task to provide a reasonable mitigation design. If typical excavation is required to create new wetland area in the existing upland buffer, much of that vegetation will be removed. The majority of trees will need to be replaced through a tree permit. Even the black cottonwood trees should have some replacement requirement as they are in the wetland and its buffer. I have attached a copy of the existing topography with approximate area required for creating new, mitigated wetland. • • • Group Health Memo February 22, 2000 Page 3 From a code compliant standpoint, the SAO states in TMC 18.45.080 C. 2. (3) in selecting (wetland) compensation sites, applicants shall pursue siting in the following order of preference: (a) Upland sites which were formally wetlands; (b) Idled upland sites generally having bare ground or vegetative cover consisting primarily of exotic introduced species, weeds or emergent vegetation. The proposed mitigation site does not fit as (a), and only portions of the mitigation site meet the condition of (b). The areas of blackberry cover are mixed with areas of higher quality vegetation. The Tree Regulations Ordinance (TMC 18.54) states under Sensitive Area Mitigation Plan — Identify measures proposed for mitigation of vegetation clearing in a sensitive area and/or its buffer per the SAO... (TMC 18.54.080 4.) Also, stated under Tree Retention — Site improvements shall be designed and constructed to retain as many existing healthy trees as possible, and to meet the following criteria: a. Priority shall be given to retention of existing stands of trees, trees at site perimeter, trees within the shoreline Low Impact Environment, in Sensitive Areas or Sensitive Area Buffers, and healthy mature trees (TMC 18.54130 1. a.). We have not received a final tree survey yet. However, the wetland consultant has informally reported about 30 trees would be removed within the wetland mitigation area. My opinion is and has been that this is not a strong concept plan but could be carried out with significant adjustment to the area being proposed for wetland creation. Even with adjustment to save trees and other desired vegetation, significant grading will likely be necessary. I hope this memo assists in a decision. 430 10900 NE 8TH STREET SUITE 300 BELLEVUE WASHINGTON 98004-4405 TELEPHONE 425 454 5600 TOLL FREE 800 454 5601 FAX 425 454 0220 INTERNET www.entranco.com ARIZONA CALIFORNIA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON • ENTRANCO February 18, 2000 Mr. Bob Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Existing Parking Stall Counts Group Health Office Building Tukwila, Washington Entranco Project No. 99181-60 Dear Mr. Fadden: RECEIVED FEB 18 2000 LANCE MUELLER & ASSOC This letter documents the number of existing parking stalls at the Group Health Cooperative (GHC) Operation Center's Main and West parking lot. The location of GHC's Main parking lot is on the northeast corner of East Marginal Way South and South 124th Street; the location of GHC's West parking lot is on the west side of East Marginal Way South between South 124th Street and South 126th Street. Existing stall counts were conducted by Entranco on September 28 and 29, 1999. A total of 408 parking stalls were observed in GHC's Main parking lot and a total of 272 parking stalls were stalls were observed in GHC's West parking lot. If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 454-5600. Sincerely, ENTRANCO, Inc. Marc Mizuta Project Engineer MTM R:\99181\Existing Parking Stalls Letter.doc RECEIVED CITY OF TLIKWI A FEB 22z000 PERMIT CENTER • Cizy of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 15, 2000 Robert Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 RE: Group Health SEPA Checklist E99-0031 Dear Mr. Fadden: I am enclosing a copy of the SEPA checklist that you submitted on December 1s`, annotated with Staffs comments. These comments include the SEPA comments first given to you in the Notice of Complete Application as well as requests for additional information and corrections due to the revised wetland study. Please incorporate any relevant findings from the soon to be completed traffic study before resubmitting. If you have any questions about the comments please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Mike Cusick, Public Works Gary Schulz, Environmentalist C:\Noia's Files\Group Health\SEPA Comments.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 tY 6 February 2, 2000 SEPA Official City of Tukwila DCD 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 • • RE: Group Health Cooperative Expansion E99-0031 SEPA Environmental Review L99-0074 Design Review To Whom It May Concern: Upon review of the Statement of Design Intent, the Applicant Responses to the Planned Action Initial Qualifications (TMC 21.04.152) Questionnaire, and the Plans as submitted by applicant to the City of Tukwila Permit Center on December 1, 1999 (sheets A1.1, A3.1, A4.2, L1.01., L1.02, and LS -1) as provided to the community by the Permit Center, we, the residents of the Riverton Community, in the immediate proximity to the proposed development, submit the following questions and concerns and respectfully request our concerns be given serious consideration and investigation by all involved Review Boards prior to making determination of issuance of any permits in relation to this project as we, the residents, strongly feel that the aforementioned proposed development will have a substantial impact on our community that is not recognized nor the potential of such acknowledged by the applicant. Our concerns are as follows: #1) VARIANCE IN PLANS — The Plans submitted by applicant on December 1, 1999 are different than the site plan provided by DCD's Associate Planner, Nora Geirloff, in her January 21, 1999 mailing to the community. Clarification is requested as to which site plan is being proposed and considered for approval. A few of the difference in the plans noticed are as follows: • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, shows a chained fire department access at the SE corner of the project on South 126th. The 1/21/00 mailed site plan does not; in addition, this plan shows more parking stalls as a result of this omission. • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, shows half street improvements on both South 126th and 35th Ave. So., including the addition of a sidewalk the full length of both streets. The 1/21/00 plan only shows the addition of sidewalk from South 125th heading North on 35th Ave. So. and does not refer to any additional street improvements. • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, shows continual sidewalk rounding from South 124th heading South on East Marginal Way South; whereas the 1/21/00 plan does not. • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, does not reflect the reversal of the cul-de-sac on 35th Ave. So.; however, the 1/21/00 plan does. • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, shows an 'On Grade' service door on Bldg. "A" and a 'Dock High' service door on Bldg. "B". The 1/21/00 plan shows 'On Grade' service doors for both buildings. • Sheet A1.1, submitted 12/1/99, clearly identifies entry canopies at both front and rear entrances of both buildings A and B; whereas, the 1/21/00 plan does not. • The number of parking stalls identified as 'provided' in the project statistics on both plans does not match with the stalls actually shown on the site layout. Those shown are in excess of those identified as 'provided'. A • • • In addition, there are further discrepancies between the plans themselves, submitted 12/1/99, that, if left not clarified, allows for disception to the community as to the actual potential impact the project will have to the neighborhood (ie. lighting standards). #2 APPLICANT RESPONSES AND STATEMENT OF DESIGN INTENT — The applicant's responses to the questionnaire and architect's statement of design intent omits, or seemingly intentionally fails to identify, many important factors when considering the determination of potential impact to the environment and immediate neighborhood. More specifically when referencing: A. BACKGROUND - In response A.5 no mention is made of the necessity for tree removal permits, as required by TMC 18.54, when it is clear from the plans and TMC that this would otherwise be required. In response A.6 the applicant refers to the vegetation in the phase I development area as only grass, blackberries, and scrub trees. No mention is made of any substantial or unique trees existing in the area, which clearly there is. In referencing the phase II area the applicant vaguely references 'various types of vegetation' but intentionally omits the fact that there are over several dozen healthy substantial trees (some 50'-100' in height, over 2'-3' in diameter, and over 50 years old) on the site. Further, the slope of the site is inaccurately referenced as 'north to south falling 35 feet along the 35th Ave. So. side' when, in fact, the slope is falling south to north along 35th Ave. So. side. There are frontage improvements mentioned for 35th Ave. So. and widening, curbing, and gutter additions mentioned for South 126th with no substantiation as to why this would be necessary in relation to the proposed project. And, a parapet at the central area of the buildings is mentioned in relation to screening of the roof top mechanical units; yet the plans clearly show that said parapets would actually provide little, if any, visual or noise screening for these units as implied by the applicant. In response A.7 the applicant improperly identifies the site location as the 'southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street'. This should be identified as the northeast corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street, as the applicant identifies that corner of the site as the intended main entry to the campus. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS - 1. Earth The applicant references 'attached soils reports for each phase' yet none were attached. The applicant further makes clear that the soils could become unstable during grading and clearing. The applicant intends on performing substantial grading, clearing, and tree removal and modifications / relocations to the areas identified as wetlands. It being_made clear that there will be soils instability and the disruption of wetland areas as a result of the proposed development, our concern is that this development will result in unnecessary and damaging turbidity and pollution of the wetland areas and will also result in potential negative disruption to the fish - bearing creek that runs along the east side of the site. Also of great concern is the potential for erosion and soil stability as a result of the removal,of all of the substantial trees, shrubs, and existing root systems. Both concerns being directly in line with the purposes defined in TMC 18.45. Because of this potential, the applicant should be required to provide a Sensitive Areas Special Studies reports, a Geotechnical report, and a letter from the Geotechnical engineer who prepared the report, as well as a landscaping plan that allows for appropriate replanting pursuant to TMC 18.45 and TMC 18.54. Likewise, if waivers for such reports are granted by DCD, the Director should clearly identify why and how such potential disruptions could remain in line with the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of TMC 18.45. • • 2. Air The applicant clearly minimizes the impact that such a development will have, both short and long term, on our community. The applicant also fails to define exactly how it will control the impacts to our air quality, beyond stating it will utilize 'best management practices'. Our community, having been through a similar development process with the same applicant approximately 13 years ago, is fully aware of the impact on air quality such a development produces. During the development process, we will be subject to immense vehicular emissions, both from the construction machinery as well as the crew's vehicles, as well as dust, dirt, mud, pollutants, and potentially debris in our air, on our streets, in our yards, on our houses, etc. The applicant offers no proposal for control of such air impacts nor clean-up of the same during and post construction. After completion of the project, we will be subject to the vehicular emissions of 1000-3000 vehicles per day that previously did not exist in our community as well as the additional emissions that will be carried south from South 124th and East Marginal Way South that was previously intercepted by the existing landscaping. Also, the emission from building systems that did not previously exist could be damaging as were those emitted from the last development for Boeing. We were assured then by the same applicant / developer (Sabey Corporation) that there would be no air quality impact as a,result of building emissions; when, in fact, certain emissions from Bldg. E of the Boeing complex were released each moming between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m. our landscaping and vegetation in the immediate area immediately started to die off and / or become diseased after having been healthy prior to the development. We therefore have little, if no, confidence in the applicant's implication that the impact to our air quality will be minimal and short-term in nature. We request that prior to issuance of any permits the applicant be required to submit an Air Quality Impact Study for both the construction period and post development for building systems, as well as a detailed proposal on how it will control such impacts. We also request, should permits be granted, that the applicant be required to have regular air quality surveys performed and the results thereof submitted to the appropriate department at the City of Tukwila for evaluation and action by the City (including issuance of a Stop Work Order) should the results indicate anything less than favorable air quality to our community. This would assure both the community and the City that an air quality at a level above or equal to our existing air quality will be maintained at all times. #3 Water Regarding surface water, the applicant fails to acknowledge the stream that is clearly within 200' of the southeast corner of the site. In accordance with TMC 18.45, consideration must be given to this year- round stream and the potential impacts that such a development will have on it's flow and any life that surrounds, lives in, or relies on it. To date, the applicant fails to provide any such analysis or reports directly related to this stream and should be required to do so, for evaluation by the City of Tukwila and Department of Fish & Game, prior to the issuance of any permits. The applicant also proposes relocating an existing Type 3 Wetland totaling approximately 5,000 square feet to become part of a larger wetland in the east central part of the site. Should such a relocation be allowed by the Director, it does not appear that the existing mitigation area proposed by the applicant meets the requirements of TMC 18.45. Not only does the current plan not clearly demonstrate how such relocation would be an improvement of the quantitative and qualitative functions of the existing wetland and buffer areas, but it also does not appear to compensate for the relocation at a ratio of 1.5 to 1 as is required by TMC 18.45.080. In addition, the proposed buffer for the expanded / revised wetland area at the east / southeast portion of the site does not allow for a consistent buffer of at least 25' all the way around, as is required by TMC 18.45.040. Even should a reduction to the buffer area be granted, it would still appear that the proposed layout of the site allows for areas of Tess than a 15' buffer between the wetland area and the parking lot. Further, the combination of the two wetland areas does not appear to be sufficient in the required replacement ratio and it is clear that the proposed replacement vegetation is less than adequate at meeting the requirement of TMC 18.45.040. It is also unclear what the proposed method for ground stabilizing is for the smaller Type 3 area. The applicant fails to provide a landscaping proposal that allows for adequate tree and vegetation replacement necessitated by the clearing, filling, and relocation of the smaller Type 3 wetland area (as it has attempted to do for the water quality detention pond) and, in fact, provides for very minimal • • • replacement landscaping around the 'improved' wetland area at the east central part of the site, only showing it as being seeded. Such landscaping essentially makes the 'improved' area less than an equal or improved environmental habitat. The applicant's plans also indicate that this portion of the project,'the Wetland Restoration, is to be performed 'by Others' thus attempting to release itself from the responsibilities of the required studies, construction plans and specs., and provision of mitigation alternatives. It does allow it to move forward with completing it's parking lot. This combination of wetland areas should not be allowed, nor should any release of responsibility of the property owner / developer for improvement of the existing wetland areas be allowed. Much wildlife has already been run out of the area as a result of the development of the Boeing complex situated to the northwest of this site. By modifying, eliminating, or relocating the remaining wetland areas in our neighborhood, we can almost be assured that the balance of the existing wildlife in the immediate vicinity will become non-existent, thus substantially changing the nature of the environment within our community. Regarding ground water, the applicant claims that 'no water from roof or parking area will be discharged into the site'. This statement directly conflicts with the architect's statement of design intent wherein they state that 'because the existing wetland is located central to the building it provides an ideal collection area for clean roof water to be used to recharge and replace....run-off....(and) an underground water collection system will....collect ground water and serve as a continuing water source recharge to the wetland. The applicant then goes on to state that 'a portion of the storm water from roof surfaces will be detained and discharged into the wetland mitigation areas' and further indicates that the balance of ground water and surface runoff will be channeled to the water quality pond at the northwest corner of the site. Though the applicant attempts to assure us that no waste materials, other than fertilizers, could enter the ground or surface waters, and hence be directed to the wetland areas at both the southeast and northwest wetland areas on the site, it is most obvious that pollutants from the influx of vehicles (leaking oil, antifreeze, misc. fluids, etc) will certainly be present and become part of the site run-off, in both directions, affecting all wetland areas and related wildlife. This issue needs to be addressed. #4 Plants The architect's statement says that 'the hope is to be able to save significant trees within the site and around the perimeter' yet the applicant's statement and plans clearly indicate this not to be the case. The only existing landscaping proposed to be retained is 10 small, deciduous trees bordering .East Marginal Way South, spanning the length of less than a block. The applicant claims that only significant trees that fall within the ungraded area will be retained, yet none are shown on the plans. The community's concern over this issue has been addressed not only in response to the Earth, Air, and Water issues but will also be addressed here in addition to our aforementioned comments. The architect and applicant claim this development's goal is to create a campus like environment incorporating as many of the natural, currently existing site amenities as is possible. Apparently, this does not refer to the use of existing landscaping and substantial trees on site. There are well over several dozen significant trees already on the site, which could and should be incorporated into the development plan rather than removed and partially replaced, in quality and quantities that far from meet the replacement standards and ratios defined by TMC 18.54. Many of the existing trees are 50'-100' tall, 2'-3' in diameter, and 50+ years old. There exists a combination of both evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubs of all sorts. It is even suspected that there are both a substantial male and female Yew tree located in the northwest quadrant of the site. Though not considered rare, it is indeed a unique addition to the more native landscaping in the area and could certainly be an amenity to any developed site. The applicants proposed landscaping plan eliminates all of these trees, shrubs and landscaping and replaces them with very few, small evergreens borderin%South 126th Street combined with slow growing, small deciduous trees along both South 126`h and 35 Ave. So. In our climate, the deciduous trees offered remain bare three-fourths of the year, thus offering little if no buffering or aesthetic equality or gain for the community. The applicant proposes to dedicate 10' of South 126th to the City of Tukwila. Within this 10' strip lies at least seven substantial poplar trees and potentially one very large Maple (on the corner of 126th and 35th). It is our belief that this proposed dedication is done so in an effort to again eliminate • • responsibility of the owner / developer from having to either retain or replant these trees in accordance with Tukwila's Tree Ordinance and TMC 18.54. Also, center to the south end of the site lies several large evergreens which should be retained to lessen the visual impact of the development to the community. This skirting of responsibility should not beallowed, nor should the removal of the trees. The applicant states that the landscaping theme intended for this site is a continuation of the theme used at the Group Health Facility to the east of East Marginal Way South. In viewing that landscaping, it is clear that the plants used and quantities proposed will be less than sufficient to provide adequate buffering of the development for the residential use surrounding the same. No evergreens are offered along 35th Ave. South. In fact, there is no acknowledgment by the applicant that there is a residence fronting 35th, directly across from the proposed Bldg. "B". The deciduous trees offered will not get taller than 10' and offer no buffer from light or noise. In addition, an agreement was entered between the owner / applicant (Sabey Corporation) and the community approximately 13 years ago (during development of the Boeing Complex) that was to run with the land that provided for the maintenance of a 75' greenbelt buffer zone across from or adjacent to any residential zoning and / or use. Such is the zoning and use on both South 126th Street and 35th Ave. So. The allowance of this development as submitted by applicant violates the terms of this agreement and changes the nature of our community. The allowance of the reversal of the cul-de-sac on 35th also does the same, opening up what to date has been maintained as part of the agreed to buffer zone (not to mention would disrupt and require the relocation of an existing fire main). Should this project be approved, we request the following changes be made to the landscaping plans as submitted: the applicant eliminate all parking stalls bordering South 126th Street and 35th Ave. So. between South 126th street and South 125`h. The applicant to provide a 7' tall chain link fence surrounding the entire complex, set back to half of the length of the eliminated parking stalls on both South 12r Street and 35th Ave. So.. The applicant provide additional evergreens and deciduous trees, shrubs and groundcover to be planted on the interior of the fence line and on the exterior of the fence line the applicantprovide and maintain an solid evergreen hedge, with a initial planting height of at least 5' tall, from 126w and 35th in to the fence line, followed by a combination of evergreens (such as cedar, douglas fir, fast-growing, full in girth) with an initial planting height of a minimum of 10'-15' and fewer deciduous trees intermingled with the same height requirements or requirements as defined by the Tukwila Municipal code, whichever allows for greater coverage and buffering of both lighting and noise. The applicant to maintain the majority of existing substantial trees and incorporate the same into the site development. #5 Animals The applicant fails to recognize the existence of small wildlife on the site, such as foxes which are currently nesting in the trees at 137th and 126'", raccoons, and other small animals. This development will displace these animals, especially with the proposed use and landscape plans. Maintenance of habitats for these animals is important. The elimination of such habitats changes the very nature of our community. #7 Environmental Health Regarding impacts of Noise, again this was addressed earlier in our concerns and are being added to here. The applicant claims the noise impact will be minimal and short-term as a result of construction activity only. In reality, the construction phase will have substantial impacts on our community, with large equipment, many workers, pile driving, etd. Both vehicular noise and continued noise from the HVAC and mechanical roof top units will follow post construction and will be continual and disruptive both day and night. Very little is offered to buffer the community from the post construction noise. The shielding shown for the roof top units is nothing more than aesthetic and will provide virtually no sound protection. The parapet mentioned provides even Tess. The continual activity of vehicles and employees during working hours will be extremely disruptive to our community. The location of service doors and dumpsters will generate additional noise and will carry and bounce between buildings and into the community. We propose that both service doors and dumpsters be relocated to the east side of both facilities, thus facing away from all residential use. In addition, we propose that the construction hours be limited to the standard 8a.m. to 5p.m., rather than open to the 'daylight hours' which during the summer could range from 5a.m. to 9p.m. as proposed by applicant. • • Further comments and concerns will be offered at the Community meeting on February 2, 2000, and will follow, in writing, within a few days thereafter for your consideration. Until then, we sincerely" appreciate your consideration of the comments and concerns as presented and request all Review Boards carefully consider them and the potential impacts approval of such a development will have on our community, our homes, our families, and our lives. Respectfully submitted, The Residents and Owners of the Riverton Community as follows: Robert and Sharon Bernhardt Clint and Gina Nielsen Albert and Carla Petes Brian and Michelle Herman Ann and Todd Willis Linda Hiimas Wilma Patapoff Mr. and Mrs. Sam Alvarez Phillip Hibbs 3418 South 126th Street 12527 35th Ave. South 12614 35th Ave. South 3505 South 126th Street 3717 South 126th Street Othello, WA 3703 South 126th Street 12624 35th Ave. South 12633 37th Ave. South Owner Resident Resident Resident Owner Owner Owner Owner Owner • • • DRAFT - FOR REVIEW ONLY GHC Office 2 Trip Generation Estimate Entranco Project No. 99181-60 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison for Proposed 163,200 GHC Development (816 projected Employees) Land Use ITE 6th Edition Trip Generation Rates ITE PM Peak Hour Area Units' LUC2 In Out Total3 Trips Generated PM Peak Hour In Out Total Single Tenant Office Bldg. 816 Employees5 715 0.07 0.43 0.50 61 347 408 Single Tenant Office Bldg. 163,200 GFA 715 0.26 1.46 1.72 42 239 281 General Office Bldg. 816 Employees5 710 0.4 0.06 0.46 330 45 375 General Office Bldg. 163,200 GFA 710 0.25 1.24 1.49 41 202 243 Existing GHC trip rate 816 Employees5 0.07 0.38 0.45 62 305 367 Existing GHC trip rate° 163,200 GFA 0.21 1.11 1.32 34 181 215 Notes: (1) GFA is 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997 Land Use Codes. (3) Based on average trip generation rate. (4) Existing GHC trip rate based on trip generation study conducted 1/25/00-1/27/00 at existing GHC Tukwila site. (5) Number of employees based on employee density of 5.0 employees/1,000 SF. Bold = Highest value for trip generation. AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Comparison for Proposed 163,200 GHC Development (816 projected Employees) Land Use ITE 6th Edition Trip Generation Rates ITE PM Peak Hour Area Units' LUC2 In Out Total3 Trips Generated PM Peak Hour In Out Total Single Tenant Office Bldg. 816 Employees 5 715 0.46 0.06 0.52 377 47 424 Single Tenant Office Bldg. 163,200 GFA 715 1.58 0.20 1.78 258 32 290 General Office Bldg. 816 Employees5 710 0.42 0.06 0.48 345 47 392 General Office Bldg. 163,200 GFA 710 1.37 0.19 1.56 224 31 255 Existing GHC trip rate 816 Employees5 0.38 0.12 0.50 69 339 408 Existing GHC trip rate 163,200 GFA 1.12 0.34 1.46 183 55 238 Notes: (1) GFA is 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (2) Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997 Land Use Codes. (3) Based on average trip generation rate. (4) Existing GHC trip rate based on trip generation study conducted 1/25/00-1/27/00 at existing GHC Tukwila site (5) Number of employees based on employee density of 5.0 employees/1,000 SF. Bold = Highest value for trip generation. MTM 2/3/00 r:\99181\Tgen2.xls AM -PM Peak (163.2K building) •41130 iNTRANCO • PROJECT G 14 G O-4 c e Z- • SHEET NO. / OF JOB NO. - CALCULATIONS FOR - bts + N^ - s-0 d MADE BY MTS'`^ DATE z. /' /t). CHECKED BY DATE 57. II ti•In //t IS% 1 u1---/ 2Si•Z GHG P.IveuoWySn. Io/• zel --! 36/- E ----t ZS% Mn Uri vcarnj Evi; 0n13 to. vt..oy i557- �-� 12 B. tA 5.'. 15/ 13o- 133eJ Iot 4o 1 Sf& Syri OvlloR RQrnP � Zo! S 8oecnj AcctS5 T NJ 1 k Hrbgv. WI. ---1 ie1. ---b tal.1`1 2.?. SR 559 1- S Nbo(' 14K,ev� L.zl. 04r -(actin 27. I - S $'/. L-► On-R.ae+ Date: Time: 206-335-5979 TRAFFIC DATA GTHRING PAGE 03 uuz • • GROUP HEALTH IN TUKWILA License Plate Survey (Three Days Combined) 1/25/2000 through 1/27/2000 4-6 PM 'E Marginal Way SB 5 126th 5t WB 5 128t Sr EB 5 -128th St W8 5 T30th SFS EB 130th SI' SB S 130th St WB Total GHC Main Driveway 0 20 0 6 68 20 114 5124th Street 1 30 2 6 110 32 181 GHC South Driveway 0 2 0 0 9, 3 14 Total 1 52 2r 12 187, 55 309 Percent 0% 17% 1% 4% 61%_ 18% 100% 'E Marginal Way SB 4ditt Ave SSB 36 18 54 39 2 2 114 92 7.. 59 377. 30% 2-1..- 19% c> 1 ✓Y -(f 34_,,i( c‘-1- • laJ ovv Aee., Group Health Project Concerns: • Fate of frog pond • Traffic through neighborhood and East Marginal (especially Southbound) • Noise (night and day) • Smells • Building aesthetics as seen from neighborhood. Should not look like back of building with garbage cans, smoking areas etc. in view • Possibility of neighborhood buyout • Retail and restaurant facilities • Increase of property taxes • Artwork • Construction noise and hours • Lots of fir trees and fencing • Possible access straight down from Highway 99 • Security • Donation of park by fish hatchery B ,F 111 Curtis Chin, 03:26 PM1I11/25/20, Re: Group Health TIA Report To: Curtis Chin <CHIN@Entranco.com> -From: Tukwila Public Works Engineering <tukpweng@ci.tukwila.wa.us> Subject: Re: Group Health TIA Report Cc: Bcc: X -Attachments: Curtis - As per your request, the following is a review of your comments. Comment No. 3 Trip generation rates that produce the maximum number of trips must be used in the analyses. As we said before you must be conservative. You need to compare the existing calculated trip generation rate with the rates using different variables as per trip generation manual including square footage and number of employees for a single tenant office building (LUC-715), and total number of parking stalls. If you are proposing more parking stalls than needed then you need to give us an explanation of why do you want to build them. If it is for future expansion plans, then you need to indicate that in your proposal. I am anticipating a summary table listing all above variables when discussing trip generation in the report. Comment No. 7 We asked you to analyze. these intersections ((((in addition))) to the seven (7) intersections previously mentioned in your September 29, 1999 TIA report. You also forgot to include all access driveways in your list. Comment No. 5 We have discovered a problem with utilizing a two percent (2%) annual growth rate on top of existing conditions, please give me a call to discuss a more appropriate compounded annual growth rate for traffic on E Marginal Way (EMW). To explain, AADT on EMW has dropped by 9% annual rate between 1990 and 1995. Then it increased by a 6% annual rate between 1995 and 1999. The comprehensive plan estimated an average annual growth rate for EMW of 3% between 1990 and 2010. Trip distribution: To facilitate the review of the report, please provide a figure indicating both prcentages and number of project generated trips. Thanks. » Raid- » >Per our discussion, the following outlines how we are planning to address >your comments documented in the 12/16/99 letter concerning the Group Health >TIA. Please review and comment. Printed for Bob Giberson <bgiberson@ci.tukwila.wa.us> 1 Curtis Chin, 03:26 PM /25/20, Re: Group Health A Report » 1. Project is to be consistent with the requirements of the Strategic » Implementation plan for the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) . » As we understand the MIC establishes an acceptable LOS on East Marginal » Way to be LOS E. We will coordinate with Brian to determine if their are » other requirements we are not aware of. » 2. TIA report will be updated to include development on the east side of » EMW (parking structure) and the west side of EMW (2 new buildings). Any » future (re)development and/or expansion will need to be addressed in a » separate study at that time. » 3. To determine the trip generation for the 2 new buildings on the west » side of EMW, we will use the existing trip generation rate for the » existing Group Health development. Peak hour (a.m and p.m.) and daily » traffic counts will be conducted at the existing site driveways for three » consecutive weekdays (Tue, Wed, and Thurs). The trip generation rate » will be reported in trips/square foot. » 4. Base line conditions for the traffic report will be based on the trip » generation documented in the TP&E traffic report dated 1/8/96. » 5. TIA report will address the following: » - Current office space utilized » - Employees » - Parking (current and future) » - 2010"conditions with and without development » To establish 2010 conditions we propose to increase existing volumes by 2 » percent per year and include any trips from pipeline projects in the area. » 6. AM peak hour analysis will be included in the analysis » 7. The following intersections will be included in the report » * Pacific Highway/S 112th Street » * E Marginal Way S/S 112th Street » * E Marginal Way S/S 120th Street » * S 133rd Street/SR 599 ramps » * Interurban Avenue/I-5 northbound ramps » 8. Existing and proposed driveways will be included in the site plans. » 9. Site distance at driveways will be addressed in TIA » 10. To quantify cut -through traffic during the weekday p.m. peak hour Printed for Bob Giberson <bgiberson@ci.tukwila.wa.us> 2 41/ Curtis Chin, 03:26 PM 1/25/20, Re: Group Health 2IA Report » through the neighborhoods south of the development, we will conduct a » license plate study for 3 consecutive weekdays: The residential streets » of concern include: » * S 126th Street » * S 128th Street » * S 130th Street » * 40th Avenue S » 11. Document potential mitigation and impact fees. » 12. All calculations to be included in appendices. » 13. Plans and TIA report to be submitted to WSDOT development review » office. » We are planning on conducting the license plate study and traffic counts » at the Group Health driveways next week (January 25-27). » Thanks again for your help. » Curtis Chin » ENTRANCO » ph (425) 974-8016 » fax (425) 454-0220 (Printed for Bob Giberson <bgiberson@ci.tukwila.wa.us> 3 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, OM at `/ HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance Notice of Public Meeting 1!71' (lit? ,��L��ZOY� Project Name ��i�. � Mitigated Deter'mination.of Non - Significance Mailer's Signature: Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Person requesting mailing: % 01% ),Aeiiie Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda , Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Other neL& RIMAyynicciiill rI-ee lr4 Other Was mailed to each of'the addresses listed on this p2/ day o year 20 Oct in the P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/11/0012:53 PM 1!71' (lit? ,��L��ZOY� Project Name ��i�. � I Project Number: E. --04,', j `q9-0079/ Mailer's Signature: 1161, , Person requesting mailing: % 01% ),Aeiiie P:GINAWYNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01/11/0012:53 PM • City of Tukwila • Steven M: Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director RE: Group Health Cooperative Expansion E99-0031 SEPA Environmental Review L99-0074 Design Review Dear Neighbor, The Group Health Cooperative is proposing to construct two 80,000 square foot research and development office buildings and 772 parking spaces on a site across East Marginal Way from the existing Group Health Building. The parking lot currently on the site would be replaced by a new parking garage north of the existing building. The Community Development Director expects to make a decision about the environmental impacts of the project and any conditions that would be required to mitigate those impacts in the next two weeks. If you have any information that you would like him to consider when making that decision please send in comments to: SEPA Official, City of Tukwila DCD, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188. The City will be holding a public information meeting on February 2nd from 5:00 to 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard. This is an opportunity for everyone interested in the project to look at full scale drawings and ask the applicant questions. The design of the project will be presented to the Board of Architectural Review at a public hearing in February or March. The hearing has been delayed from the January 27th date given in the notice of application to allow for additional studies and more public comments. The hearing is open to the public and everyone interested in the project is invited to attend. You will receive a notice when the date has been finalized. If you have any questions or would like additional information on this project please call me at the City of Tukwila Planning Division, (206) 431-3670. Sincerel Nora Gierloff Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 co %th FeeMbfetsTM Robert T. Bernard 3418 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Traverso T W Trust c/o Trust Company of Washington P.O. Box 3096 Bellevue, WA 98009 Isaac S. Capelouto Trust 5509 South Brandon Street Seattle, WA 98118 Joseph Marleau 2514 Lake Park Drive South Seattle, WA 98144 Linda Hilmes 370 South Reynolds Road #8 Othello, WA 99344 E. G. Dooper 3525 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Bailey Sales 12303 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98168 • Boulevard Excavating Inc. P.O. Box 66 Pacific, WA 98047 Victor Enterprises LLC 16400 Southcenter Parkway #308 Tukwila, WA 98188 Larraine Carosino 10652 The Boeing Way South Seattle, WA 98168 Peter and Natalie Sarantos 2722 S.W. 151st Street Seattle, WA 98166 Wilma Patapoff 3703 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Dennis and Barbara Pettit 3519 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 . 12301 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98168 re' SSW WP6temp! King County 500 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 Bailey & Laughlin Properties 12303 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98168 The Boeing Company P. O. Box 3703 / MS 1109 Seattle, WA 98124 Todd Willis and Anna Gurol 3717 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Thomas Balzarini 3535 South 126th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Lynn Lafave 29033 - 220th Place S.E. Kent, WA 98042, Circus Tavern 12449 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98168 F & L Cafe Puget Sound Mobile Trailer Repair Resident 12541 East Marginal Way South 12119 East Marginal Way South 12527 - 35th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident Resident Resident 12521 - 35th Avenue South 12433 - 35th Avenue South 12423 - 35th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98168 Tukwila, WA 98168 Utilities Service Company Inc. 12608 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98168 IMA116gfri leldwaA68iess Labels Gina Vale 12281 - 5th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Richard W. and Johanna L. Woods 12038 - 2nd Avenue South Burien, WA 98168 • kvislAnie PaaJ5J60®s i g1 Mary L. Flanders 3714 South 128th Street Seattle, WA 98168 K. J. Hill 12632 - 35th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Stanley Werran Trustee 12048 - 10th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Virginia M. Tighe P.O. Box 68206 Seattle, WA 98168 Resident 12607 Marginal Way Seattle, WA 98168 Edwin Becker 12677 East Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98168 nQg1.S.ao..4a1E4.1.Ja1 a 1 George Goodale 3726 South 128th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Gregory S. and Peter Sarantos 2722 S.W. 151st Street Seattle, WA 98166 Cheryl M. Costello 12621 - 37th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Tuyen Q. and Thanh Tran 12801 - 35th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 Chamnong Saengpraseuth 3525 South 128th Street Tukwila, WA 98168 Resident 3737 South 126th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Gina .Nielson 12527 - 35 Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Jeffrey M. Wong 1821 Rolling Hills Avenue S.E. Renton, WA 98055 Phillip A. Hibbs • 12633 - 37th Avenue South Tukwila, WA 98168 S. Alvarez Jr. 12624 - 35th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Richard E. Berrey 3513 South 128th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Cuong Remington Chung 3531 South 128th Street Seattle, WA 98168 Resident 12617 - 34th Avenue South Seattle, WA 98168 Robert Fadden Lance Mueller 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seatile, WA 98122 waSIRWLS.12e4A.U1QPIUS • T1 �.FFID8.•4IT cA\`‘-t9 OF DISTRIBUTION- "... C)*e- S hereby declare that: --- QNatice .af Public tearing Natice. of Public Meeting Q So a=d af Adj us int Agenda Facket ['Board af Appeals Agenda Packet QP 1 a_nn i ng COmmtis s io n Agenda P acket Q Short Subdivision Agenda 0 Other . Packet _ • .Q Natice af Application far Other Shoreline Management Permit QShoreline M_anageme nt Permit QDetre i nation. o f s ignif is a_*Lc e .. Q u; t i gated • Determi nation of . Nansicrn r_'i cance- Determination a f Significance • • and Scap i ncr., Natice QNatice at.Actian OOfficial Natice was mailed to- each af. the fallowing addresses an f4 - &1). - q • %,Csba.v�- • Name af Project r'C)(k 6-61. Signature File Number lAon -ro%`t C 1"►-Qaa'1 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Group Health Cooperative has filed applications for development of two office/research and development buildings to be located at 12401 East Marginal Way South, across the street from their current building. Permits applied for include: Design Review Other known required permits/approvals include: Lot Consolidation Street Vacation Building, Grading and Utility Permits Studies required with the applications include: Traffic Impact Analysis Wetland Report Level 1 Drainage Analysis Geotechnical Engineering Study Phase I Environmental Site Analysis An environmental checklist has been submitted with the studies identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the counter at the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. Project Files include: L99-0074 Design Review E99-0031 SEPA Environmental Review OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., January 13th, 2000. Opportunity for additional oral and written public comments will be provided at a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review, tentatively scheduled for January 27, 2000. To confirm this date call the Department of Community Development at (206) 431-3670. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. The design review decision made by the Board of Architectural Review may be appealed to the City Council. For further information on this proposal, contact Nora Gierloff at (206) 431-3670 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: 10/15/99 Notice of Completeness Issued: 12/17/99 Notice of Application Issued: 12/30/99 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, ()\ \\'L () Ve---S HEREBY DECLARE THAT: / Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance \ Notice of Public Meeting Project Name VCI ( Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Project Number: V,Qck- 7~) Lt Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt r Mailer's Signature: )0_5 Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Person requesting mailing: V)(4%'( Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda ,: Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit • Other Other Was mailed to each of'the addresses listed on this at day.oftk_c_in the year 26 tc qq P:GINAWYNEITA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAILO 1/11/0012:53 ?M \ ., Project Name VCI ( V Project Number: V,Qck- 7~) Lt 2_gq-- C1 a\ r Mailer's Signature: )0_5 Person requesting mailing: V)(4%'( P:GINAWYNEITA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAILO 1/11/0012:53 ?M • • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development December 17, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Robert Fadden Lance Mueller & Associates 130 Lakeside Suite 250 Seattle, WA 98122 RE: Group Health Buildings L99-0074 E99-0031 Dear Mr. Fadden: Steve Lancaster, Director Your application for design review for a new facility to be located at 124th and East Marginal Way South has been found to be complete on December 17th for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review on January 27t. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it:with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. After a preliminary review we have the following substantive comments: Utilities • The Department of Health requires approved backflow prevention devices on irrigation and fire lines and, for buildings over 30'. in height on the domestic water line. • All of the storm water design should meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards for full drainage review. The Technical Information Report for the full drainage review should address, in clear format and with requirements clearly labeled, all of the Core C:\Nora's Files\Group Health\COMPLETE.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevara4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 and Special requirements listed on Page 1-8. The 1991 storm manual cannot beused fot the existing parking area. Following the manual systematically should prevent omissions and the need for redesign. For instance, according to the Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, this site will generate 898 ADT/1000 sf of General Office Building. Per special requirement #5 this site will require Oil Control. • The minimum water main for commercial area is 10" diameter for a looped system. The existing 4" and 8" diameter mains in 35th Avenue South and South 126th Street need to be upgraded per City Ordinance 1783. Fire • Fire lanes must be a minimum of 20' wide at all points. • Sprinklers will be required in the building. • Pull stations are required at the exits, horns and strobes are required throughout. SEPA Checklist Comments • P. 5 B 1 e. barrow should be borrow • P. 5 B 1 g. Is the 15% pervious rather than impervious? • P. 8 C 2. Please state the Government Standards that will be met. • P. 10 6 a. Please address the undergrounding of power per TMC 13.08. • P. 11 8 b. What is recent time? Please provide an estimate in years. • P. 15 c. After development will there be a net loss of 285 stalls on site from existing conditions? If there is a net loss please note where those cars will go. • P. 15 15 a. Please specify the recent study that is referenced. • Due to the size, use, and traffic impacts it has been determined that this project does not fall within the scope of the MIC Planned Action EIS. Therefore a SEPA threshold determination will be made after the expiration of the public comment period. Traffic • See attached comment memo from the Public Works Department. Planning • Please provide a lighting diagram for the site. • Please submit an application for a lot consolidation for Phase II. • Please submit a mitigation plan. for the wetland relocation/enhancement. • Please provide a discussion of the intended uses in the Phase II building, similar to what Michael Hubbard provided for Phase I. C:\Nora's Files\Group Health\COMPLETE.doc .• OP 1 • • This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Mike Cusick, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department C:Wora's Files\Group Health\COMPLETE.doc CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS ( ) 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 ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. ( ) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV (,4) DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING COUNTS AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 (K) K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-'SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL ( ( 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 INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA\CHKLIST SCHOOLS/LIBRARIEa 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 A METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE /2,beA- F cool oLCI /30 l-aees:dc.. • • Memorandum Date: ETIV9971 To: Brian Shelton From: Raid Tirhi RE: Group Health R&D Phase II The transportation division has reviewed the subject proposal and has the following comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Raid Tirhi at (206) 433-0179. 1) The project is within the boundaries of the Tukwila Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC). Therefore, it must be consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Implementation plan. 2) Update the TIA report prepared December 1, 1999 by Entranco. Include all phases of the project (parking and buildings) and any future plans for (re)development and expansion. 3) The TIA report used General Office Building, Land Use Code, (LUC)-710 for trip generation analyses. General office building has a mix of professional, service, and retail tenants. Therefore, it has a reduced trip rate compared to single tenant office because it recognizes elimination of internal trips. It is apparent that a more appropriate code should be (Single Tenant Office Building) LUC-715. The traffic analysis must document the number of existing and future employees. Between both variables (number of employees and square footage) the variable that generates the higher trip rate must be used. Furthermore, we found a discrepancy in trip rates between the September 29 and the December 1 s` reports. 4) The City Of Tukwila previously approved tenant improvement permits for Group Health based on the traffic report prepared by Transportation Planning & Engineering, Inc. dated January 08, 1996. The study will establish the baseline for existing conditions. Any credit for trip generation will be based on one of the following variables: • The estimated total number of employees for the proposed project is 347. • The project will occupy only 54% of the existing 270,937 sq. ft. building. Therefore, trip generation will be used for a baseline of 147,214 sq. ft. • The selected parking demand is 310 stalls. Even though the total number of stalls is 665, the difference will not be used on a daily basis. 5) The traffic analysis should address the following conditions: • Existing conditions including amount of office space currently utilized, total number of employees, number of employees utilizing the CTR program, pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the overflow parking situation. • Year of opening background conditions and with development project, • Year 2010 background conditions and with development project. 1 • • 6) Current daily traffic data on E marginal Way S indicate that the AM peak hour volume is higher than the PM peak. This may not be the case for other study locations. Both AM and PM peak hour analysis are required for this development. Also, If new traffic counts are taken, then seasonal adjustment factors should be applied. 7) The scope of the TIA analysis should be expanded to include all major roads and intersections significantly affected by all phases of the project. The area of the analysis should be bounded by S Boeing Access, SR -518, Pacific Hwy S, and I-5. In addition to the intersections previously mentioned, perform LOS analysis for the following intersections: • Pacific Hwy/S 112th St. • E Marginal Way S/ S 112th St. • E Marginal Way S/S 120th St (also crossing pedestrian traffic on E Marginal Way) • S 133`' St/SR-599 ramps • Interurban Ave/I-5 ramps • All access driveways 8) Provide a channalization plan indicating all existing and proposed access driveways (in the vicinity of the project) on both sides of: E Marginal Way S, S 124th St., and S 126th Street. 9) Provide site distance calculations for access driveways. 10) During the trip distribution process, take into account cut -through traffic in residential local access roads. Provide necessary mitigation to discourage such trips. Utilize appropriate traffic calming techniques. 11) Traffic mitigation and impact fees are determined in accordance with the City's Traffic Concurrency Ordinance. Projects affected and new deficiencies should be provided in the TIA report. 12) Include all calculations and traffic data counts in appendixes. 13) Rout a set of plans (including the TIA report) to WSDOT development review office. 2 PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) Please complete the following checklist to demonstrate that all significant adverse environmental impacts have been clearly avoided or mitigated. Please respond on separate sheets as needed. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: October 1, 1999 Revised November 30, 1999 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction March 1, 2000 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain The site will be fully developed at this time. Tenant work will be done under a separate permit. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA determination, Board of Architectural Review approval, Grading Permit, Utility Permits, Building Permit, Construction Permits for work in public right -a -way, Mechanical & Electrical Permits, Street Vacation, Building Permit for Group Health garage and future T.I. permits. Agency Comments: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA fl PERMIT CENTER • • 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project will be developed as two 80,000 S.F. research and development (R&D) facilities to support Group Health Cooperative operation within the Puget Sound region. Uses within the building will consist of lab, research support, storage and records, record processing, administrative office, and other uses permitted by Zoning Code. UBC occupancy groups will be primarily F, S, & B. The phase / site is currently partially developed with a parking lot which serves the Group Health support facility located across the street. The western portion of the site contains a detention pond and a material stockpile and has been disturbed by grading. The site slopes to the northwest and is covered with grass, blackberries and scrub trees. Within this area are isolated Class III wetlands totaling 4,164 s.f. The phase 11 site is currently undeveloped and covered with various types of vegetation. Within the site there are disturbed areas where structures once stood and a closed depression that has been created by construction activity that has occurred adjacent to the site. Inside this large depression is a wetland. The site slopes north to south falling 35 feet along the 35th Ave. south side. The site also rises going east to west along South 126th located on the site are other small low value wetlands. The various boundaries of site have different physical conditions. The east boundary of the site borders East Marginal Way South and has curb, sidewalk, and gutter. The north side of the site borders S. 124th, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires curb and sidewalk. The west side of the property borders 35th Avenue S. It is paved but requires frontage improvements. The south boundary of the site borders S. 126th Street, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires widening, curb and gutter. Access to the site is through existing driveways on S. 124th Street and East Marginal Way South. A new access point will be provided, located on S. 124th and the existing drive abandoned. The proposed R&D building will be similar in appearance to many of the R&D buildings located in Bothell at Canyon Park. It will feature higher floor to floor heights than an office building, a dock service area and additional mechanical and electrical services to support the activities inside. 2 • • The exterior of the building will be a combination of smooth painted rusticated concrete and tinted exterior glazing. The exterior will feature a curved curtain wall at each side to annotate the main entry. Continuous board bands of glazing will be provided at each level. The combination of materials will provide a well balanced visually interesting facades. A parapet is featured at the central area of the building to screen the mechanical units. The proposed site plan has been developed to adapt the development to the existing site conditions. The storm drainage pond will be located at the low point of the site in the northwest corner. This allows the site to drain based on the existing topography and to retain the existing parking area during construction and to utilize these improvements as part of the project. The site has also been designed to avoid the significant wetland in the closed depression on the site. The site plan has been designed to use landscaping to create a park like feel. In addition to the planting treatment at the building base and in the parking area, a landscape feature is included at the northeast corner as part of the design theme. This feature is emulated at the main entry. A common paving and planting treatment will be used to further link these design elements with the Group Health facility on the neighboring site on the east side of East Marginal Way South. The building will be constructed as a type III -N or V -N fully sprinklered building of unlimited area. The building will be supported on piling with a structural slab on grade. The second floor will be a concrete slab on metal deck supported by bar joists and open web girders. The roof system will be a 3 -ply Class "B" roof membrane over R-19 rigid insulation. The supporting structure will be metal deck with a sub structure of bar joists and open web girders. The exterior concrete walls will be furred with metal studs with R-19 batt insulation and covered with GWB as part of the shell permit. The interior of building will be initially permitted with shell and core improvements only. The exit stairs, lobby stairs, elevator lobby and bathroom core will be provided. The shell mechanical will include the core HVAC and main duct runs. Basic exit lighting, core and stair lighting will be provided under the shell work. Interior work such as tenant walls, lighting, emergency pathway lighting, and mechanical distribution will be provided with the tenant work. The intent will be to C.O. the shell by late August of 2000. 3 • • 7. 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 legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached legal and vicinity maps. This project if located in the City of Tukwila on: The southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street. 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 4 • • B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. The existing site slopes to the northwest. It has various depressions due to previous grading activity and fill actions on surrounding site. The site currently has an old stockpile of fill located in the eastern portion. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% except for ditches, drainage pond and material stockpile. 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. See attached soils reports for each phase. The site has not been used for agriculture in recent history. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The building foundation will be designed for liquidation during earthquake. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No fill quantities are available at this time. The import materials will be minimal and limited to granular fill under paving and structural slab. Imported materials will come from an approved off site barrow. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Erosion of soils could occur during grading and clearing even though the site is level except for existing material stockpile. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 80,000 s.f. of the site will be covered with building and 380,000 s.f. with paving. The balance of the site (about 15% will remain impervious. 5 • • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Follow best management practices according to a T.E.C.P. that will be approved by the City prior to construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we anticipate vehicle and equipment exhaust and dust generation during dry weather grading. After completion, emission from vehicles and gas heating equipment will occur. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with vehicle emission standard, air quality standard for heating equipment and best management practices during project grading. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. No known stream exists within 200' of the site. The site currently has several small isolated wetlands and one larger wetland which are described in the attached wetland report. Storm drainage from existing detention pond flows to East Marginal Way South through an enclosed culvert. See attached Talesea report dated November 29, 1999. 6 • • 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Existing isolated Class III wetland totaling about 5,000 s.f. will be relocated to be part of the existing larger wetland in the east central part of the site. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. About 50 yards of on site fill material from existing stockpile will be placed over Class III wetland areas. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. All wetland areas are closed depressions. No withdrawals or division of water courses will occur. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No — Site elevation falls above the floodplain. 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. None b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Current soils do not percolate well. No water from roof or parking area will be discharged into the site. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. Not applicable. 7 • • c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the site is seasonal rainfall. Storm water runoff generated by the proposed project will be collected and conveyed by a series of catch basins and tightlines to an open combined wet/detention pond for storm water detention and water quality treatment. The pond is located in the northwest corner of the site and will discharge into an existing underground pipe system that conveys runoff east to the East Marginal Way storm drainage system. A portion of the storm water from roof surfaces will be detained and discharged into the wetland mitigation area. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Based on the collection system designed, no waste materials can enter the ground except for fertilizers in planting areas. Impervious surfaces will channel all runoff to the water quality pond which will provide treatment of water from vehicle maneuvering and parking areas. This facility will be designed to meet current Government standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. The site will be designed with a drainage system that will collect all site runoff. This runoff will be conveyed to a detention facility. This facility will regulate the site runoff to a level that will meet City standard. Design of this system will be approved by the City. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation - Blackberries 8 • • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Except for existing landscape areas along East Marginal Way South, S. 124th Street and within and surrounding the parking areas, existing ground covers, scrub Alder, and blackberries will be removed during the grading process. Significant trees in ungraded area will be retained. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The newly developed portion of the site will be landscaped in accordance with an approved City plan. The wetland areas will be mitigated with a City approved planting plan that will utilize native planting. The area around the detention pond will be planted with native planting where feasible. 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, others; Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, other; Fish: Bass, Salmon, Trout, Herring, Shellfish, other Other: Rabbits & Rodents b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Other than Pacific Flyway, which covers much of Western Washington, no. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native planting at wetland mitigation area and water quality area. 9 • • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling, in lab areas, and convenience outlets. Gas will be used in the heating equipment. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The facility will meet or exceed requirements of Washington State Code by use of high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, glazing and insulation and energy conserving lighting systems. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No — Any and all hazardous materials, flammable and combustible, used in Tabs and print shops will be below exempt amounts. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None — Normal fire, police and aid care services could be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at this time is minimal. No other offsite noises are present that could affect this use. 10 • • 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise from vehicles and building activities will be the source of short-term noise. Vehicle noise on the site after it is developed will be the primary source of post construction noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be limited to daylight hours outside the building. Vehicle noise from cars will be controlled by current vehicle noise standards. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently about 25% developed with a parking lot. The parking lot provides accessory parking for the existing Group Health facility which is not required by Tukwila Code. Other uses near the site include a tavern, existing undeveloped land, storage/manufacturing structures and residence to the south of the site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in recent time. c. Describe any structures on the site. No building structures are present. Underground storm drainage structures are in place along with landscaping and paving. d. Will any existing structures be demolished? Some utility structures will be modified or removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Light (MIC/L) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Industrial If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 11 • • h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: On-site wetlands — see attached report. 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The new facility will increase employment in the area. The proposed facility would add between 400 and 700 jobs to the City. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with good design practices, zoning requirements and conditions of BAR approval. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 12 • • 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? The estimated building height is about 32' to roof structure. The top of the box mechanical unit will be about 44' above ground floor. The exterior materials will be glass and painted articulated concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install building base landscaping, parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping. The landscape design should visually buffer the building from public spaces. The building exterior design will utilize colored glazing and articulated painted concrete that will give the building a contemporary appearance. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Interior building lights and parking lot lighting will be a source of light that will be visible from outside the property perimeter. The parking lot lighting will run in the evening and occasionally building lighting will be run at night. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of Tight or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Low glare parking lot light fixtures through photometric design will limit lighting effects to this lot. 13 • . 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and running on public streets is the only available informal recreational activities. Private athletic clubs are available in the community for public use. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Provide information to employees about athletic facilities and golf courses available for their use. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. East Marginal Way South, Hwy. 99 and S. 126th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Bus stops are provided on East Marginal Way South. The Metro bus facility is in close proximity. 14 • • c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? About 730 parking stalls will be provided on site as part of this project. About 285 stalls currently on the site will be relocated to the existing Group Health site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes — Street frontage improvements will be provided on S. 124th Street S. 126th Street and 35th Avenue South. e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. See attached traffic study. Rated 11/30/99 Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will provide car pool stalls, van pool parking, transit passes to encourage ride sharing to minimize use of single occupant vehicles. Group Health currently has an employee transportation plan that will be expanded to include this facility. He will participate in off site traffic mitigation identified in the traffic study. 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. Existing services adequate based on recent study. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 15 • • 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer, water, and storm drainage is provided by the City in the bordering right -a -way. Power is available from City Light, gas from Puget Sound Energy and phone from U.S. West. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted GRPHEALTH-BLDG.CHK 16 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. Environmental Consultants 11711 Northcreek Parkway S., Suite 101 • Bothell, Washington 98011 Telephone (425) 486-7905 (FAX 486-7651) November 22, 1999 Bernard Martell Sabey Corporation 101 Elliott Ave. W., Suite 330 Seattle, Washington, 98119 Re: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 6 -Acre Parcel, S. 126th St. & 35th Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Martell: This report presents the results of our Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the work was to identify conditions that may indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property. This work was accomplished as part of an overall site assessment of property previously owned by the Boeing Company (the East Marginal Way Corporate Park). The subject 6 -acre parcel is an undeveloped parcel that was owned by the Boeing Company and was included in the original site assessment. This report is extracted from the overall assessment (DOF, 1999). Environmental Assessment Our Phase 1 site assessment was accomplished using ASTM E-1527 (Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process) as a general guide. The primary tasks accomplished for this assessment were as follows: • Historical Uses of the Property • Agency File Reviews • Site Visit and Interviews • Information Evaluation and Reporting Limitations and Exceptions of Assessment Information required to complete this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was obtained from interviews of people with knowledge of the site, our reconnaissance observations, an ASTM Site assessment report by VISTA (Attachment A to this report provided by the Boeing Company), a Boeing Property Environmental Assessment Summary report (Attachment B), Washington State Department of Ecology Files, information made available by The Boeing Company (the previous site owner) and other sources as listed in the References section of this report. RECEIVED CITY OF TUI(wILA J PERMIT CENTER Dalton. Olmsted & Fuelevand. Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126'" St.&35th Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 2 SAB -011 The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. These services were performed consistent with our agreement with out client. This report is solely for the use and information of our client unless otherwise noted. Any reliance on this report by a third party is at such party's sole risk. Opinions and recommendations contained in this report apply to conditions existing when services were performed and are intended only for the client, and for the purposes, locations, time frames, and project parameters indicated. We are not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices or regulations subsequent to performance of services. We do not warrant the accuracy of information supplied by others, or the use of segregated portions of this report. Assessment of Identified Potential Liabilities • The subject property was historically used for agricultural and/or residential purposes. The site was not developed as part of the East Marginal Way Corporate Park. • As discussed below, at least three residences previously existed on the property. According to the historical tax assessor records, some of these residences were heated with oil. All of these residences have been removed. There were no records of any underground storage tanks found for this property. • Our environmental assessment did not identify significant site issues that pose a potential environmental liability. The reader is directed to the remainder of this report for additional information that may affect the overall evaluation of property environmental conditions. Parcel Location and General Description The subject 6 -acre parcel consists of three lots as shown on Figure 2. These lots are currently undeveloped (see aerial views, Figures 3 and 4). The property fronts on S. 126th Street and on 35th Avenue South. The ground surface of the parcel slopes gently toward the north from South 126t Street to South 124t Street. A small creek, a tributary to the Duwamish River, is located just east of the parcel. The creek collects off-site drainage from areas to the north of the subject parcel. The subject parcel consists of fenced, vacant property. At the time of our site visit (August 5, 1999), most of the parcel was covered with grasses, weeds, blackberries, and trees. Dalton. Olmsted & Fu&levand, Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&35i° Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 3 SAB -011 Adjacent Properties The subject property, Figures 3 and 4, is bounded on the north by undeveloped property and aGroup Health Parking lot, on the east by the Circus Tavern property and a previous gas station site known as the Vi's Cafe/R-1 Plumbing (Carosino property), on the west by residential property and the East Marginal Way Corporate Center property, and on the south by residential properties. Because of the residential land use to the south and the regional geologic conditions, ground - surface slopes, and estimated ground -water flow directions, none of the adjacent properties appear to have the potential to affect the subject property. The previous gas station site located to the east of the subject site, (Vi's Cafe/R-1 Plumbing, at 12539-12541 E. Marginal Way), is currently the F&L Cafe (now closed) and auto repair business. This is the site of a previous service station and a leaking UST. During previous environmental assessment work by Weston (1990) three hand auger holes were dug at opposite ends of the USTs and in the former pump island area. Analysis of samples from these holes indicated elevated petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations. Subsequent to the Weston work, Enviros (1990) performed additional site assessment work at this property. Four hand auger holes were dug in order to further refine the extent of contamination at the site. The summary and recommendations of the Enviros report indicated the following: Field observations and analytical results imply that the sources of contamination are leaks in system plumbing from the northern end of the USTs or possibly leaks caused by corrosion in the northern segment of the welded USTs. The gasoline contamination appears to be of limited areal extent, situated primarily in the gravel fill sands around the tanks and along the surface of an impermeable blue -gray clay layer for a distance of approximately 40 feet north of the tanks. No contamination was found down -gradient to the north and west toward the rear of the building. Moisture and wetness encountered in the borings is probably related to a perched water table of minimal thickness sitting on top of the clay layer (Enviros , 1990). They recommended that the tanks should be closed in place because of a nearby 18" water main and the footings of the building. Following their report, an attempt to remove the tanks was made but because of limited access and utility/structural considerations, the tanks were closed in place (Lee Morse, General Contractor, 1990). As noted above, this site does not appear to pose an environmental risk to the subject property. Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting of Site The geologic setting of the subject property is summarized on Figure 5. Most of the property facility is situated on proglacial deposits of sand and gravel (Qyg, Figure 5), based on mapping by the USGS (Waldron, 1962). Alluvial deposits (Qa, Figure 5) consisting of interbedded sands, silts, and peat, that are typical of the relatively flat valley fill may exist on the northern edge of the property. There may be some manmade fill overlying these alluvial deposits. Dalton. Olmsted & Fuelevand. Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&35th Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 4 SAB -011 The Duwamish River is located approximately 1/4 to lh mile north and east of the site. As shown on the map, Figure 5, a bedrock (Ti, Figure 5) and glacial till (Qt, Figure 5) ridge bounded the area east of the property. The bedrock portion of the ridge was the site of the Riverton Quarry. The bedrock ridge was removed and the resulting depression was later filled. Based on previous studies (Sweet Edwards/EMCON, 1989) and regional relationships, groundwater flow directions are expected to be toward the north/northeast toward the Duwamish River from the site. Historical Property Use The purpose of the historical review was to identify specific facilities or practices that might have been a potential source of contamination that could have impacted the subject parcel. To accomplish these objectives, we reviewed the following sources: • Utilizing the tax lot information provided by the Boeing Company (Barghausen, 1999), the Puget Sound Regional Archives were searched for historical tax assessor data sheets providing information on past land use; • Consultants reports on environmental conditions or observations relating to the site provided by current owner; • Records obtained from the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) files; • Records of past site activity, as provided by current owner and current operators; • Interview with David Sabey, current owner of the site. Prior to 1936 The overall area is primarily agricultural. Based on 1936 aerial photographs, the slope from Highway 99 (Pacific Highway South) is cleared of trees and is gradual, extending from the highway to the edge of a field. A farm exists in the northwest corner of the intersection of 126t St. S. and 34th Ave., immediately south of the slope. Cropland covers all properties north of 124`h Street to the Duwamish River. A service station is present in the northwest corner of the intersection of 126` Street and E. Marginal Way South (Weston 1990) Residences, built in the 1920, were situated on the properties fronting South 126t Street, based on the Puget Sound Archive information. Two of these residences were located on the subject parcel, one at the intersection with 35th Avenue South and the other at the intersection with 27th Ave. South (3716 S. 126t St.). 1936-1949 Based on 1946 aerial photographs, cropland use and residential development is essentially unchanged, with the exception of the area adjacent to Pacific Highway South. Based on Puget Sound Archive information, a new residence was built at 3530 South 126th Street in 1945, located on a portion of the subject parcel. Dalton. Olmsted & Fuelevand. Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126`" St.&35th Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 5 SAB -011 1949-1960 The previously described cropland and residential use appears essentially unchanged (Weston 1990). 1960-1969 Based on the 1969 aerial photograph, it was noted that the cropland was fallow (Weston, 1990). 1969-1974 Based on the 1974 aerial photograph, a tavern was built in 1962 at 12515 East Marginal Way South. This property is currently known as the Circus Tavern with the address of 12449 East Marginal Way South, and is located east of the subject parcel. 1974-1994 Construction of the East Marginal Way Corporate Park, located northwest of the subject parcel, was completed over the period from 1986 to 1994. The residential structures previously noted in the subject parcel were removed sometime during this period. 1994 -Present (1999) The subject site has remained undeveloped. The Boeing Company has been the only occupant of the East Marginal Way Corporate Park since its completion (Boeing 1999). Based on Puget Sound Archive historical tax assessor records, the area of the subject parcel was previously residential, with at least three residences. According to the historical tax assessor information, some of these residences were heated using oil. All of these residences have been removed, and the property is currently overgrown with vegetation, limiting the ability to make surface observations. No further information was found on this property. Agency Databases. The Vista Information Solutions, Inc. ASTM Site Assessment Report (1999) Attachment A, provided by Boeing, was utilized for the government agency database search and is made a part of this report. The overall purpose of the search is to obtain listings and locations of available agency information concerning specific conditions on the property and adjacent properties, if any. The records reviewed include: • EPA NPL, 1 mile radius • EPA RCRA Transporter and TSD Facilities, 1 mile radius • Ecology Confirmed and Suspected Contaminants, 1 mile radius • EPA CERCLIS, 1/2 mile radius • Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, 1/2 mile radius • Ecology Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Sites, 1/2 mile radius • Ecology Washington Site Register, 1/2 mile radius Dalton. Olmsted & Fuglevand. Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&351° Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 6 SAB -011 • Ecology Registered Underground Storage Tanks, 1/4 mile radius • EPA ERNS, 1/8 mile radius • EPA RCRA Generators, 1/8 mile radius The locations of sites found within 1/4 mile and 1 mile are presented in Figures 6 and 7. An overall listing of sites found is presented in Table 1. The Vista Report (Attachment A to this report) should be reviewed for more specific information. Because of the site regional geologic conditions and estimated ground -water flow directions, none of the sites listed or shown appear to have the potential to affect the subject property. Visual Site Observations and Interviews with Current Site Occupants A site visit and interview was conducted by Terry Olmsted of DOF on August 5, 1999 in company with David Logsdon, Boeing Environmental Engineer and Mark McGillis, Boeing Foreman Maintenance Crew (on site 2 -years), and Jim Harmon and Ken Stickley of Sabey Corporation. The visit involved a reconnaissance/walk through of the property. Following is a summary of site observations and responses to interviews: • Site Use/Site Layout/Structures: • Previously residential. Now vacant property. • Environmental Permits: None • None • Underground Tanks : • None known, reported or observed during the interview/site visit • Above ground Tanks: • None known, reported or observed during the interview/site visit • Known Areas of Contamination: • None known, reported or observed during the interview/site visit • Site Housekeeping: • The site is undeveloped. No uncontrolled dumping was observed during our site visit. • Underground Piping Systems: • The utilities such as sanitary sewers, and water exist in the road right of ways. Dalton. Olmsted & Fut;levand, Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&35ih Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 7 SAB -011 • Hazardous Materials Handled On Site: • None reported. • Description of Storm Drainage system: • Property undeveloped. • Evidence of Contaminated Surface Water Run-on and/or Runoff: • No evidence of contaminated surface water run-on or run-off was observed during our site visit. Previous Consultant Site Studies. Sweet-Edwards/EMCON (1989) Based on studies by Sweet-Edward/EMCON (1989), ground water flow in the area was estimated to be towards the northeast. Weston (1990) Report As part of a real estate transfer assessment of the East Marginal Way Corporate Park site by the Boeing Company, Weston completed an environmental assessment. Weston's work included review of aerial photographs, making site visits, and some sampling. No sampling was accomplished on the subject property. References and Data Sources Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. (DOF), 1999, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, East Marginal Way Corporate Park, 3417 S. 120th Place, Tukwila, Washington, August 26, 1999 Earth Consultants, Inc. 1988a, Preliminary Environmental Audit, East Marginal Way Corporate Park, 35th Avenue South and South 124th Street, Seattle, Washington, September 12, 1988. Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1990a, Real Estate Transfer, Environmental Assessment, Berkeley Parcel Option, Seattle, Washington (Summary), February 27, 1990 Roy F. Weston, Inc. 1990b, Real Estate Transfer, Environmental Assessment, Berkeley Parcel Option, Seattle, Washington, March 1990 Sweet Edwards/EMCON, Inc. 1989, Property Transfer Assessment, East Marginal Way Site, Chemical Processors, Inc., January 25, 1989 Dalton. Olmsted & Fuelevand, Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&35i° Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 8 SAB -011 Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 1999, ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, 3 Sheets, January 13, 1999 Boeing Corporate Manager -Real Property, Environmental Affairs, 1990, Berkley East Marginal Way Corporate Park Environmental Assessment, February 16, 1990 Boeing Corporate Manager -Real Property, Environmental Affairs, 1990, Berkley Addition and Option Property Environmental Assessment, March 29, 1990 The Boeing Company, 1999, Boeing Property Environmental Assessment Summary Report, East marginal Way Corporate Park, May 25, 1999, revised June 24, 1999 Lee Morse, General Contractor, Inc., 1990, Attempted tank removal at 12541 E. Marginal Way S., Tukwila, Letter and attached reports to Reno Carosino, November 2, 1990 Enviros Applied Technologies, 1990, Environmental Site Assessment of Leaking USTs at South 126th Street and East Marginal Way, South Seattle, Washington, a report for Mr. Reno Carosino, October 18, 1990 VISTA Information Solutions, Inc., 1999, ASTM Site Assessment Report, 3417 South 120th Place, Tukwila, WA 98188, May 26, 1999 American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments; Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-97, Published May 1997 Waldron et al, U. S. Geological Survey, 1962, Preliminary Geologic Map of Seattle and Vicinity, Washington, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations, Map I-354, 1962 Dalton. Olmsted & Fuglevand. Inc. Sabey Corporation, 6 -Acre Parcel S. 126th St.&35i° Ave. Tukwila, Washington 11/22/99 Page 9 SAB -011 Sincerely, Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. Matthew G. Dalton, Sr. Consulting Hydgeo,_ist Terry L Sr. Cc suiting Engineering Geologist Tables: Figures: 1 — VISTA Site Assessment Report Site Distribution Summary 1 — Site Vicinity Map 2 — Survey Map of Subject Property 3 — Aerial View of Subject Parcel and Vicinity 4 — Aerial View of Subject Parcel 5 — Geologic Setting of Property 6 — VISTA Site Assessment Report — Maps of Sites within 1 Mile 7 — VISTA Site Assessment Report — Maps of Sites within 1/a Mile Attachments: A - VISTA - ASTM Site Assessment Report B — Boeing Property Environmental Assessment Summary Report TABLE 1 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT PROPERTY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION Project Name/Rel 1: East Marginal C East Marginal Corporate Park 3417 South 120th Place Tukwillaa, WA 98188 Latitude/Longitude: ( 47.494437, 122.288228 ) Paul Frankel Boeing Company PO Box 3707 M/S 7A-XA Seattle, WA 98124 Site Distribution Summary Agency / Database - Type of Records "'""n 1^' mile X10 UI mile WI to 112 mile V2 to 1 mile A) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA NPL National Priority List 0 0 0 0 US EPA CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions and associated TSD (TSD) 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State equivalent priority list 1 0 0 0 B) Databases searched to 1/2 nile: STATE SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list 0 1 0 - US EPA CERCLIS ! Sites currently or formerly under review by US EPA NFRAP 0 0 0 - US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment storage, disposal facilities 0 0 0 - STATE LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 1 2 2 • STATE SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations 0 0 0 - STATE TOXICS Washington Site Register 3 3 1 - C) Databases searched to 114 mile: STATE UST Registered underground storage tanks 3 2 - - D) Databases searched to 1/8 rule: US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills 0 • - US EPA LG GEN RCRA registered large generators of hazardous waste 1 - - - US EPA SM GEN RCRA registered small generators of hazardous waste 0 • - - For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report 1D 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 11 Map based on Thomas Bros. Map King company Street Guide Approx. Scale 1 inch ='/2 mile erty Sabey Corporation 6 -Acre Parcel, S126th St. & 35th Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington SAB -011 Site Vicinity Map FIGURE 1 Nov. 1999 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. 7.•13.15 9.99' • N io t swain • ow S8910'151 C..14 I.WX FOCt hi..;.• • 200.00' 937111151 0 77. 100 0 ITTNOX-F,.; 7*7.- ' A•."1. S. 126th Street At. 100 200 Approx. Scale in Feet Map based on ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey, Boeing Properties East Marginal Way Corporation, Job number 6952, Sheet 3 of 3 dated January 13, 1999 .;" '!" 7'.•_.‘.-= • Sabey Corporation 6 -Acre Parcel, S126th St. & 35th Ave. S. Tukilwa, Washington Survey Map of Subject Property SAB -011 FIGURE 2 Nov. 1999 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. • • a • • Group Health *+ Parking Lot Subject Property Photograph provided by Sabey Corporation. Property lines are approximate Carosino Property Sabey Corporation 6 -Acre Parcel, S.126th St. & 35th Ave. S. Tukwila, Washington Aerial View of Subject Parcel and Vicinity FIGURE 3 SAB -011 Nov. 1999 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. Subject Property Photograph provided by Sabey Corporation. Property lines are approximate. Sabey Corporation 6 -Acre Parcel, S.126th & 35th Ave. S Tukwila Washington Aerial View of Subject Parcel SAB -011 FIGURE 4 Nov. 1999 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. 0 NM MEI MI NMI NMI 0.25 Approx. Scale in Miles Explanation Qa Alluvial Deposits (Valley Fill) Qyg Younger Sand And Gravel (proglacial deposits) Qt Glacial Till Qog Older Sand and Gravel Qu Undifferentiated Deposits Td, Ti Bedrock Map based upon U.S. Geologic Survey Geologic Map of Seattle, Waldron et al , 1962 Sabey Corporation 6 -Acre Parcel, S126th St. & 35th Ave. S Tukwila, Washington Geologic Setting of Property SAB -011 FIGURE 5 Nov.1999 Dalton, Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Map of Sites within 1 Mile Una um. 1►� -!� 1 )4 '^ .2.i•_ 1 71, iia 0.5 .5 Miles Subject Site Category: Databases Searched to: Single Sites Multiple Sites Highways and Major Roads Roads Railroads • Rivers or Water Bodies - - Utilities A B C D 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. 1/8 mL • El L 0 • El A 0 NPL, SPL, CERCLIS\ UST ERNS, CORRACTS NFRAP, GENERATORS (TSD) TSD. LUST, SWLF, SCL For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 / Page e3( FIGURE 6 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Map of Sites within 1/4 Mile • S 118th St 9 Subject Site Category: Databases Searched to: Single Sites Multiple Sites \/\ Highways and Major Roads Roads Railroads - Rivers or Water Bodies -•""•� - Utilities A 1 mi. • • NPL, SPL. CORRACTS (TSD) B 1/2 mi. CERCLIS\ NFRAP, TSD, LUST, SWLF, SCL 0.05 0.1 Miles C D 1/4 mi. 1/8 mi. A 0 0 UST ERNS, GENERATORS For More Information CaII VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 199E Page 14 FIGURE 7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED GROUP HEALTH SOUTH BUILDING SOUTH 126TH STREET AND 35TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-8983 November 17, 1999 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED GROUP HEALTH SOUTH BUILDING SOUTH 126TH STREET AND 35TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-8983 November 17, 1999 PREPARED FOR INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST II, LLC Kristina M. Weller, P.E. Project Engineer Robert S. Levinson, P.E. Principal Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 643-3780 Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent have been lessened considerably in recent years. due in large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical -related delays, cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project -specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report may affect its recommendations. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise. your geotechnical engineering report should not be used: • When the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- frigerated one: • when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered: • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership. or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- technical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions, -their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how qualified. and no subsurface exploration program. no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly - changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- neering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not he based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- technical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise. this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client for a different purpose. may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profes- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. lb help avoid these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work with other appropriate design profes- sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING REPORT Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- neers based upon their interpretation of field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in geotechnical engineering reports. These Logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for indusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici- pated costs are the all -too -frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- der the mistaken impression that simply disdaiming re- sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps pre- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted daims being lodged against geotechnical consultants. 'Ib help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory dauses designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive dauses which identify where geotechnical engineers responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec- ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- priate action. Some of these definitive dauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged to read them dosely. Your geo- technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions. OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO REDUCE RISK Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy of its publications directory. Published by ASFE THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M Earth Consultants Inc. Gt Atte t-hni(-nI En5int•(.rs. Geologists & En vironinet 14nI Stif November 17, 1999 E-8983 International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119-4220 Attention: Mr. Bernard R. Martell Dear Mr. Martell: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Group Health - South R & D Building, South 126th Street and 35th Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 16, 1999 proposal. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as planned. Support for the proposed building can be provided using conventional spread and continuous footing foundation systems bearing on competent native soil or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Slab -on -grade floors may be similarly supported. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Robert S. Levinson, P.E. Principal KMW/RSL/bkm 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-8983 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Descriation 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Foundations 6 Slab -on -Grade Floors 7 Seismic Design Considerations 8 Excavations and Slopes 9 Site Drainage 9 Utility Support and Backfill 10 Pavement Areas 11 LIMITATIONS 12 Additional Services 12 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate Al Plates A2 through A3 Plates A4 through Al2 Plates B1 and B2 Field Exploration Laboratory Test Results Vicinity Map Boring and Test Pit Location Plan Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Utility Trench Backfill Legend Boring Logs Test Pit Logs Grain Size Analyses GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED GROUP HEALTH SOUTH R & D BUILDING SOUTH 126TH STREET AND 35TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E-8983 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Group Health - South R & D Building, South 126th Street and 35th Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and based on the conditions encountered to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop a portion of the approximately 6.2 -acre site with a two-story office building. Based on preliminary design information provided by the client, the proposed building will have footprint of 40,806 square feet and will occupy the west -central portion of the site. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt -up panel construction with slab -on -grade and post -tensioned concrete floors. At the time this report was written, the proposed finish floor elevation was 44 feet. Based on our experience with similar projects and on data provided by the client, we anticipate wall loads will be on the order of five to six kips per lineal foot, column loads on the order of one hundred twenty (120) to one hundred seventy (170) kips and slab -on -grade floor Toads of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per square foot. In order to achieve construction subgrade elevations, we anticipate cuts and fills of five to ten (10)feet will be necessary. The building will be surrounded by asphalt -paved parking and driveway areas. Vehicle traffic will likely consist of passenger vehicles and occasional delivery trucks. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 2 If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site consists of a 6.2 -acre irregular shaped property located northeast of the intersection of South 126th Street and 35th Avenue South in Tukwila (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The site is bordered to the north by undeveloped commercial property, to the south by South 126th Street, to the west by 35th Avenue South and to the east by undeveloped and commercial property on the west side of East Marginal Way South. The site slopes gradually down to the east-northeast at a gradient typically Tess than 10 percent. There is an elevation change of about ten (10) feet along the approximately seven hundred (700) foot long, east -west axis of the site. Portions of the site have been previously graded for existing asphalt paved access roads. It is our understanding the site was formerly occupied by a mobile -home park. No old foundations or slabs were encountered during our subsurface exploration. The western portion of the site is vegetated with grass, brush and localized small and Targe diameter trees. The eastern portion of the site is vegetated with small diameter trees and a dense understory of brush. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling two borings and excavating nine test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 and A3 and Test Pit Logs, Plates A4 through Al2, for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. At our test pit and boring locations, weencountered a surficial layer of grass and topsoil. The loose surficial layer was four to six inches thick. The topsoil layer was characterized by its dark brown color, loose consistency, and the presence of organic material. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 3 Underlying the topsoil at our boring locations and at seven of our nine test pit locations, we encountered two to seven and one-half feet of fill. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt with varying amounts of gravel (Unified Soil Classification, SM and ML, respectively). The fill soils were characterized by the presence of trace debris comprised of organics, metal, concrete and asphalt debris. The fill soil were similar to the underlying native soils. Underlying the topsoil and fill where present, we typically encountered one and half to five feet of medium dense sandy silt (ML) over medium dense to very dense silty sand ISM) to the maximum exploration depth of sixteen and one half (16.5) feet below grade. Underlying the fill in Boring B-1, we encountered lean clay with organics (CL) to five and one-half feet below grade. In Test Pit TP -1, we encountered silty sand with organics and in Test Pit TP -2 we encountered fibrous peat to five feet below existing grade. Due to the presence of a dense growth of small diameter trees in the immediate southeastern portion of the site, we were not able to conduct subsurface exploration in this area. It is our understanding this area is outside of the proposed building area and will be occupied by an asphalt paved parking lot. After this area is cleared and cut down to grade, we should observe to site conditions in this area to verify the site conditions are as anticipated. Groundwater Perched groundwater seepage was encountered in Boring B-1 at nine feet below existing grade. In addition, zones of iron oxide staining and mottling were encountered at three to nine feet below grade at nine of the eleven (11) exploration locations. As such, groundwater seepage may be encountered in site excavations if excavated during winter or spring. The contractor should be aware that groundwater is not static. There will likely be fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 4 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring and test pit logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgment. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the proposed building can be constructed generally as planned. Building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill used to modify site grades. We encountered localized areas of peat and silty sand and lean clay with organics north of the proposed building. In our opinion, if organic soils are encountered at the construction subgrade elevation the organic soil should either be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill or the foundation elements should be extended through the unsuitable soils to bear on the underlying medium dense to dense soil. Slab -on - grade floors may be similarly supported. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of International Gateway East II, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas to receive structural fill should be strippedand cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter, and any other deleterious material. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and potential instability problems. The loose fill and organic soil underlying portions of the site are unsuitable for support of foundation Toads. In our opinion, these soils should be overexcavated from foundation areas and replaced with structural fill. Alternatively, foundation elements may be extended through the loose fill or organic soils to bear on underlying, competent native or fill soils. Based on the thickness of the loose fill and organic material we anticipate the overexcavation depth will range from two to five feet. The overexcavation width should extend at least one-half the overexcavation depth beyond the width of the foundation. The overexcavated soils may be used as structural fill provided they do not contain excessive amounts of debris and provided they can be adequately compacted. Based on the thickness of the topsoil and root layers encountered at our test pit locations, we estimate a stripping depth of six inches. Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where structural fill, slabs or foundations are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Proofrolling may be necessary in order to identify soft or unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in loose or soft areas if recompacted and still excessively yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the foundation or general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. For this application, Mirafi 600X or an approved equivalent should be used. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 6 Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non-organic can be used as structural fill. The non-organic site soils at the time of the subsurface exploration should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather. However, the site soils have greater than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in this range will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. If the site soils are exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to import a soil which can be compacted. During dry weather, non-organic compactible soil with a maximum grain size of six inches can be used. Fill soils for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of six inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Foundations Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the proposed building can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent native soil or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 7 With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of three thousand (3,000) psf can be used for structural fill and five thousand (5000) psf can be used for the dense to very dense native soils encountered approximately five feet below the existing grade on the west side of the site. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of three against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated with differential movement of about one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal Toads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of .40 can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pcf. These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or on structural fill used to modify site grades. Disturbed subgrade soil must either be compacted in-place or replaced with structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 8 The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity, however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture: The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the Toss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. In our opinion, the potential for liquefaction induced settlement of the medium dense to very dense soils encountered at this site should be negligible. Ground Motion Response: The 1997 UBC seismic design section provides a series of soil types that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc, from Table 16-J should be used for design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East 11, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 9 Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, the loose to medium dense soils encountered at the boring at test pit locations would be classified as Type C by OSHA/WISHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1.5H:1 V. The underlying dense to very dense soils would be classified as Type B Soils. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type B soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 H:1 V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 3H:2V and 2H:1 V, respectively. Cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Site Drainage Groundwater seepage was encountered at nine feet below grade in Boring B-1 and iron oxide staining and mottling was typically encountered at the other exploration locations to nine feet below grade. Based on the depth of anticipated cuts it is possible groundwater will be encountered while excavating for foundations or utilities. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 10 If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to connect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECI's representative at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of two percent. Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill Based on the observed site conditions, the soils expected to be exposed by utility excavations should provide adequate support for utilities. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East 11, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 11 Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non -load supporting areas is presented on Plate 4. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-91). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement section for lightly -loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. We will be pleased to assist in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY International Gateway East II, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation E-8983 November 17, 1999 Page 12 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the observed site conditions, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided us and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings and test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings and test pits may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between the exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l -! ,�, , tl k„� rN Si ' `_.. 247N i in tf, a ” -. -41" , y? " [' L '� ,. �C 24T,i �• S ._t -""' si V. 512��� f 126 H ST i -. : 7 7 -xi= 1 11 lour" /� ' -0 S J� , ry ' N G S lie, c's� S '4 . 5 I rk ' 4TH . ST • _ SILTE BATH ' `� <. 3 reg.! t til s� '� IR . K ' ,t . 1 c L' 29TH 5T aN : y a, ni T 240 eti x': ^ _.. . RFRT1hV ' BOTH' COMMNI N 130TH ST w r q b" S 130TH s �5. -s ,Y 2/) 7 N� S �� t K,. 5331ST • �,` • PL • 1.:157. j ...'° vt i 4)%0F . `.. ..' A { S 131ST ^^ 5 {:157 ),*17§T-7-4,,... �Y`. 5 13Flii �� x 1200 = 134111 'IIi �w ST 4 , wK y �� in 6 .. - .. s-umr. x }t y , 1' s t., �' ..c ir.. 'S' •_t. K r, ' S g3 '1''•' ' '�.�;. SpA v.c .d 1 .fit S `-1 j . gi , . v' ..t 14TH PL s - v'h'-a r �3 `� NSj t �V.� .. w 3407 - S, 1.36tf7' E it Si r e t, hhg�q�¢ ihriyi 4�sti f, ';a v!+r ierlkx L ttttf a i7i }! j ST t � ,+. 5 STs f TY�; 4,r CE7IlF )♦ r� � 5- a 13TTN 6 1.!811i, r 'J =-- N S ST i%T�i el .Fk>�SS p. r5y'"4i �t3• {'s g S � ST .S..140 -iii ST VI iil//VARr {C Cf11" s . r• T' ? NTrn F N"t -; �` Yv'.i � wsl,#C a �"':, "` Q 3s`` 3 y -� sc $tyf 1�c" S '' �2'� n'"Rtt' , �Z co z az v € STS sAv 5 ,H iatST r.'sT�J.K L -4F ad ' $ W� 'Sir 141ST. '' 142ND LTB • ST., O . $' • a ; "K1. ; S . Ey to N144'� s � M) ."lA � - Crim at F �-�,: " ,s 145TH 5T 146TH . ST". .:. 2600 -s a = b '!y 31,r .. : E .c VI S' u00D. 99 • _ ►! -. 144iin o 4 �� g:S �.•� �' 'S �1 t am• x{ .Rri'�',� k 1 }3kITH' ST `• J t{ Qr lVprj4 { , 6�.: 5 111 .. yrs. y!- Rilk : N Q, 1700; ; tx cl Sr52ND _._ W N}.5 *s 5 • �, • 'a ■� ;'ST.. agr, 2 5EArtLE �•;' ply Z- TACO7t4 , INTERNATIONAL y :-`�'.=-"ft= Reference: Puget Sound Area (King Co.) Map 655 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 2000 NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists 8 Environmental Scientists Vicinity Map Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Proj. No. 8983 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CO w Z w t c) • 1 J \ Existing Curb Line \"N_ -' /_..„1 — --- To Be Revised I— I — — 1 1 - --- E.r/stlirg-Rck — --- — Existing Asphalt Access Road r 1 J i TP -21 C-Nl 1 _ _,1__ J! - TP -3 I �1 ITP -1 116-1 B-2 I TP -51 _ I _ i ITP -4 I TP -61 1 1 1 I 1 TP -8 1 —,— i 1 FM.MMITP-9 LEGEND B-1— i —Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-8983, Oct. 1999 TP-1—:—Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E-8983, Oct. 1999 Proposed Building (This Study) 1 Proposed Building _I (Not Included In This Study) TP -7 1 t5 1 I 1 U 1 ► 1 13 !_ I y 1 u 1 1 1 1 4i ni 1 I S. 126th STREET Subject Site NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. Approximate Scale 0 60 120 240ft. Earth Consultants, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists 8 Environmental Scientists Boring & Test Pit Location Plan Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Drwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Proj. No. 8983 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate 2 Slope To Drain 6 inch min. '0 o • 0 0 O - -O • •• O O O 0 O . O 0 o O • • 0 • .•• o • • o 0 • 0 0 ' 0 • O • 0 • 0. • . • • . O• I.0 ▪ • 0 0 0 • 0 . • 0 • 0 • .. -o O. 0. 0 0e ; O O . O O• D 0 0 0 0 ' 0 • 0 = 0 0 - • 0 • 0 • 0 • 0 o 00 0 • 0 • 00 0 • • 0 0 0 0 0 4 inch min. Diameter Perforated Pipe Wrapped in Drainage Fabric t t 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. LEGEND 12 inch min. 18 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. f 2 inch min. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. O Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. Earth Consultants Inc. Geo echnical Engineers. Goobgs s 8 Etvltonmerual Scientists TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 I Drwn. GLS tDateoct.'99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 !Plate 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Backfill Bedding o°o oo°O o e7 0 o . o e Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or Roadway Areas Areas ° 0 0 000°rt 95 0 0 O. • p' 0 0 o•\o 69.:01... • ,•0QpQo• Oo•o°'°• ° .V Q°:e•oo..-o:D. ...01 a :O 'o:' Q°;d;:°.0 Varies..o.;•.op•Ooop...00 o"o..( -00��.' . • .../y1./.o0•0 O ° . •O'o ..0,;9uyb.°... c Varies 1 Foot Minimum Varies LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On -Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. o--- oas;� Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and �op Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers ° = ` Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. tO Earth Consultants Inc. Grote choiml Engineers. Geologists 8 Environmental Scientists TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 I Drwn. GLS Ite Oct . ' 99 Checked MGM !Date 10/29/99 ,Plate 4 APPENDIX NMI NE 11111 NM M = I = MN M MN OM 111111 = H I EN I MI APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-8983 Our subsurface exploration was performed on October 13 and 15, 1999. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings to sixteen and one half (16.5) feet and excavating nine test pits to a maximum exploration depth of twelve and one half (12.5) feet below existing grade. The test pits were excavated by Sabey Construction, using a rubber -tire backhoe. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling using a truck -mounted drill rig. Approximate boring and test pit locations were estimated by pacing from the site features depicted on the site plan provided by the client. The locations of the borings and test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by geologists from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each boring and test pit, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Logs of the borings are presented on Plates A2 and A3, logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A4 through Al2. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. The borings were drilled using hollow stem augers. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N -value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. These results are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained Soils Than 50% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size And Gravelly Soils More Than 50°I Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Sieve )It Clean GravelsGra Clean (little or no fines) ~ O C3 C andnan GW 9W Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines r M • . . 1 11 GP gp Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount of fines) I I GM gm Silty Gravels, Gravel -Sand - Silt Mixtures f GC gC Clayey Gravels, Gravel- Sand - Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Than 50% Coarse..• Fraction Passing No.4 Sieve Clean Sand (little or no fines) , •o 000'o o 0 0 0 0 SW SW Well -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines 4;-�;-::; <!; .: A' "::::90; :...;; :;;:..,.,;.:,.. 4.+* S'• More ' i?' SP Sp Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) SM Sm Silty Sands Sand - Silt Mixtures <:..: •: : '' `: SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures Fine Grained Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller Than No. 200 Sieve Size Silts Liquid Limit And Less Than 50 Clays 1111 ML rpl Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock FIOL,rSilty- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity r/1 CL CI Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I OL OI Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity Silts Liquid Limit And Clays Greater Than 50 I MW mil Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire Sand Or Silty Soils � CH Ch Inorganic Clays Of High Plasticity, Fat Clays // 0:_____J____ ----------'Organic Oh Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils `� i, `( r, `, ; J r� `�� `ir `�� PT pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil ' y y y 4' Humus And Duff Layer Fill ♦••••♦ ••••••••• Hiyhly Variable Constituents ♦••••♦ C qu W P pcf LL P1 The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline soil classification. TORVANE READING, tsf PENETROMETER READING, tsf MOISTURE, % dry weight SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft. UQUID LIMIT, % PLASTIC INDEX I 2" O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER iWATER OBSERVATION WELL 2 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER DURING EXCAVATION Y SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE Earth Consultants Inc. (i L 1mina lingitu vrs.(kadugLsls 6I..WinMuixItial Sckauisis LEGEND Proj. No. 8983 I Date Oct . ' 99 I Plate Al 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Boring Log Project Name: Group Health South Building 0 W m Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 10/13/99 Completion Date: 10/13/99 Boring No.: B-1 Drilling Contactor: Associated Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer K4 Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) BNS Ft. Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample U co .8 o u' Surface Conditions: Grass 25.4 27.2 17.5 12.1 10 196 28 70/11" 70/6" ••• • ••--� 2 SM Dark brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Pill) CL Mottled brown and gray lean CLAY, stiff, moist -contains organics / / 3 4 5 ML Gray SILT with sand, medium dense, moist, mottled 7 SM Grades to brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet -becomes gray, saturated at 9' -contains gravel, 43% fines -slight mottling, becomes moist at 10' -no recovery, increasing gravel 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 Boring terminated at 16.5 feet below existing grade. Perched groundwater encountered at 9.0 feet during dulling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. 0', l �, pl, ,Akv 1i)Earth Consultants Inc. `Gc:owlink'alEngietys.Geolo IsiSF.Eivironmenu+IkYnvL�A ` Boring Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and lova ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Boring Log Project Name: Group Health South Building U W I O 2 Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: MGM Start Date: 10/13/99 Completion Date: 10/13/99 Boring No.: B-2 Drilling Contactor: Associated Drilling Method: HSA Sampling Method: SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer M Abandoned, sealed with bentonite General Notes W (%) No. BIFFt s Graphic I Symbol _❑ .c ;i - o ti:o USCS Symbol Surface Conditions: Grass 13.3 9.9 10.1 47 54 38 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -1 Excavation Contactor: Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) _ 2 2-E 6- rn d 2, ti E o in „ 2 N E Den Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6" ) 49 24.4 17.7 28.0 H ••• ••• ♦♦♦ ~ �• •• i• • • SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -asphalt and concrete debris at 1.5' 1 2 — 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 SM Dark brown silty SAND with organics, medium dense, moist SM Gray silty SAND, medium dense, moist ML Mottled gray and brown SILT, medium dense, moist Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ,'»' . of 4411, I �1(ll W . Earth Consultants Inc. ) ' V / \ 1/i/ vjw a Groin -46K Cxnymk:alFi� me„a v,&F�ivlmnnienr.�IkYniri+n Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory holodif e mied by engineering tests, analysts and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -2 Excavation Contactor: Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic I Symbol A,) a .: a o `L U j rn Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass 9.6 30.3 14.9 ••• ••%% •i• •♦t♦ , iii % a. ••�• • 1 2 3 4 6 78 9 10 11 12 SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) -trace small brick fragments PT Dark brown fibrous PEAT, soft, moist --- -- L SM Gray silty SAND, medium dense, moist -contains light brown mottling Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. „► t1106d1 Ear; ,�4��. E rth Consultants Inc. Gcxxrd,nk:al Fngkxtxs. Gc-obgtsn & Fnvlrcxm a ral Scuntxs Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington 1 Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by englneenng tests, analysts and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -3 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample -2- 0 i c D co Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": blackberry bushes 17.5•Hj 8.5 16.4 8.1 ♦•N; ~,N .4• ♦���� 1 2 s 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) ML Brown sandy SILT with gravel, medium dense, moist -57% fines SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below wdsting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ,,,► i Ear; 44k1. �1 aI Earth Consultants Inc. Cccxrilink:alFnglnee,Geologists&vIroomrnralSt-Wort-vs s Fi Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A6 • Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineenng tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log 0 Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -4 Excavation Contactor: Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample U D co co Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": blackberry bushes 18.6 21.0 10.8 11.2 H� ••• •i•i• • 2 s 4 5 6 78 9 10 SM Light brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) -trace gravel and organics ML Mottled brown sandy SILT, loose to medium dense, moist SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -becomes medium dense -26% fines Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below e>dsting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ,,,►. 'M ��� ,,i��, `�`I' Ili J t Earth Consultants Inc. 1 G0.[xrillnIc-al Fngh�s. G oIO & Fnvlmnnunral )ClrnhIS Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A7 1- a Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building 0 w 0 W Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No: TP -5 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic I Symbol w a p it N N m �n Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": blackberry bushes 28.6 17.7 8.9 ••i*i •.H�� • SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist (Fill) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ML Mottled brown sandy SILT, loose to medium dense, moist -sand content increases SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Test pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ,,,►. pt.,'i ��i'��1F dw 4lI 66 Earth Consultants Inc. a Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A8 Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and Ioca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -6 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic I Symbol d a .; a o v D�n Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 3": grass & blackberry bushes 14.6 25.2 ♦H� 1 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s ML Mottled brown sandy SILT, medium dense, moist -becomes gray -contains brown mottling Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. • do*,ll Pht ,p1,, l `-� 10 Earth Consultants Inc. �MI)/ ,�\„ GcbrrchnkalFnglcwYrs.GokrgLvsl4Fnvlmnnxenr.HSl'lt:nrIsis Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington IProj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate A9 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of nformation presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -7 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample kn U co T 00 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass & blackberry bushes 12.6 14.0 13.4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s SM Brown silty SAND, loose, moist -- SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -mottled, contains organics -46% fines SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist -becomes gray, moist to wet Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. '. ih, 4ikv. Obi,1 1I�1Earth Consultants Inc. !MJ/ \ l i `` J jJ Gco ethn ral Engines, G o4ostsn & Fnvimnmenral Scientism Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington { Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate Al 0 Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole modified by engineenng tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -8 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample USCS Symbol Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 8": blackberry bushes 8.6 8.0 7.3 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 g SM Light brown silty SAND, loose, slightly moist SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist -becomes dense, 28% fines — Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. ,lr► _ iht 44k 16 t IC- 411‘.1110 Earth Consultants Inc. ens. -ok Isis& FnvlmnnLenral Sclenri / \ G omlxnk:al Fngfir Gw Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 Plate Al 1 Subsurface conditions dep'cted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineering tests, analysis and 'udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit Log Project Name: Group Health South Building Sheet of 1 1 Job No. 8983 Logged by: DDT Date: 10/15/99 Test Pit No.: TP -9 Excavation Contactor. Sabey Ground Surface Elevation: Notes: General Notes W (%) Graphic Symbol Depth Ft. Sample USCS Symbol Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass 8.1 6.7 11.1 ••• • • • ♦t♦ •����� �i�ii •�•j •• •����• • ♦�♦ •����� •i�i�i ii • • • • • SM Light brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist (Fill) 2 3 4 5 6 8 g 10 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, slightly moist (Fill) -becomes loose -rebar at 4.5' — — ML Mottled gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. /PP% oh, 441V 4I ,4dEarth Consultants Inc. GrMrctmk:al FnghxS.Gc[�kr;t5++&FnvlrcxIn uyirll 5ctrnrF;rs �tli/(�,�r,• Test Pit Log Group Health South Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 8983 Dwn. GLS Date Oct. '99 Checked MGM Date 10/29/99 - Plate Al 2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and loca ion of this exploratory hole modified by engineenng tests, analysis and udgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. APPENDIX = E 111111 IONI NE 1111 NM ME MN 11111 MI 1 N MI NS MN EN 111011 MI APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-8983 Earth Consultants, Inc. 868 • o N ' 0J. 0 0 rt 1/4D agmumum v CCD 0 N 1/401/40 0 CD as E MN NM EN E NM MN M 11111 NS I MO MI M 1111 111111 11111 rj 0 G 0 E D w w Ci rt Cn cn m w o ca D a rt Z • r. 00 edN o r• m a1W ea . ► 8 . ►I1E=1!>�►IeF�=I:T 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 1 NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM 8 8N M d0 t�tD CO00N 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 •o O ...1 `.s n•-•.. f'l r p "0 .0 ti \ \ n 11 I1 1 1 nl11 1 1 I I o 0 M N 0 0 0 0 0 V 0 N o 00 cD 11 I I I V M N r W. W. t M N s- O O O O 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ' ' ' ' • COBBLES COARSE KEY O 0 ........... Boring or Test Pit No. B-1 B-2 TP -3 GRAVEL DEPTH (ft.) 7.5 10 4 FINE USCS SM SM ML COARSE 1 MEDIUM FINE SAND DESCRIPTION Gray silty SAND Brown silty SAND Brown sandy SILT 0 0 0 0 00 O o 0 0 N 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 O 0 FINES 1 ' 13M A8 1:13S1:1V03 N30a3. Moisture Content (%) 17.5 10.1 8.5 LL PL 1 MN UN 111111 MB MO V NB MN NB S 11111 1 11111 1 IIIII 868 'oN .OJ• 0 C) 0 CD 0 rt 10 .d 14 paNaa4 0 tv CDD 0 0 iv CD N G7 0 y b G) r• w Z F-+ N rt � N gym va 0 Z w 1— CM m a. ea H9I3M A8 a3NI3 1N3 .3. 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES 1 NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH U.S. STANDARD HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM N D .41•r d ri vm .- tM N � vio ri 0ON O M N O O OO O 0 V22 O O? 00 OO OO O p OOO O O O O 0 30 20 10 0 b 0 1 Il o o M N 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 o� (O cfMN .1 0 0 0 COBBLES 111,1 L 1 1 0 CO o COARSE 1 FINE 11 1 1 1 111 M N r oe lD [f M N co • O co GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE 1 MEDIUM 1 FINE 0 0 0 GRAVEL SAND KEY Boring or Test Pit No. O 0 TP -4 TP -7 TP -8 DEPTH (ft.) 10 2 9 USCS SM SM SM DESCRIPTION Brown silty SAND with gravel Gray silty SAND with gravel Brown silty SAND with gravel 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o r> o FINES 0 0 Moisture Content (%) 11.2 12.6 7.3 LL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 I3MA8a a••0 N3I3 PL 4 Copies DISTRIBUTION E-8983 International Gateway East 11, LLC c/o Sabey Corporation 101 Elliot Avenue West, Suite 330 Seattle, Washington 98119-4220 Attention: Mr. Bernard R. Martell Earth Consultants, Inc. • CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS Project Name: File #: bate: Reviewer: Comments on SEPA Group Health R&b Support Facility Southwest Corner at intersection of 5. 124th Street & East Marginal Way So. E99-0031 L99-0074 11/02/1999 L. Jill Mosqueda, P.E. Page 1 A.S. Page 5 B.1.e. Page 5 B.1.g. Page 8 c. 2) Page 10 6. A. Page 11 8.b. Page 15 c. Page 15 15. A. Add Storm Drainage "barrow" should be "borrow" What is total area within the site boundaries? Please state the government standards that will be met. Please address undergrounding of power. TMC 13.08 What is recent time? Please provide an estimate in years. Are they trying to say that there are currently 685 stalls and that there will be a total of 400 stalls at completion, for a Toss of 285 stalls? Do we care if the proposed parking garage, not part of this SEPA and not approved as yet, will have 285 stalls to replace the loss on this site? Do we need to comment? What recent study, performed by who(m)? Nora, Do you check the legal description? Is that something PW should do? Q:/Jill/Projects/Grp Hlth SEPA Comments E99-0031 PAGE 1 • • Group Health R&b Support Facility E99-0031 L99-0074 Comments on Design Review 1. The Department of Health requires approved backflow prevention devices on irrigation and fire lines and, for buildings over 30' in height, on the domestic water line. 2. All of the storm water design should meet the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual standards for full drainage review. Level 1 Drainage Analysis comes from the previous standards, not the 1998 Manual. The Technical Information Report for the full drainage review should address, in clear format and with requirements clearly labeled, all of the Core and Special Requirements listed on Page 1-8. Copy enclosed. Following the manual systematically should prevent omissions and the need for redesign. For instance, according to the Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, this site will generate 898 ADT/1000 SF of General Office Building. Per special requirement #5, this site will require Oil Control. Please provide location and details for oil control. 3. Refer to Section 9.0 of the Level 1 Drainage Analysis report supplied with your application. Why is half of the site designed to earlier standards? Moreover, why is the detention sized for the whole site? Why is the pond sized for future development on the south parcel? Q:/Jill/Projects/Grp Hlth SEPA Comments E99-0031 PAGE 2 City of Tukwila • • C) rf ��\\..) ,.,_,..2 ,,,\ il, (1„....,_,, John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director November 1, 1999 Michael K. Hubbard Trammell Crow Company 900 Fourth Avenue Suite 3300 Seattle WA 98164 SUBJECT: Group Health ROC West Development Dear Mr. Hubbard: Based upon the representations made in your September 21, 1999 and October 25, 1999 letters, I find that the proposed Group Health ROC West facility will be a permitted use under the provisions of the Tukwila Zoning Code (Chapter 18, Tukwila Municipal Code). This determination is based solely upon your representation that the facility will be devoted to medical research and development (TMC 18.36.020(13)), outpatient services (TMC 19.36.020(26)), and directly related support services. Please be aware that the property owner will be responsible for ensuring that the facility is used in a manner consistent with the Tukwila Zoning Code at all times. Should you or they have questions regarding this determination, I can be reached at (206) 431-3670. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster, Director Department of Community Development Cc: Bob Noe, City Attorney Jack Pace, Planning Manager 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 'Trammell CrowCompany October 25, 1999 Steve Lancaster, Director Dept of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Group Health ROC West Development Dear Steve: Based on our discussions, we understand that the one remaining issue for approval of the Group Health intended use of the Rock West site: your agreement that the specific uses of the facility are permitted under the city code. The information contained in this letter fulfills your request for additional information regarding Group Health's intended use of the Tukwila facilities. The guidelines for this location fall under MIC/L based on the following uses: research and development, outpatient customer services, printing, and storage. As we have discussed, Group Health is planning on using 87% of the facility for medical research and development, printing, and patient record storage. Further, after review of the zoning code, it seems clear that the remainder of the facility (13%) will also directly comply with the primary intent of the code — "outpatient customer service". Group Health is a vertically integrated health care provider — insurance and direct health care services through its two hospital campuses in Seattle and Bellevue. The Tukwila Customer Service center will provide outpatient customer services for Group Health members. Therefore, 100% of the 80,000 square foot facility complies with the primary intent of the MIC/L code. To further explain the research aspects, note the following. The research staff includes over 175 full and part time individuals. The senior scientific staff include over 40 professionals with advanced medical degrees and research experience in the areas of epidemiology, preventative medicine, health services research, biostatistics, behavioral sciences, computer sciences, operations research, information services and survey research. Most of the research staff have faculty appointments at the University of Washington. 900 Fourth Avenue Suite 3300 Seattle, Washington 98164 206-223-0200 Fax 206-583-8753 • • Group activities include: • research for advancing scientific knowledge for the prevention of disease and disability; • research in cost-effective management of common problems in primary care such as the effectiveness and efficacy of medical care for low back pain, diabetes, depression, and asthma; • grant services for research including research review, business grant operations and project development; • research into childcare in connection with University of Washington Department of Pediatrics, the Maternal and Child Health Program at the University of Washington School of Public Health, and the Children's Hospital and Medical Center. • research to produce healthier and more informed consumers, health care providers who operate more efficiently, and lower health care costs I hope this information provides a better understanding of how this facility complies with the MIC/L zoning. We are at the most critical phase of the Group Health decision to relocate to Tukwila. Group Health has extended significant effort to populate the facility with uses, which comply with zoning code as stated. Internal Group Health issues have not been insignificant in this effort and have necessitated that management direct the organization based on the needs of the company. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Sincerely, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY 4e/t Michael K. Hubbard Senior Vice President, Principal SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW TABLE 11.2.A REQUIREMENTS APPLIED. UNDER EACH DRAINAGE 'REVIEW TYPE SmaII Site Drainage Review Targeted Drainage Review Full Drainage Review Large Site Drainage Review Single family residential projects that add 2,000 to 10,000 sf of new impervious surface AND clear < 2 acres or < 35% of the site, whichever is greater. Small Site projects or other small projects that are not subject to Full or Large Site Drainage Review as deter- mined in Sections 1.1.2.3 (p. 1-13) and 1.1.2.4 (p. 1-13), AND which have the characteristics of one or more of the following categories of projects: 1. Projects containing or adjacent to floodplains/sensitive areas; or projects within a Landslide Hazard Drainage Area (LHDA) or Critical Drainage Area; or rural zoned projects subject to areal clearing limits per KCC 16.82.150(c) 2. Projects proposing to construct or modify a drainage pipe/ditch that is 12" or larger or receives runoff from a 12" or larger drainage pipe/ditch 3. Redevelopment projects proposing >_ $100,000 in improvements to a high -use site.(') All projects, including redevel- opment projects, that add >_ 5,000 sf (2,000 sf within a LHDA) of new impervious sur- face but do not qualify for SmaII Site Drainage Review, OR redevelopment projects costing _> $500,000 that create >_ 5,000 sf of contiguous PGIS from new and/or replaced impervious surface. UPDs, OR projects that result in >_ 50 acres of new impervious surface within a subbasin or multiple subbasins that are hydraulically connected, OR projects on sites >_ 50 acres within the recharge area of a sole -source aquifer. Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 SMALL SITE REQUIREMENTS CORE REQUIREMENT #1 Discharge at Natural Location *(2) k" ✓ ✓ 0 I4.'/ V CORE REQUIREMENT #2 Offsite Analysis *(2) 1( (3) 1(3) 0 i(. 1(3) CORE REQUIREMENT #3 Flow Control *(2) 1(3) 1(3) CORE REQUIREMENT #4 Conveyance System *(2) ✓ CORE REQUIREMENT #5 Erosion & Sediment Control ✓ CORE REQUIREMENT #6 Maintenance & Operations *(2) V. ✓ CORE REQUIREMENT #7 Financial Guarantees & Liability *(2) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) CORE REQUIREMENT #8 Water Quality *(2) 1(3) 1(3) SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #1 Other Adopted Requirements V(3) 1(3) 1(3) SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #2 Floodpin/Floodwy Delineation 1(13) 1(3) 1(3) SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #3 Flood Protection Facilities 1( (3) �13) �(3) SPECIAL REQUIREMENT #4 Source Control 1(0) 1(3) 1(3) 1(3) (3) SECIAL OP ControREQUIREMENT #5 l 1( (3) 1(3) 1(3) (1) Category 3 projects that install oil controls which construct or modify a 12 -inch pipe/ditch are also Category 2 projects. (2) May be applied by DDES based on project or site-specific conditions. (3) These requirements have exemptions or thresholds which may preclude or limit their application to a specific project. 9/1/98* 1-8 1998 Surface Water Design Manual • • Recommended Threshold Determination: Mitigated determination of non -significance. Potential mitigation measures: 1) Clearing, grading and exterior construction activities are limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on both weekdays and weekends. 2) Prior to issuance of the building permits a noise study must be submitted that demonstrates that the HVAC equipment will meet the standards of the Tukwila Noise Ordinance, TMC 8.22. 3) Neighborhood traffic monitoring study language to be developed by Torsten and Raid. • • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@citukwila.wa.us • SEPA RECEIV D �j� T CITY OF TU AN \ L' D ° C T* U 6 11CTION PERMIT CENTER APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P PACT Planner: I,• O Co. e� X14 File Number: E gym_ 003i Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: P12:60 -03& Application Incomplete (Date: ) AIX Planned Action EIS File Number: E96-0034 Other File Numbers L 1,1 , 00-7 L NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: GROUP HEALTH R&D SUPPORT, FACILITY LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. Southwest corner at the. intersection of S. 124th &,East Marginal Way.So. Tax Lot #734560-0490 Quarter. Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Dave Startzel TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY Address: 1687 - 114th Ave. S.E., Suite 250, Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425)453-8600 FAX: (425)454-7184 Signature: Date: PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) Please complete the following checklist to demonstrate that all significant adverse environmental impacts have been clearly avoided or mitigated. Please respond on separate sheets as needed. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: October 1, 1999 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Start construction March 1, 2000 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain The site will be fully developed at this time. Tenant work will be done under a separate permit. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA determination, Board of Architectural Review approval, Grading Permit, Utility Permits, Building Permit, Construction Permits for work in public right -a -way, Mechanical & Electrical Permits, Street Vacation, Building Permit for Group Health garage and future T.I. permits. Agency Comments: • • 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The proposed project will be developed as a research and development (R&D) facility to support Group Health Cooperative operation within the Puget Sound region. Uses within the building will consist of lab, research support, storage and records, record processing, administrative office, and other uses permitted by Zoning Code. UBC occupancy groups will be primarily F, S, & B. The existing site is currently developed as a parking lot which serves the Group Health support facility located across the street. The western portion of the site contains a detention pond and a material stockpile and has been disturbed by grading. The site slopes to the northwest and is covered with grass, blackberries and scrub trees. Within this area are isolated Class III wetlands totaling 4,164 s.f. The various boundaries of site have different physical conditions. The east boundary of the site borders East Marginal Way South and has curb, sidewalk, and gutter. The north side of the site borders S. 124th, which is a paved street that is partially improved and requires curb and sidewalk. The west side of the property borders 35th Avenue S. It is paved but requires frontage improvements. The south boundary of the site borders undeveloped property owned by Sabey Corporation. Access to the site is through existing driveways on S. 124th Street and East Marginal Way South. A new access point will be provided, located on S. 124th and the existing drive abandoned. The proposed R&D building will be similar in appearance to many of the R&D buildings located in Bothell at Canyon Park. It will feature higher floor to floor heights than an office building, a dock service area and additional mechanical and electrical services to support the activities inside. The exterior of the building will be a combination of smooth painted rusticated concrete and tinted exterior glazing. The exterior will feature a curtain wall at each side to connote the main entry. Continuous board bands of glazing will be provided at each level. The combination of materials will provide a well balanced visually interesting facades. 2 • • The proposed site plan has been developed to adapt the development to the existing site conditions. The storm drainage pond will be located at the low point of the site in the northwest corner. This allows the site to drain based on the existing topography and to retain the existing parking area during construction and to utilize these improvement as part of the project. The site plan has been designed to use landscaping to create a park like feel. In addition to the planting treatment at the budding base and in the parking area, a landscape feature is included at the northeast corner as part of the design theme. This feature is emulated at the main entry. A common paving and planting treatment will be used to further Zink these design elements with the Group Health facility on the neighboring site on the east side of East Marginal Way South. The building will be constructed as a type III -N or V -N fully sprinklered building of unlimited area. The building will be supported on piling with a structural slab on grade. The second floor will be a concrete slab on metal deck supported by bar joists and open web girders. The roof system will be a 3 -ply Class °B° roof membrane over R-19 rigid insulation. The supporting structure will be metal deck with a sub structure of bar joists and open web girders. The exterior concrete walls will be furred with metal studs with R-19 batt insulation and covered with GWB as part of the shell permit. The interior of building will be initially permitted with shell and core improvements only. The exit stairs, lobby stairs, elevator lobby and bathroom core will be provided. The shell mechanical will include the core HVAC and main duct runs. Basic exit lighting, core and stair lighting will be provided under the shell work. Interior work such as tenant walls, lighting, emergency pathway lighting, and mechanical distribution will be provided with the tenant work. The intent will be to C.O. the shell by late August of 2000. 3 • • 7. 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 legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. See attached legal and vicinity maps. This project if located in the City of Tukwila on: The southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way South and S. 124th Street. 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No 4 • • 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. rolling, The existing site slopes to the northwest. It has various depressions due to previous grading activity. The site currently has an old stockpile of fill located in the eastern portion. . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 5% except for ditches, drainage pond and material stockpile. 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. See attached soils report. The site has not been used for agriculture in recent history. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. The building foundation will be designed for liquidation during earthquake. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. No fill quantities are available at this time. The import materials will be minimal and limited to granular fill under paving and structural slab. Imported materials will come from an approved off site barrow. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Erosion of soils could occur during grading and clearing even though the site is level except for existing material stockpile. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? About 40,000 s.f. of the site will be covered with building and 190,000 s.f. with paving. The balance of the site (about 15% will remain impervious. 5 • . r h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth if any: Follow best management practices according to a T.E.C.P. that will be approved by the City prior to construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction we anticipate vehicle and equipment exhaust and dust generation during dry weather grading. After completion, emission from vehiclesand gas heating equipment will occur. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with vehicle emission standard, air quality standard for heating equipment and best management practices during project grading. 3. Water a. Surface 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river if flows into. No known stream exists within 200' of the site. The site currently has several small isolated Class III wetlands which are described in the attached wetland report. Storm drainage from existing detention pond flows to East Marginal Way South through an enclosed culvert. 6 • • 1 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) of the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Existing isolated Class III wetland totaling about 4,000 s.f. will be relocated to an area adjacent to the expanded existing detention pond. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. About 50 yards of on site fill material from existing stockpile will be placed over Class III wetland areas. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions: Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. All wetland areas are closed depressions. No withdrawals or division of water courses will occur. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year Floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No — Site elevation falls above 24 feet. 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. None b. Ground 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Current soils do not percolate well. No water from roof or parking area will be discharged into the site. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the systems are expected to serve. Not applicable. 7 • • c. Water Runoff (including storm water) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of runoff to the site is seasonal rainfall. Storm water runoff generated by the proposed project will be collected and conveyed by a series of catch basins and tightlines to an open combined wet/detention pond for storm water detention and water quality treatment. The pond is located in the northwest corner of the site and will discharge into an existing underground pipe system that conveys runoff east to the East Marginal Way storm drainage system. A portion of the treated storm water will be directed into the wetland mitigation area adjacent to the pond. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Based on the collection system designed, no waste materials can enter the ground except for fertilizers in planting areas. Impervious surfaces will channel all runoff to the water quality pond which will provide treatment of water from vehicle maneuvering and parking areas. This facility will be designed to meet current Government standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts. The site will be designed with a drainage system that will collect all site runoff. This runoff will be conveyed to a detention facility. This facility will regulate the site runoff to a level that will meet City standard. Design of this system will be approved by the City. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree: Alder, Maple, Aspen, other X Evergreen tree: Fir, Cedar, Pine, other X Shrubs X Grass Pasture _ Crop or grain X Wet soil plants: Cattail, Buttercup, Bulrush, Skunk, Cabbage, other Water Plants: Water Lily, Eelgrass, Milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation - Blackberries 8 • • b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered Except for existing landscape areas along East Marginal Way South, S. 124th Street and within and surrounding the parking areas, existing ground covers, scrub Alder, and blackberries will be removed during the grading process. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The newly developed portion of the site will be landscaped in accordance with an approved City plan. The wetland areas will be mitigated with a City approved landscape plan that will utilize native planting. The area around the detention pond will be planted with native planting where feasible. 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 others; Mammals: Deer, Bear, Elk, Beaver, other; Fish: Bass, Salmon, Trout, Herring, Shellfish, other Other: Rabbits & Rodents b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Other than Pacific Flyway, which covers much of Western Washington, no. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Provide native planting at wetland mitigation area and water quality area. 9 • • r 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling, in lab areas, and convenience outlets. Gas will be used in the heating equipment. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The facility will meet or exceed requirements of Washington State Code by use of high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, glazing and insulation and energy conserving lighting systems. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No — Any and all hazardous materials, flammable and combustible, used in labs and print shops will be below exempt amounts. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None — Normal fire, police and aid care services could be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise at this time is minimal. No other offsite noises are present that could affect this use. 10 • • 1 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation. other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Construction noise from vehicles and building activities will be the source of short-term noise. Vehicle noise on the site after it is developed will be the primary source of post construction noise. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Construction noise will be limited to daylight hours outside the building. Vehicle noise from cars will be controlled by current vehicle noise standards. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently about 50% developed with a parking lot. The parking lot provides accessory parking for the existing Group Health facility which is not required by Tukwila Code. Other uses on property near the site include a tavern, existing undeveloped land and storage/manufacturing structures. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in recent time. c. Describe any structures on the site. No building structures are present. Underground storm drainage structures are in place along with landscaping and paving. d. Will any existing structures be demolished? Some utility structures will be modified or removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site Manufacturing/Industrial Center — Light (MIC/L) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not applicable. 11 • • 1 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify: On-site wetlands — see attached report. These wetlands are low value Class 111 which total 4,164 s.f. I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. The new facility will increase employment in the area. The proposed facility would add between 200 and 400 jobs to the City. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply with good design practices, zoning requirements and conditions of BAR approval. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 12 • • 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? The estimated building height is about 30' to roof structure. The top of the box mechanical unit will be about 38' above ground floor. The exterior materials will be glass and painted articulated concrete. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Install building base landscaping, parking lot landscaping and perimeter landscaping. The landscape design should visually buffer the building from public spaces. The building exterior design will utilize colored glazing and articulated painted concrete that will give the building a contemporary appearance. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of Tight or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Interior building lights and parking lot lighting will be a source of light that will be visible from outside the property perimeter. The parking lot lighting will run in the evening and occasionally building lighting will be run at night. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: Low glare parking lot Tight fixtures through photometric design will limit lighting effects to this lot. 13 • • 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking and running on public streets is the only available informal recreational activities. Private athletic clubs are available in the community for public use. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreation uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Provide information to employees about athletic facilities and golf courses available for their use. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highway serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. East Marginal Way South, Hwy. 99 and S. 126th Street. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes — Bus stops are provided on East Marginal Way South. The Metro bus facility is in close proximity. 14 • • r c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? About 400 parking stalls will be provided on site as part of this project. About 285 stalls currently on the site will be relocated to the existing Group Health site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No — Street frontage improvements will be provided on S. 124th Street and 35th Avenue South. e. Will the project use (or occur in immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. See attached traffic study. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: The applicant will provide car pool stalls, van pool parking, transit passes to encourage ride sharing to minimize use of single occupant vehicles. Group Health currently has an employee transportation plan that will be expanded to include this facility. 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. Existing services adequate based on recent study. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 15 • • 1 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: water, @fuse service telephon sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sewer, water, and storm drainage is provided by the City in the bordering right -a -way. Power is available from City Light, gas from Puget Sound Energy and phone from U.S. West. c. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand i;at the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted / o/ 4 (q 7 GRPHEALTH-BLDG.CHK 16 • LEGAL, DESCRIPTION .PARCEL A: LOTS .1 AND 34, BLOCK 8, .-TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION .OF. VACATED...... "37TH AVENUE SOUTH THAT WOULD ATTACH TO SAID PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, ALL IN "RIVE RTON", A REPLAT OF PART OF RIVERSIDE INTERURBAN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 36, IN KING -COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET THEREOF AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR ROAD UNDER RECEIVING NO. 7401040466, AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF THE WEST MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 4, 1974 UNDER RECEIVING NO.. 7401040467. PARCEL B: LOTS 1 THROUGH 8, -INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 7, AND THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOT 24, AND ALL OF LOTS 25 THROUGH 32, INCLUSIVE,BLOCK 7, AND LOTS 2 THROUGH 8, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 8, AND LOTS 27 THROUGH 33, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 8, ALL IN "RIVERTON", A REPLAT OF PART OF RIVERSIDE INTERURBAN TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 13 OF PLATS, PAGE 36, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON;' TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF 37TH AVENUE SOUTH AS VACATED BY KING COUNTY UNDER ORDINANCE NO. 1863 AND FILED UNDER RECEIVING NO. 7402115011 THAT WOULD ATTACH BY OPERATION OF LAW; EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID BLOCKS 7 AND 8 CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR 37TH AVENUE SOUTH BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECEIVING NO. 7401040465, AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING EAST OF THE WEST MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 4, 1974 UNDER RECEIVING NO. 7401040467, AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 10 FEET OF LOTS 1 and 32, BLOCK 7 THEREOF, AS CONVEYED TO ICING COUNTY FOR ROAD UNDER RECEIVING NO. 7401040464. 10/06/99Rogersite.dwg • • fCi 1 2 1999 TUKWBLA ` 1' i c)0,X0 fi rvAL OUR JOB NO. 7241 SEPTEMBER 27, 1999 Prepared By: BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 (425) 251-6222 �.. 4.CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ' • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 3 2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 3 3.0 ON-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS 3 4.0 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM SCREENING 3 5.0 RESEARCH REVIEW 4 5.1 Reconnaissance Summary Report 4 5.2 Critical Area Drainage Maps 4 5.3 Floodplain/Floodway FEMA Maps 4 5.4 Other Off -Site Analysis Reports 4 6.0 SENSITIVE AREA FOLIOS 4 7.0 SWM DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION 4 8.0 WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS 4 9.0 DETENTION/WATER QUALITY 5 10.0 CONCLUSION 5 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT B DRAINAGE AREA MAP EXHIBIT C OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE EXHIBIT D ASSESSOR'S MAP EXHIBIT E FLOW CONTROL APPLICATIONS MAP EXHIBIT F WATER QUALITY APPLICATIONS MAP EXHIBIT G BASIN STUDY EXHIBIT H SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO EXHIBIT I WETLAND INVENTORY MAP EXHIBIT J KING COUNTY SOILS SURVEY EXHIBIT K PROPOSED CONDITIONS MAP EXHIBIT L DETENTION CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT M WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS oc l 1 2 1999 TUKWILA • • 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The Group Health parcel is approximately 6.52 acres in size and is located within the Southwest quarter of Section 10, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Tukwila, King County, Washington. More specifically, the property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of East Marginal Way and South 124th Street. The attached Vicinity Map (Exhibit A) depicts the location of the proposed site. The subject parcel will be developed into research and development office space and associated paving, grading, drainage, utility, and landscaping improvements for Group Health Cooperative. Currently the eastern portion of the site is a paved parking lot providing the existing Group Health building across East Marginal Way additional parking area. Group Health plans to construct an on-site parking garage to compensate for stalls lost due to construction of the research/development facility. The western portion of the site consists mainly of second growth alder, thick brush, and some prairie grasses. The slopes within the site range from 0 percent to 20 percent. The field visit for this report was performed Friday, September 14, 1999. 2.0 UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS The site is bordered by East Marginal Way on the eastern property line and South 124th Street on the north and bordered by 35th Street along the west property line. The southern property line is bordered by undeveloped private property. Based on review of the topographic maps provided to us by the City of Tukwila, as well as field reconnaissance, it appears that the site receives approximately 3.7 acres upstream drainage from the property to the south. it appears that the upstream flow reaches the site by a combination of sheetflow and concentrated sheetflow. The limits of the upstream area tributary to the site are shown on the Drainage Area Map (see Exhibit B). Upstream drainage will be collected and bypassed upon development of the site. 3.0 ON-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Within the paved portion of the site runoff flows from the south to the north, being intercepted along the way by a series of catch basins and tightlines, eventually collecting within a catch basin located at the entrance of the parking lot. Stormwater is then conveyed from this catch basin to the west into an existing detention pond located within the undeveloped portion of the site by a 12 -inch tightline. This detention pond is located along South 124th Street and is approximately 200 feet long, 50 feet wide, and 4 feet to 5 feet deep. Currently, the pond is overgrown with thick vegetation, cattails, and some scattered alders. An existing ditch located within the property along South 124th Street appears to pick up some flow from the undeveloped portion of the site and conveys it into the existing detention pond. This ditch is approximately 2 feet wide, 4 feet deep, 2:1 vertical side slopes, and vegetation/earth lined. The remaining runoff from the undeveloped portion of the site reaches the pond by a combination of sheetflow and concentrated shallow flow. The runoff is then routed out of the pond by an existing flow control structure located by the northeast corner of the detention pond. This control structure appears to convey the runoff to the east along South 124th Street via a 15 -inch storm drain pipe although the manhole lid was impossible to remove so field inspection did not reveal the actual function of the control structure. Also, the control structure appears to overflow into an existing ditch located along South 124th Street. Based on field reconnaissance and conversations with John Howitt, City of Tukwila, this flow has no outlet and appears to infiltrate into the ground once it outlets into the ditch. 7142.001 [BHE/jss/mm] • • 4.0 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM SCREENING Once the stormwater flow leaves the site through the previously mentioned 15 -inch storm drain pipe, it is conveyed to the east along South 124th Street for approximately 390 feet, then outlets into an existing storm drainage manhole located along South 124th Street. The pipe then enlarges to 18 inches and continues east for approximately 75 feet where it outlets into an existing storm drain manhole located at the intersection of East Marginal Way and South 124th Street. The flow is then conveyed north out of this manhole via a 48 -inch storm drain along the western side of East Marginal Way South. According to John Howitt, the 48 -inch storm drain system may be conveying one branch of Riverton Creek through this area. This flow continues north for approximately 1,800 feet where it intersects with SR -509 and is conveyed into the SR -509 ditch and continues in a north/northwesterly direction along State Route 509. 5.0 RESEARCH REVIEW The following is a description of each resource reviewed in preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Analysis: 5.1 Reconnaissance Summary Report: This site is included in the Duwamish River Basin. Please see Exhibit E - Basin Study. 5.2 Critical Area Drainage Maps: According to the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual, basic water quality treatment and Level 1 flow control is required for the undeveloped portion of the site. For the developed portion of the site, detention calculations will be completed using the 1991 King County Surface Water Design Manual. 5.3 Floodplain/Floodway FEMA Maps: As indicated by the FEMA map, the proposed project site does not lie within a floodway or floodplain. Please see Exhibit H. 5.4 Other Off -Site Analysis Reports: In review of the Basin Study (Exhibit H), a site investigation was conducted in preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Analysis. The U.S. Department of Agricultural Soils Conservation Service map does not cover the subject site. Please refer to Exhibit G. 6.0 SENSITIVE AREA FOLIOS After review of the King County Sensitive Area Folios it was evident that the subject site incorporates no sensitive areas, as indicated by the folios. See Exhibit F - Sensitive Area Folios. 7.0 SWM DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION After research and pursuant to verbal conversations with the City of Tukwila it appears that our site and our site's downstream does not incorporate any drainage complaints. 7142.001 [BHE/jss/mm] • • • 8.0 WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS A review of the King County Wetland Inventory maps indicated that there are no recorded wetlands associated with the subject property. 9.0 DETENTION/WATER QUALITY Detention volume and flow release rates for the developed site will be determined separately for each half of the site as described below. The eastern half (existing paved parking lot) will be designed in accordance with the 1991 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM). Pre -developed peak flows for the 2- and 10-year/24-hour design storms will be matched respectively following development. A 30 percent volume addition to the 10 -year required design volume will be provided. The total volume provided will exceed the volume provided by the existing pond for this portion of the site. The western half (undeveloped portion) of the site will be designed in accordance with the 1998 KCSWDM. Level one flow control using King County routed time series methods is required. Pre -developed peak flows for the 2- and 10-year/24-hour design storms will be matched respectively following development. Water quality will be provided by a wet/detention pond located in the northwest corner of the site. The wet pool volume will be designed in accordance with the 1998 KCSWDM requirements for basic wet pond design. The pond is sized for the entire research/development parcel, as well as future development on the parcel to the south of the property. ,,A,...,,-. The detention pond on the existing Group Health site east of East Marginal Way will be enhanced to provide water quality for the entire existing site. Group Health is also adding a parking garage in the_ '1 north parking lot of the existing facility. Impervious area will not be increased by this addition.i,; '. vjis� The detention pond located in the northeast corner of this site will be enhanced to provide water quality u° 1,,),c•, -- for all runoff directed to the pad, both presently and following development of the parking garage. 0-'1,10.t f v - Existing detention volumes and release rates will be matched since no impervious area is being added. "r0 10.0 CONCLUSION The proposed project will provide Level 1 flow control and basic water quality treatment. Because the proposed project incorporates King County and City of Tukwila design requirements, we feel there will be no adverse impact on areas downstream of the site. 7142.001 [BHE/jss/mmJ • Basin: Duwamish River • OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: ,E11111. 1 rvat ons of Field Inspector esource Reviewer, or _ Resident See Map Type: sheet flow, swale, stream, channel, pipe, pond; size, diameter, surface area Drainage basin, vegetation, cover, depth, type of sensitive area, volume Ft Constrictions, under capacity, ponding, overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism destruction, scouring, bank sloughing, sedimentation, incision, other erosion Tributary area, likelihood of problem, overflow pathways, potential impacts 1 Existing detention pond. N/A On-site Heavily overgrown. No apparent problems. 2 Drainage ditch. 2:1 side slopes, grass/earth lined. Appears well maintained. Varies 0-100' Handles overflow from pond. Appears to infiltrate flow. 3 Control structure. Conveys flow to east along South 129th Street. N/A On-site Heavily overgrown. Unable to open structure. 4 Tightline. 15" tightline enlarges to 18" at CB along South 129th Street. 1 % 0-365' No apparent problems. 5 SDMH. 18" SD from site goes into MH from west. N/A 365' Appears well maintained. 6 48" SD. Conveys flow out of MH to north along East Marginal Way: 1 % 365' + Conveys flow past 1/4 mile limit of analysis. 7142.002 [BHE/mm] • • z a MI 1111111-1VAM- • ri • • EXHIBIT B DRAINAGE AREA MAP No49.s itios.6? d h a C9\ t 00/ c N 3t \.. Oc u., kV; • . • 66S 09 c' )1Li 0 _ 08/ _ •s( — c61 c3 iOA!ijflJ , I 11 I I I 02 / I C le Oz/ A 0 02/ EXHIBIT C OFF-SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE • EXHIBIT D ASSESSOR'S MAP • N 5 018 16 49$ 60 16 11'» IT K.. 3 , 1--• ...--i- 15 2 . 1, 4- -i--14 --1-I' ' C----- 13 4 `k. • ' l• • 6 12 5 L__:: It 6 8 0 i t u 10 / / 9 Zt 9 (NA ro NORTH LINE OF C.C. L ONA' 1) 22 A 3 ' 4 1987 31 S7 • 22 — • — -1 2i - • ,d.0 •,,/ I, 20 43 •..41 . •Ci -e t 25 4)011 24 i- !1 , („ - - - • 23 12 i . VA Are° - .1 1. 1_. _ ' • •• '4 • 224 11) t7 1,213 _ . . 1 ! ASSESSOR'S MAP NORTH FLOW CONTROL MAP • WATER QUALITY APPLICATIONS MAP 'Lower Cedar River es Moine Creek SoosCr2 East. ashon itiLCR 15 ' LCR16' .d ; Lake Aesire-r"� LCR28 LCR33 JC66 Jenkins _ Creek - Lowe Green River CC12 Like , • • EXHIBIT G BASIN STUDY i COUNTY DFS TAC CORPORATE LIMITS s REE1 16 ZONE X FEMA MAP NORTH • RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 26 DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington • King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District 1 Cynthia Sullivan, District Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arny Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants, Inc. P:CR Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager & Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist & Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Typesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 1 III. FINDINGS IN DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN A. Overview B. Effects of Urbanization C. Specific Problems 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds 2. Flooding in some locations 3. Further degradation of water quality IV. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Safeguard against continued erosion B. Improve overall effectiveness of surface water management C. Improve habitat conditions, particularly in tributaries APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Ranking APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 9 A-1 B-1 C-1 • L SUMMARY The Duwamish River Basin, in western King County, is intensely urbanized. Commercial and industrial land uses dominate the basin on either side of the Duwamish River and along its valley. Single-family residences are located along the valley walls and on the plateau above the valley; residential land uses are expected to reach saturation by the year 2000. In the process of urbanization, nearly all of the basin's tributaries have been piped and chan- neled. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are fitted with flap gates to minimize the effects of flooding when the Duwamish River rises during flood stages or as a result of tidal influences. Other alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include the placement of numerous artificial channels and culverts underneath State Roads (SR) 99 and 599. These carry runoff from three major freeways, as well as from extensive parking lots, one airfield (Boeing), and industrial areas, to the stream system. All wetlands except one have been eli- minated in the basin. Not surprisingly, there are serious environmental problems throughout the basin. The most serious of these, water quality, is being studied by numerous public agencies. The recon- naissance, which focused on drainage and erosion problems and resulting contamination of the stream system, identified several problems. First, bank erosion and mass -wasting were observed in many locations, the most serious instances occurring along steep valley walls. Second, flooding occurs in some places, most notably in the Allentown area. And third, degradation of the tributaries from sidehill drainage is one of many factors accounting for the fact that fish habitat is nearly nonexistent. The field team investigating the basin recommends that 1) erasion be slowed by implementing planning, engineering, and regulatory measures; 2) the general effectiveness of surface water management be improved with a combination of enhanced maintenance on existing facilities and the construction of new facilities where needed; and 3) habitat conditions be improved where feasible, particularly those related to poor water quality from sidehill drainage. 1Q. INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins — Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks — in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recom- mend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat con- ditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in deve- loping more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are P:DU 1 Duwamish River Basin (continued) not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case-by-case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among com- peting projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site-specific basis for any proposal. ILL FINDINGS IN THE DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN The field work in the basin was conducted in February 1987 by Ray Heller, resource planner, Lee Benda, geologist; and Arny Stonkus, engineer. Their findings and recommendations follow. A. Overview of the Basin The part of the Duwamish River Basin under King County jurisdiction is located in western King County along the Interstate 5 (I-5) corridor, just south of Seattle and north of Tukwila (the basin's northern and southern boundaries, respectively). The western boundary abuts the Miller and Salmon Creek Basins, while the eastern boundary abuts the Lake Washington Basin. The basin contains the King County Airport at Boeing Field and portions of SR 99, 509, and 599 as well as I-5. Historically, the Duwamish River flowed north from the confluence of the Green and Black Rivers. The Black River no longer exists, but the Green River north of its historic confluence is still referred to as the Duwamish and this report identifies the associated basin as the Duwamish River Basin. The Duwamish River flows north through the communities of Allentown and South Park and through the Duwamish industrial area in south Seattle. The river -- known as the Duwamish Waterway near its mouth — splits around Harbor Island into the East and West Waterways before - discharging into Elliott Bay, adjacent to downtown Seattle. The reconnaissance excluded subbasins wholly within the city of Seattle. The Duwamish River Basin is intensely urbanized, with commercial and industrial land uses predominating on either side of the river along the valley bottom. The sideslopes and plateaus above the valley are mainly used for single-family residences, with multi- family residential and commercial land uses also present in various locations. All of the unincorporated portion of this basin is within the Highline Community Planning Area, which lost population between 1970 and 1980. The population level has stabilized and moderate growth is expected in all types of land use by the year 2000. Most future growth in commercial and industrial land uses will be in the river valley bottom currently used for these purposes. Single-family and multi -family housing will reach saturation on the valley sideslopes and on the upland plateau. P:DU 2 Duwamish River Basin (continued) Dominant geologic and geomorphic features. The geology of the Duwamish River Basin consists of sedimentary and volcanic bedrock, glacial deposits of various ages and types, •and alluvium in the valley bottoms. The major bedrock outcrops appear in the southern portion of the basin near Tukwila and consist of sandstones and intrusive volcanic rocks. Glacial sediments include undifferentiated pre-Vashon sand and gravel, Vashon till, recessional outwash sand, and glacio-fluvial sand and gravel. Till is found along most of the highlands and generally caps the drumlinoid hills. Recessional out - wash sand is interspersed throughout the till and is commonly found along shallow stream valleys and other depressional areas. Landslide deposits exist within steep -walled tributary valleys. Recent alluvium, composed of gravel, sand, and silt, fills the Duwamish Valley and the bottom of the tributary valleys. The morphology of the basin is dominated by the valley of the Duwamish River. The valley is cut into sedimentary and volcanic bedrock. While the Duwamish River once meandered across its floodplain on the valley floor, it now flows through a diked chan- nel, as do its tributaries. During the last several glaciations, sediments were deposited on the bedrock in the form of glacio-fluvial sand and gravel, recessional outwash sand, and till. These glacial deposits were shaped into drumlinoid hills, with axes trending northwest -southeast. Drainage channels in the uplands are not well developed or integrated. Where drainage was routed over the valley walls, deep narrow valleys were formed through the glacial sediments. Landslides formed hummocky and chaotic terrain along the steep walls of tributary valleys and of the Duwamish Valley. Hydrologic and hydraulic features. Several highly urbanized subbasins, all distinct in character from one another, make up the Duwamish River. Basin. Some • natural drainages display undisturbed riparian environments, while severe erosion, scouring, and downcutting typify others. The majority of the basin's tributaries are either piped or ditched as they approach the lowland areas and their confluences with the Duwamish River. Outfall pipes within the tributary network are usually fitted with flap gates to minimize the backwater effects of flooding in the river. Alterations to the stream system in the lowland areas include many artificial open channels and major culverts that cross SR 99 and 599. Drainages in the upper subbasins flow through natural swales, steep natural channels, and ravines, as well as through numerous culverts. Many of the streams flow peren- nially from groundwater sources. Reconnaissance revealed that natural storage systems are nearly nonexistent in this basin: There are no lakes and only one small wetland. Habitat characteristics. The fate of stream habitat and fish in this basin was deter- mined during the late 1800s through the 1950s. During this time the Duwamish floodplain was almost totally filled, and the river was dredged and diked. As already described, this process of urbanization completely eliminated the natural features of the river and its corridor. In addition, the discharge of oils and other toxicants from thousands of acres of industrial land and the dumping of domestic garbage (which is common although illegal) have produced serious water quality problems along the waterway. Water pollution has caused documented fish kills in recent years, resulting in fines against the responsible parties. In addition, Metro, King County, the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency P:DU 3 Duwamish River Basin (continued) (EPA) have initiated studies to better define problems and solutions in order to improve water quality along the river. No anadromous fish were found in any of the streams at the time of reconnaissance. Resident fish may exist but were not observed during the reconnaissance study. Streams on the valley slopes and upland plateau are also devoid of fish. The tribu- taries in these upland areas show evidence of damage from the high flows of urban runoff, contamination from garbage dumping, introduction of other toxicants, alterations, filling, and high sediment loads. Most streams have few pools or the large organic debris necessary for fish refuge. Two streams (Trib. 0002, 0003) do have some instream and riparian habitat structures (e.g., protective streamside vegetation, pools, and large organic debris) that might support trout. The possibility of enhancing these fish habitats should be explored and if feasible pursued. B. Effects of Urbanization in the Basin The same process of urbanization that has contaminated the waters of the Duwamish River Basin and destroyed most of the fish and fish habitat has also severely impacted the basin's drainage system. Erosion of channel beds and banks has produced heavy st:diment loads, which have been carried down steep gradients and deposited on the valley floor. Deposition points have too often been within artificial conveyance systems, which have become clogged and constricted during times of heavy flows. This inability of the drainage system to handle higher flows is particularly noticeable in the lower stretches of Tributaries 0001A, 0001B, 0002, 0003, and 0003D. When high flows in the Duwamish river cause floodgates to close at tributary outfalls, flows that originate in the eastern subbasins back up in local conveyance systems in Allentown and cause flooding. Pipe outfalls exist at river miles 7.70 and 7.80. Highway contaminants produce many of the water quality problems in the basin. Most contaminants enter the stream and storm systems unabated by pollution -control devices such as oil/water separators. One drain pipe outfalls onto a steep slope at South 112th Street, just above SR 509. This pipe is discharging noticeable amounts of gasoline and oil from an unknown source, killing insects and plant life on the slope. C. Specific Problems Identified As noted earlier, there are a number of public agencies presently studying the severe water quality problems present in the Duwamish River Basin. The goal of these studies is to recommend mitigation measures in the Duwamish Waterway. The reconnaissance work presented here focused primarily on drainage problems in the tributary subcatch- ments, with secondary emphasis given to water quality and habitat problems. 1. Erosion of channel banks and streambeds was found in numerous locations throughout the basin. However, urbanization is so advanced in this basin that development -related erosion is actually at a minimum. In general, streams and bluffs in the lower Duwamish River Valley are stable and show only moderate increases in erosion. Serious erosion found during reconnaissance was restricted to the steep -walled tributary valleys and areas along valley walls of the Duwamish River. For example: P:DU 4 • Duwamish River Basin (continued) a. Channeled erosion occurs on Tributary 0003G at river mile .95. The cause is uncontrolled urban runoff; the problem will continue if not addressed. b. Bank erosion and scouring occur on Tributary 0003E at river mile .00. Debris is building up at the headwall, causing flows to damage the bank. Increased storm flows from development are apparently the cause. c. Instream bank erosion is occurring on Tributary, 0002 at river mile .55, with no apparent abatement. Bank erosion also is occurring along the channels of Tributaries 0002 and 0003, presumably from development -related increases in flows. d. Road embankment erosion is occurring on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue and South 109th Street intersection. The resulting sediment is filling two 36 -inch culverts at the lower end. The flows will back up onto private property if the culverts are not cleaned. e. Hillside erosion is occurring at South 112th Street above SR 509, where a pipe discharges directly onto a steep slope. There is no energy dissipation for flows. f. Two landslides were observed on the valley wall beneath residences in the valley of Tributary 0002 at river mile .70. These may have occurred because of the stormwater that is routed directly onto steep slopes, a situation made worse by vegetation removal along the slope. Another landslide has occurred in bedrock at Tributary 0003, river mile .16, along the main valley of the Duwamish River. 2. Flooding occurs in some locations along the Duwamish River system. For example: a. Outfall from Allentown to the Duwamish (Trib. 0001, RM 7.70 and 7.80) will continue to back up when the floodgates are closed at times of high flows. b. Flooding of the storm system at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street is being caused by sedimentation, which fills and constricts the pipes .there. If allowed to continue, flooding could lead to accelerated road failure. 3. Water quality is being further degraded in several locations: a. The illegal but common practice of dumping domestic garbage in streams is very prevalent. Tributaries 0001E and 0001F both had large amounts of garbage in them. b. There are possible leakages of septic tanks into Tributary 0001F at river mile .12. The stream had a septic odor on the date it was examined. c. Sediment from an upstream fill is producing water quality problems on Tributary 0002A, river mile .15. Sediment in turn is filling pools. Downstream from the Glendale golf course on Tributary 0001E, there are P:DU 5 • Duwamish River Basin (continued) excessive amounts of sediment and algae in the water. Algae could be the result of fertilizers and sprays at the golf course. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION Controlling erosion and increasing the overall effectiveness of surface water management are the main goals in the Duwamish River Basin. A. Use planning and regulatory measures as a long-term safeguard against continued ero- sion and other mass -wasting 1. Enforce the County's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and slope regulations along steep slopes of tributaries and the Duwamish River Valley. 2. Prohibit the routing of stormwater onto steep slopes without energy dissipation and other appropriate measures to control runoff in a safe, nonerosive manner. 3. Designate certain portions of the tributary valleys as landslide hazard areas in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio. 4. Establish native growth protection easements in tributary valleys This will make banks more stable and provide a source of Large woody debris for energy dissi- pation in streams. Both are erosion -control measures. • B. Improve the overall effectiveness of surface water management in the basin. • 1. Increase maintenance of present conveyance facilities to assure they, are functioning properly. a. Clean debris and silt from two 36 -inch culverts on Tributary 0002E at the 47th Avenue S and South 109th Street intersection in order to reduce moisture intrusion into the base course of the road. b. Repair the damaged manhole at the intersection of Eighth Avenue S and South 100th Street. Construct an inlet structure with sediment/silt control to alleviate overtopping of the channel and to prevent further destruction of the road. 2. Construct new facilities for conveyance and R/D as needed for flood control and overall drainage efficiency. a. Install a pumping station in Allentown on Tributary 0001 at river miles 7.70-7.80 to reduce flooding when the Duwamish River is running high at the outfall of these two points. Pump flows into the Duwamish River. b. Tightline flows using energy dissipaters at South 112th Street above SR 509 to disperse water beyond the steep slopes, which are now being eroded. P:DU 6 • • • Duwamish River Basin (continued) P:DU c. As a measure of additional storage, encourage the city of Tukwila to construct an R/D facility on Tributary 0003G, near the intersection of 44th Street S and South 31st Place, to aid in controlling peak flows. Conveyance pipes in this vicinity are presently undersized. 3. King County should work with the cities of Seattle and Tukwila where drainage basins are shared. Some tributaries may call for basin plans. 4. Surface water management and discharges into the Green and Duwamish Rivers should be coordinated with the principles and requirements of the Green River Management Agreement. C. Improve habitat conditions, where feasible, particularly those related to the contamination of tributaries by sidehill drainage. 1. Improve enforcement of no -dumping ordinances by King County and the city of Seattle. 2. Establish stream corridor guidelines, induding setbacks limiting Bearing, and other regulatory measures as appropriate to protect the remaining habitat in the basin. 7 • DUWAMISH RIVER BAb. 0 Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary Collection Point .Stream 000i Tributary Number 01301 Proposed Project II I !I ! P! •' immemlosi* •• !u-..,..,..... epi i � IIS■A 0 Y2 I Mile - ..IIL�111 FOR, • • • APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN • Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Number Collect. Point Project Description 1301* 7 Construct R/D-siltation pond adja- cent to 8th Ave. S. and between S 100th St. and S 96th St. (4 acre - ft. of capacity). 1304 21 Installation of pump station. 1306 27 Construct R/D facility at 133rd St. S and S Marginal Way E. Problem Addressed Reduce downstream flooding and siltation. Reduce flooding in Allentown from con- veyance system backups when high flows occur in the Duwamish River. Reduce downstream flooding in Tukwila. P:DU.APA A-1 Estimated Costs and Comments $140,000 (dependent on acquir- ing right-of-way from Seattle City Light) $100,000 $222,000 (dependent on land acquisition costs) • • • APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN Prior to the field reconnaissance of the Duwamish River Basin, five projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, three projects remain pro- posed for this area. Three projects were eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team. One of the projects has already been completed, one had no apparent problems, and the other project could not be located. One project (1306) was added. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Duwamish River Basin had an estimated cost of S1,280,000, while the revised cost estimate changes to $462,000 for the three projects. This 64% reduction is due mainly to the elimination of three previously identified projects. The following table summarizes the scores and costs of the proposed CIPs for the Duwamish River Basin. The projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, ELEMENT 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can now be con- sidered for merging into the "live" CIP list. Any project scoring over 100 points should be con- sidered for incorporation into the six-year CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 1306 127 S222,000 2 1304 45 100,000 3 1301* 30 140.000 TOTAL S462,000 Indicates project was identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. P:DU.APB B-1 • • APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DUWAMISH RIVER BASIN • Ali items listed here are located on final display in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning. Trib. & Collect. Existing Item* River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 1 3 7 Hydrology 1301 Flat area with stream meander under Seattle City Light transmission towers. SWM -proposed CIP site. 7 Hydrology 9 Hydrology • Altered manhole (hole knocked into side). Sedi- ment buildup in system. Road failing just down- stream. Hillside above State Road 509 and below S 112th St. suffers from erosion caused by outfall. No energy dissipation. 4 0001 21 Hydrology 1304 Water backs up in con - RM 7.70 & veyance system into 7.80 Allentown when the Duwamish rises and floodgates close. P:DU.APC C-1 Anticipated Conditions and Problems None. Siltation of conveyance system will restrict flows in the future causing overtopping onto road and road failure. Increased scouring and incising of hillside; sediment/silt outwash onto SR 509 will worsen. No relief from Duwamish River high flows. Local flooding will continue from conveyance system backups. Recommendations Construct the proposed R/D and siltation -control facility if right-of-way can be obtained from City Light. Reconstruct the altered manhole to function as intended. Construct an inlet structure with sediment/ silt control to alleviate over- topping of the channel and to prevent further road destruction. Tightline pipe system beyond erosion - sensitive slopes. Construct an energy dissipator at outlet end of tightline. King County Roads should investigate this problem. Install a pumping station to reduce flooding of Allentown, near outfall points of RM 7.70 and 7.80. • • Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 5 0001B 4 Habitat 6 0001E 8 Habitat RM 1.00 7 0001F 8 0002 RM .50 9 0002 RM .60-.75 22 Habitat 10 Habitat 10 Geology No visible problems in stream or stream corridor. Very little fish habitat due to excessive flows, erosion, sediment, and garbage. Algae is growing profusely in the stream, indicating possible nutrient loading from fertilizer at upstream golf course. Septic odor in stream and loads of garbage below 47th Ave. S. Ditched stream with check dams to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Streamside banks are bare. Prehistoric landslide terrain. P:DU.APC C-2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could encroach into the stream corridor and increase flows to erosive levels in the stream. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Problem will continue. Removal of vegetation or routing stormwater over steep slopes may cause land- slides. Recommendations Coordinate with city of Seattle to establish and protect a stream corridor at least 25 ft. back from the top of the stream -bank on each side of the stream. Existing and future flows should be kept at nonerosive levels. Basin plan should consider R/D facility in golf course above problem site to reduce existing and future flows. Future development runoff should be kept at nonerosive levels. - Require all future residences to connect to sanitary sewer, if available. - Improve enforcement of no -dumping laws. - Notify Seattle -King County Health Dept. of problem. Revegetate banks. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Map inner valley as landslide hazard in Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). • • Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 10 0002 RM.70 11 0002 RM.70 12 0002A RM.10 13 0002A RM.75-.90 14 0002A RM.75-.90 15 002A RM.95 10 Habitat 10 Geology 10 Habitat 10 Geology 10 Geology 10 Hydrology Ham Creek. Good trout habitat. Small pools and some large organic debris are present. Sediment is a problem. Two landslides beneath residences. Poor fish habitat. Lots of . algae growing within the stream. Lots of garbage, sediment from upstream fill and possible nutrients exhibited by the algae presence. No benthic organisms present. Landslide terrain. Channel bank erosion of moderate intensity. Undersized pipe capacity due to a partial siltation of the conveyance system. P:DU.APC C-3 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Future development could increase flows, erosion, and resulting sediment that will fill pools and clog gravel. Stormwater has been piped down one landslide. Continued surface erosion. Possibility of future landslides. Conditions will continue. Removal of vegetation or rout- ing stormwater over steep slopes may cause landslides. Continued erosion. Continuation of present prob- lems, which will become more severe as pipe capacity diminishes with added silta- tion. Recommendations Restrict present and future develop- ment runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the stream system. Map valley landslide hazard in SAMF. Discourage or prohibit vegetation removal and routing of stormflow onto steep slopes. Remove or stabilize fill at upstream end of ravine. Map inner valley landslide hazard in SAMF. None. Check grate capacities for street drainage system. Remove flow obstructions in pipes. • • Trib. & Item River Mile 16 0002E 17. 0003 RM.10 18 0003D RM1.10 19 0003E RM.02 20 00030 RM.02 21 00030 RM.195 0003E RM.00 Collect. Existing Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 22 Hydrology 15 Habitat 23 Habitat 27 Geology 27 Habitat 27 Hydrology/ Habitat Series of two 36 -in. cul- verts passing under road. Lower pipe almost silted in in at downstream end. Road erosion at turn radius of intersection. Septic odor from swales. Location is 47th Ave. S and S 109th St. Stream corridor and in - stream habitat seems ade- quate for trout. Anadromous usage blocked at the river. Steep gradient, little fish habitat, corridor fairly stable. Bank erosion along both sides of channel. Upstream erosion has caused minor sedimentation just south of S 133 St. Some localized flooding also occurs. Severe downcutting and in - stream scouring of channel. P:DU.APC C-4 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Water will overtop drainage swale if sediment/silt build- up goes unchecked. Road will have water intrusion also. Road failure is probable. Future development could increase flows to erosive levels, causing sedimenta- tion. Future development could increase flows and instream erosion. Continued erosion. Future development could in- crease sediment problems in this area. Accelerated erosion will increase. Siltation of conveyance systems will in- crease flooding. Recommendations Increase maintenance of culverts. Problem has been referred to King County Roads Division. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Restrict future development runoff to levels that are nonerosive in the downstream system. Resident should be asked to revege- tate bank. Sediment and R/D ponds could be constructed both north and south of S 133 St. Install energy dissipators in stream and vegetate banks where possible. Evaluate at time of basin planning as a habitat project. • • Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems 22 0003G 23 0003G 24 0003I 27 Hydrology 1306 Incised stream segments. Downstream flooding in Tukwila. City of Tukwila. 26 Hydrology 31 Geology Horse pasture with old farm buildings. City of Tukwila. Landslide in bedrock hollow directly above residence. P:DU.APC C-5 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Accelerated incision along with other adverse stream processes. Continued down- stream flooding in Tukwila. Undersized channels and pipes will back up flows. Continued surface erosion. Possible continued land - sliding (though minor). Recommendations Construct an R/D facility. City of Tukwila should consider an R/D facility for control of flows. - Investigate more thoroughly to determine if cause is stormwater from impervious surfaces above. - Add this section of hillslope to landslide hazard in the SAMF. J411111,46, tit II (ciltag" irc 11111111111t IIIII iuiIliu. s• 111 st 111111V111111 1 'Kuitinninizt 1111111111111111n1 011110111111n1WP II 111 111,04.1110 • it 011111111111Wd,,i 1111111Firil TA th.leVA liettm711=7"-' MIMI Allt WI ,LN„,/ NIMIN 411% 1116551 Vaal le mfflN ii! 1 §, A. lillt A` I .»•. N VS,elkft\, ,.' WERILlitiC, .11:4\14 '‘ 11 -.1 0640 Ogiilat--;;* ow ,,,,4 foviistaki • ifi Ali itik. ill , wmtarii ". m"FER). piii miiiParmlotr* . , nil ‘inglism Itilleii4/ ,iiiikh . . iiIININSIIIILVI 411111%'14 lisit. Ei. . raiCPARIINIaj. '=7„. & AlitiacierrariffiNIN rit:1 ri rA tzig,...ffers , ...,., t Kfiggelliti k 1.!Se8 N.t i .)...„ fvt, ....:!..,,,s,, -; .171., 1\,.,,,,,,v, AiiiMaiiineithgt '1 A n p wa, RI e - , tv iltagiN°291111/ ill ririntIP 'ki`k101 -44 Alt ''' 1:111441r11111M Di4 . 44'2 .7.E.'4"11•04itAlatil:44"c"..7 \16,1. _ ...... -r="121Ailo f4" I 11111211.11.1"1101 IF" ".6h* P10111161 o ilfei EatTaat-ocwwwwwwp liii7:M=A-s5„ 114 etalOWTP--;:""r:AP":44 if tII swim -OTA, kt "%PP-. "9-"'.7..14-2V41Z°MANIT,40111;57--, NIVII9g9 V .10 Orr/ iM g - r.stL 11C11,1/aNtlia,tilte="r.il: itc-0 pi. .1 I nmilia SOURCE: 1890 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO EROSION HAZARD AREAS NORTH I 1111k.. S1��31RCl�Ic ` ti■�u6461131118% V 111.all" ligratleglitral'. 111 ' 614 111,\ iMtn:;i ISM 111!1! :*�.::. .211cn- �IAIAiil0`�ii111Mira 11'tlil Y' 11111A1 ,1 1111 Illil1 -11l1111 n11111 '111111:4111 1` NM" ly�llll�llll�i�:-- • :�;r � .. !111M" �IUMINPr- l cp 1111l11111111111!1!1 !e 1101111111MITIM.4,1.‘k "�� 011f19N11111ii r-27011,7 tl: pn111116tIs. 1!NI dim oimali `11 u ..fpiii "RI gm tom wit .��iil�q. �/�l�'� � ��tryir+. vnivn• Ar S iiffllll , . 14.1a Nor 3� rin. El =�1 -r!° tl i R.�ti�IR! iia �• aEltrPONICIS MillititaGE 11=r 4 i v kl�1+ ig.n� 1111 1-4 MI fulNitt intlaV. IrNI1`11.. VN jilit% e, sag .rI.,.1 1111 ,mit lip •111 1 a •ma y1 11 :i l lC 1111,143111611 . e tri1� � volit ���!. � �II<11 � p�sra�wd'"'�7���; :\ tl �< _.ra�tls• p•1`�M ESIArgarMilivithoI I r4t- • irstaite.4ri VA AMOR VEE6 �IIi1w1141 1� �i� f-�t �i:Irti1ardra .1 ,4 11,1" :ZirrMSWillogrtatilfti f # ."'= -,y «syv /r•M� 1%c/S�o�l�mrsdi•' r � '9f� \!- .�a. illi"''__ •� �,.�' f \ \��'',��� ����a���'-�" so.• ;,lElf�lla '. OURCE: 111110 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS 1 NORTH 1 . ^,3111'1:'r'I('I esri : i911.1111 \i VI .911511TiestEi0222231, 9.>el2cv_I1.1e/u■ ti. li Asiilll I�-timtormgwrmmlmmiVIEL awl v�+l ',1491 1111a I11 ut Illi IIIIi1,a1.,1 �- --�► �:� ., ` ° u 111116i7y11` 11111111e'1 J11111t11I vim``�f�l�; AEI h.l1t11111l,�`' iF Iil'E'm i it iif; ill '^ ,`! 0111/1 ii111ii1 ! ° '��' P_'t 11 111Nilln4 °.. 11 ' ' A j 1111i1llialtt-4 63,1.. �?F` <. , M. l'llll till' tli1� ,, �� Wilt Pli � a iVitilii15, Ill -at" ktofiliK r -I1�1►141 � r 4 ��4I::IiAIilliril�R: �alitm 1 Ii a� d "'tel h��8 rAlli! 1.`�:?*21igk- ,kii,troositalspill-,i, V - �J. a� Qj, `er"?"4'Wiumj2rillIM I/ mal . Cit a 1a MSF . ratiliell ; x+.• . w t ib l , 47 (i ` toriplir l �.r,, l�ii1 lid E va ,:; � ,. ��� u�1, iz .. .:tee. °11141 11-INIPI VI WI " WI; DEW 4 5 NS' .��Keiinill� ;���-'w'' efi;ill' Liza��m!1 .41���!#�1i Awet tgiv r�' iirii -tmbtribe- l� 11t '� .,rib, :16„,„„,...."„ z :,A3,1_,:v-7-L.rim,..,zr, naBlinal '''Plr ..""irei-1-.4r7roas •-rx., dim --....; (ii�g�IIE! G 1L41.1,�l� 31 ireit �� a11 4:�E ¢ F1.-.-.4:4511. _ i(19 iilyfinfratraiP tag ilitH.--.4irthS- ori -lam** fili, l' 4„.„,,L0s,_ , . , „,„ limiciii imv.iierirm A'1, 'imoi9WVINAM,044: .OURC■N 1090 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO WETLANDS NORTH -.P\i•N '*- MI HIM 'orIIIII.E41111111,4111112r 11111111116011111111111111/, 1111111111=ENNIIIIIIIIIR SII" 'IR III 1111111111111h triZIIV N otwirmaWc . ,..lt • z li to 110111 1!,,,„ ilitiRA a1 intimpattpillyi t joi milt , lItnilltil illblk • 14,11-631rHtmEll Izetnattiwzro, jilipo iliiniyill 1Illotee Sri Pear ,:t1 ".f.",, 4 \ "1111Mliftr91111111.190151M ii=01101 . IMMAllrig li. tITI=44q4;&-,144 Appi`xieo; ..ansitt :11:0IiIHS* 'Afts ,'N A t If &. f$,WPareilit It , 0.1 r, =4,--,, • .:. ),D qt T7. ----r. -litw E.,-,1 IA*, ift, 11 Qi 31 .. a„-Lit.4: uEtg& vitol-grardip fralburzzamsviiiti- /,- -norfak,,keis _3 .. rw IlipaleiliPi did ;WWI al Iti vAleitilW EtilliNKNIKIRMINVIIIRI 't.3*, s*r.1.--_,L,..Ziliklibglteumw..r-•,-.E.Iniimpirdratemlas A, VitNipailinplikir.ZPIA/M4HAciregiawfstakalF, liAllit27,1E;MVIfilirRESSIEV • .1,/ — 71E4.P.Viliffialiplime i„,, ItlffViii=tan-aiz,Vta. q _;;Milirliparif r-3"---ralo i'lqIII "mailifiriEVITZ;!_alio iraII --Nhm000ti ,is1,2a1ir16il„a1rM.111m,o0,1ia,,,Wmr,_,li.1 l Iinrtt ,0 P, 1V",AOTlYIe.,.1hCrn.Afo.lweOiini._ii-A4kt3oigi6-o,n1k.. ,„ d_i .1U9$ 1 216li tkatt -:Nvutin 4 '411,9i .Ntffino WATTLE , ...roe,:-.,ptle4zezim„ olio N.. a Nan:IWO:A TO,501itt,n A i I mg Resiv„-,0 . 41 . _ i ,t• , STREAMS AND 100 YEAR FLOODPLAINS NORTH SOURCE: II/100 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO • • v ■cigi� 1, nit II:*VA El .. V 'iSN ATTLF. Ara Bir e T� rill -1:4511V- UR -044,./ nr11,y.._... ird W Eli► ' ,I1b.11, iC 41 i rE7/174WAiiiVAVMV" ursarm: i Nvigla I MOKOMittnir f elf '5111 [maw iliffUWASIVANc.. I oh rlOffiiq".v0,0' 1,. HMIllimilm0;.-5414! LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS SOURCE: 1550 KING COUNTY SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIO NORTH 14 i Duwamish River Lower Green River Green River Basin M SOIL SURVEY King County Area Washington . ORGUAL • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with WASHINGTON AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Issued November 1973 GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS For a full description of a mapping unit, read both the description of the mapping unit and that of the soil ceries to which the mapping unit belongs. See table 6, page 70, for descriptions of woodland groups. Other 0 `-Tmation is given in tables as follows: Acreage and extent, table 1, page 9. Engineering uses of the soils, tables 2 and 3, pages 36 through SS. Town and country planning, table 4, page 57. Recreational uses, table 5, page 64. Estimated yields, table 7, page 79. p Described Ma on symbol Mapping unit page Symbol Page AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes--------- 10 IVe-2 76 AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 8 IVe-2 76 AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 10 VIe-2 78 AkF Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep 10 VIIe-1 78 AmB Arents, Alderwood material, 0 to 6 percent slopes 1/-- 10 IVe-2 76 AmC Arents, Aldexwood material, 6 to 1S percent slopes 1/ 10 IVe-2 76 An Arents, Everett material 1/ 11 IVs -1 77 BeC Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 11 IVe-2 76 BeD Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 12 VIe-2 78 BeF Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 12 VIIe-1 78 Bh Bellingham silt loam 12 IIIw-2 76 Br Briscot silt loam 13 IIw-2 75 Bu Buckley silt loam--- 13 IIIw-2 76 Cb Coastal beaches 14 VIIIw-1 78 Ea Earlmont.silt loam- 14 IIw-2 75 Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam 15 IIIw-1 75 EvB Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes 15 IVs -1 77 EvC Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs-1 78 EvD Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 16 VIe-1 77 B+C 'Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy foams, 6 to 15 percent slopes 16 VIs-1 78 Indianola loamy fine sand, 0 to 4 percent slopes 17 IVs -2 77 tidianola to oP loamy fine sand, 4 to 1S percent slopes 16 IVs -2 77 .idianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes 17 VIe-1 76 IP°Kitsap silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes 17 IIIe-1 75 KpC Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 18 IVe-1 76 KpD Kitsap silt loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 18 VIe-2 78 KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand, 6 to 15 percent slopes 18 VIs-1 78 Na Mixed alluvial land 18 VIw-2 78 NeC Keilton very gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes 19 VIs-1 78 Ng Newberg silt loam 19 IIw-1 74 Nk Nooksack silt loam 20 IIw-1 74 No Norma sandy loam 20 IIIw-3 76 Or Orcas peat 21 VIIIw-1 78 Os Oridia silt loam- 21 IIw-2 75 OvC Ovall gravelly loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes 22 IVe-2 76 OvD Ovall,gravelly loam, 1S to 25 percent slopes 23 VIe.2 78 OvF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes 23 VIIe-1 78 Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand 23 Viw-1 78 Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loam- 23 IVw-1 76 Pu Puget silty clay loam 24 IIIw-2 76 Py Puyallup fine sandy loam 24 IIw-1 74 RaC Ragnar fine sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 25 IVe-3 77 RaD Ragnar fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes 26 VIe-2 78 RdC Ragnar-Indianola association, sloping: 1/ 26 Ragnar soil -- IVe-3 77 Indianola soil IVs -2 77 RdE Ragnar-Indianola association, moderately steep: 1/ 26 Ragnar soil — -- VIe-2 78 Indianola soil VIe-1 77 Woodland Capability unit group Symbol 3d2 3d1 3d1 2d1 3d2 3d2 3f3 3d2 3d1 3d1 3w2 3w1 4w1 3w2 201 3f3 3f3 3f2 3f3 4s3 4s 3 4s2 2d2 2d2 2d1 Sfl 2o1 3f3 201 2o1 3w2 3w1 3d1 3d1 3d1 2s1 2s1 3w2 2o1 4s1 4s1 4s1 4s3 4s1 4s2 U. S. GOVERNMENT PAINTING OFFICE :1973 0 - 468-266 • GUIDE TO MAPPING UNITS --Continued Mapping unit Described on page Renton silt loam 2627 Riverwash--- 27 Salal silt loam 27 Sammamish silt loam 28 Seattle muck 28 1 Shalcar muck 9 2 Si silt loam 29 Snohomish silt loam- 31 Snohomish silt loam, thick surface variant 31 i Sultan silt loam 32 , Tukwila muck 32 r Urban land 33 3 Woodinville silt loam Capability unit Woodland group Syubol Page IIIw-1 75 VIIIw-1 78 IIx -1 74 IIw-2 7S IIw-3 75 IIw-3 75 IIx -1 74 IIw-2 75 IIw-2 75 IIw-1 74 IIw-3 75 IIw-2 75 Symbol 3w1 201 3w1 2o1 • 3w2 3w2 3w1 3w2 1/ The composition of these units is more variable than that of the others in the Area, but it has been =trolled well enough to interpret for the expected use of the soils. 0 1 (SOILS MAP OF SITE AREA NOT AVAILABLE) SOILS MAP NORTH PRELIMINARY GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN r -3O �•1� �•a.==.==__'�.=tee=-=�=t ._ '1)."' '.-dam--� n; --- "",�-"k w' "" �- now wcamp:�an ; .�„ _ . i /-- y-- • --1----`, / 7 6 % [.dlt,/' a2 \ t _211 1 i 76t—'KM 2751 TOP - 1 c.a • mr.or.� • KIP= CF n1 OCOMON YOUIE-Il00D CF ' u a 1 J$ 7,111-117.111hgrell'a 1 N p 1501 Pie: P.\50SKPR0/\7211\EN016EEWNG\7211-PC11.01VG Dote : 09/7!/1999 16:17 Scale: 1430 alert 4,.h: m41-ez72/1-527241-T. 1 1 1 14 1 • Basin Assumption Worksheet Group Health Project Name: Project Number: Engineer: Date: EDITION OF KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: BHE 7241 7/29/99 PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS PERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: 2.921 SOIL TYPE: TILL GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALCS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: FOREST NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr NA NA NA POSTDEVELOPED CONDITIONS PERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: 0.5841 SOIL TYPE: TILL GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALCS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: GRASS NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr NA NA NA 1998 IMPERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: NA SOIL TYPE: GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALCS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr IMPERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: 2.3361 SOIL TYPE: NA GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALCS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: IMP NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr NA NA NA COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS: 1) WE ASSUMED 80% IMPERVIOUS FOR THE POST DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 2) SIZING WORKSHEET FOR THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT IS UNDEVELOPED AT THE MON M • • Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Side Slope: Pond Bottom Length: Pond Bottom Width: Pond Bottom Area: Top Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head: Riser Diameter: Number of orifices: Orifice # Height (ft) 1 0.00 2 2.80 Top Notch Weir: None Outflow Rating Curve: None Detention Pond 2.00 105.18 52.59 5531. 9086. 0.209 4.00 100.00 27429. 0.630 4.00 18.00 2 H:1V ft ft sq. ft sq. ft acres ft ft cu. ft. - ac -ft ft inches Full Head Diameter Discharge (in) (CFS) 1.36 0.100 1.18 0.041 Stage Elevation (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.33 0.43 0.53 0.63 0.73 0.83 0.93 1.03 1.13 1.23 1.33 1.43 1.53 1.63 1.73 1.83 1.93 (ft) (cu. 100.00 100.01 100.03 100.04 100.06 100.07 100.08 100.10 100.11 100.13 100.23 100.33 100.43 100.53 100.63 100.73 100.83 100.93 101.03 101.13 101.23 101.33 101.43 101.53 101.63 101.73 101.83 101.93 v0[ UM g eeo caRF Pipe Diameter (in) 4.0 Storage Discharge Percolation ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) 0. 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.006 0.004 0.008 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.012 0.009 0.013 0.010 0.015 0.013 0.016 0.014 0.017 0.017 0.018 0.030 0.024 0.043 0.029 0.056 0.033 0.069 0.036 0.083 0.040 0.097 0.043 0.110 0.045 0.124 0.048 0.139 0.051 0.153 0.053 0.167 0.055 0.182 0.058 0.197 0.060 0.212 0.062 0.227 0.064 0.242 0.066 0.257 0.068 0.273 0.069 55. 166. 222. 333. 389. 445. 556. 612. 724. 1289. 1860. 2437. 3021. 3611. 4207. 4811. 5420. 6036. 6659. 7288. 7924. 8566. 9216. 9871. 10534. 11203. 11879. (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surf Area (sq. ft) 5531. 5537. 5550. 5556. 5569. 5575. 5582. 5594. 5601. 5613. 5677. 5741. 5805. 5870. 5935. 6000. 6066. 6132. 6198. 6265. 6332. 6399. 6466. 6534. 6602. 6671. 6740. 6809. • • 2.03 102.03 12562. 0.288 0.071 0.00 6878. 2.13 102.13 13251. 0.304 0.073 0.00 6948. 2.23 102.23 13948. 0.320 0.075 0.00 7018. 2.33 102.33 14651. 0.336 0.076 0.00 7088. 2.43 102.43 15361. 0.353 0.078 0.00 7159. 2.53 102.53 16078. 0.369 0.079 0.00 7230. 2.63 102.63 16802. 0.386 0.081 0.00 7301. 2.73 102.73 17533. 0.403 0.083 0.00 7373. 2.80 102.80 18049. 0.414 0.084 0.00 7424. 2.81 102.81 18123. 0.416 0.084 0.00 7431. 2.82 102.82 18197. 0.418 0.085 0.00 7438. 2.84 102.84 18345. 0.421 0.087 0.00 7452. 2.85 102.85 18419. 0.423 0.089 0.00 7460. 2.86 102.86 18493. 0.425 0.092 0.00 7467. 2.87 102.87 18568. 0.426 0.095 0.00 7474. 2.89 102.89 18717. 0.430 0.096 0.00 7489. 2.90 102.90 18791. 0.431 0.097 0.00 7496. 2.91 102.91 18866. 0.433 0.098 0.00 7503. 3.01 103.01 19616. 0.450 0.104 0.00 7576. 3.11 103.11 20374. 0.468 0.109 0.00 7648. 3.21 103.21 21138. 0.485 0.114 0.00 7722. 3.31 103.31 21910. 0.503 0.118 0.00 7795. 3.41 103.41 22689. 0.521 0.122 0.00 7869. 3.51 103.51 23475. 0.539 0.126 0.00 7943. 3.61 103.61 24268. 0.557 0.129 0.00 8018. 3.71 103.71 25068. 0.575 0.132 0.00 8093. 3.81 103.81 25875. 0.594 0.136 0.00 8168. 3.91 103.91 26690. 0.613 0.139 0.00 8243. 4.00 104.00 27429. 0.630 0.142 0.00 8311. 4.10 104.10 28257. 0.649 0.606 0.00 8387. 4.20 104.20 29093. 0.668 1.450 0.00 8464. 4.30 104.30 29936. 0.687 2.550 0.00 8541. 4.40 104.40 30786. 0.707 3.850 0.00 8618. 4.50 104.50 31644. 0.726 5.320 0.00 8695. 4.60 104.60 32509. 0.746 6.750 0.00 8773. 4.70 104.70 33382. 0.766 7.280 0.00 8851. 4.80 104.80 34262. 0.787 7.770 0.00 8929. 4.90 104.90 35149. 0.807 8.240 0.00 9007. 5.00 105.00 36044. 0.827 8.680 0.00 9086. 5.10 105.10 36946. 0.848 9.100 0.00 9166. 5.20 105.20 37856. 0.869 9.490 0.00 9245. 5.30 105.30 38774. 0.890 9.880 0.00 9325. 5.40 105.40 39699. 0.911 10.250 0.00 - 9405. 5.50 105.50 40631. 0.933 10.600 0.00 9486. 5.60 105.60 41572. 0.954 10.950 0.00 9567. 5.70 105.70 42520. 0.976 11.280 0.00 9648. 5.80 105.80 43475. 0.998 11.600 0.00 9730. 5.90 105.90 44439. 1.020 11.920 0.00 9811. 6.00 106.00 45410. 1.042 12.220 0.00 9893. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target Calc Stage Elev (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 1 1.23 ******* 0.95 4.14 104.14 28593. 0.656 2 0.62 ******* 0.43 4.06 104.06 27939. 0.641 3 0.63 0.14 0.14 3.98 103.98 27277. 0.626 4 0.66 ******* 0.13 3.63 103.63 24418. 0.561 5 0.74 ******* 0.12 3.44 103.44 22898. 0.526 N • 6 7 8 0.39 0.53 0.59 0.08 ******* 0.08 2.75 102.75 0.07 2.02 102.02 0.07 1.84 101.84 Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:7241developed.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdout Inflow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 1.23 CFS at Peak Outflow Discharge: 0.944 CFS at Peak Reservoir Stage: 4.14 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 104.14 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 28593. Cu -Ft 0.656 Ac -Ft Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdout.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Flow Rate (CFS) 0.427 0.071 0.123 0.068 0.083 0.130 0.141 0.944 Computed Peaks Peak Flow Rates --- Rank Time of Peak 2 2/09/01 7 12/28/01 5 2/28/03 8 8/26/04 6 1/05/05 4 1/18/06 3 11/24/06 1 1/09/08 16:00 17:00 7:00 6:00 15:00 23:00 8:00 9:00 17715. 12482. 11288. 6:00 9:00 0.407 0.287 0.259 on Jan 9 in Year 8 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks - - (CFS) (ft) 0.944 0.427 0.141 0.130 0.123 0.083 0.071 0.068 0.771 4.14 4.06 3.98 3.63 3.44 2.75 2.02 1.84 4.12 Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 • • Project Name: Project Number: Engineer: Date: Basin Assumption Worksheet Group Health 7241 BHE 7/29/99 EDITION OF KING COUNTY SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL: PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS PERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: 2.931 SOIL TYPE: GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. C FOREST 2.0 IN 81 2.95 IN NA NA 4.0 I N NA Tc CALLS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: NA 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr 300 LF S.F. @ 2.0% 150 LF CONC. S.F. @ 1.0% POSTDEVELOPED CONDITIONS PERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: SOIL TYPE: GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. 0.5861 C GRASS 86 2.0 IN 2.90 IN NA NA 4.0 IN NA 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr Tc CALLS: 1st LEG: 100 LF S.F. @2.60% 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: NA 730 LF PIPE FLOW @ 2.0% 1991 IMPERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: SOIL TYPE: GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALCS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: NA 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr IMPERVIOUS BASIN SIZE: SOIL TYPE: NA GROUND COVER: CN#: RAINFALL TOTALS: SEATAC/LANS CO. Tc CALLS: 1st LEG: 2nd LEG: 3rd LEG: IMP 2 IN 2.344 98 2.9 IN NA NA 4 IN NA 2yr 10yr 25yr 50yr 100yr 100 LF S.F. @ 2.60% 730 LF S.F. @ 2.0% NA COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS: 1) WE ASSUMED 80% IMPERVIOUS FOR THE POST DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 2) SIZING WORKSHEET FOR THE EX. PARKING LOT, ASSUMING UNDEVELOPED CONDITIONS • • 9/28/99 4:46:22 pm Shareware Release GROUP HEALTH PRELIMINARY POND CALCULATIONS JOB #7241 page 1 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: Al NAME: 2YR PREDEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 2.93 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 2.00 inches AREA..: 2.93 Acres 0.00 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN 81.00 0.00 TC 70.41 min 0.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 TcReach - Shallow L: 150.00 ks:5.00 s:0.0100 PEAK RATE: 0.14 cfs VOL: 0.15 Ac -ft TIME: 550 min BASIN ID: A2 NAME: 10YR PREDEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 2.93 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 2.90 inches AREA..: 2.93 Acres 0.00 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN 81.00 0.00 TC 70.41 min 0.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 TcReach - Shallow L: 150.00 ks:5.00 s:0.0100 PEAK RATE: 0.35 cfs VOL: 0.30 Ac -ft TIME: 540 min BASIN ID: A3 NAME: 100YR PREDEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 2.93 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 4.00 inches AREA..: 2.93 Acres 0.00 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN 81.00 0.00 TC 70.41 min 0.00 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 300.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0200 TcReach - Shallow L: 150.00 ks:5.00 s:0.0100 PEAK RATE: 0.67 cfs VOL: 0.52 Ac -ft TIME: 490 min 9/28/99 4:46:22 pm Shareware GROUP HEALTH PRELIMINARY POND CALCULATIONS leJOB #7241 BASIN SUMMARY fib • BASIN ID: A4 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 2.93 Acres RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PRECIPITATION 2.00 inches TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min Release page 2 NAME: 2YR POSTDEVELOPED ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 100.00 TcReach - Channel L: 730.00 impTcReach - Sheet L: 100 impTcReach - Channel L: 730 PEAK RATE: 1.04 cfs VOL: BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERV IMP AREA..: 0.59 Acres 2.34 Acres CN • 86.00 98.00 TC 10.00 min 6.30 min ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0260 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2 00 s:0.0260 00 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 0.39 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A5 NAME: 10YR POSTDEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA 2.93 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE TYPE1A PERV IMP PRECIPITATION 2.90 inches AREA..: 0.59 Acres 2.34 Acres TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min CN • 86.00 98.00 TC 10.00 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 100.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0260 TcReach - Channel L: 730.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 impTcReach - Sheet L: 100.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0260 impTcReach - Channel L: 730.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 PEAK RATE: 1.59 cfs VOL: 0.60 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A6 SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA • 2.93 Acres RAINFALL TYPE • TYPE1A PRECIPITATION 4.00 inches TIME INTERVAL 10.00 min NAME: 100YR POSTDEVELOPED BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs PERV IMP AREA..: 0.59 Acres 2.34 Acres CN 86.00 98.00 TC 10.00 min 6.30 min ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 TcReach - Sheet L: 100.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0260 TcReach - Channel L: 730.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 impTcReach - Sheet L: 100.00 ns:0.0110 p2yr: 2.00 s:0.0260 impTcReach - Channel L: 730.00 kc:21.00 s:0.0200 PEAK RATE: 2.28 cfs VOL: 0.86 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min 9/28/99 4:46:22 pm Shareware Release page 3 GROUP HEALTH PRELIMINARY POND CALCULATIONS JOB #7241 STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST TRAPEZOIDAL BASIN ID No. 1 Description: POND FOR PARKING LOT Length: 50.00 ft. Width: 50.00 ft. Side Slope 1: 3 Side Slope 3: 3 Side Slope 2: 3 Side Slope 4: 3 Infiltration Rate: 0.00 min/inch TRAPEZOIDAL BASIN ID No. 2 Description: FINAL POND Length: 68.00 ft. Width: 50.00 ft. Side Slope 1: 3 Side Slope 3: 3 Side Slope 2: 3 Side Slope 4: 3 Infiltration Rate: 0.00 min/inch • • 9/28/99 4:46:22 pm Shareware Release page 4 GROUP HEALTH PRELIMINARY POND CALCULATIONS JOB #7241 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LIST MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 1 Description: STRUCTURE FOR PARKING LOT Outlet Elev: 100.00 Elev: 98.00 ft Orifice Diameter: 1.8135 in. Elev: 102.50 ft Orifice 2 Diameter: 3.2930 in. RISER DISCHARGE ID No. 2 Description: 12" RISER OVERFLOW Riser Diameter (in): 12.00 elev: 103.00 ft Weir Coefficient...: 9.739 height: 105.00 ft Orif Coefficient...: 3.782 increm: 0.10 ft COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No. 3 Description: ORIFICE/RISER COMBINATION Structure: 1 Structure: Structure: 2 Structure: Structure: • • 9/28/99 4:46:23 pm Shareware Release GROUP HEALTH PRELIMINARY POND CALCULATIONS JOB #7241 page 5 LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- <-PEAK-> OUTFLOW STORAGE < DESCRIPTION > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id (cfs) VOL (cf) 2YR POST @ 2YR PRE 0.14 1.04 1 1 102.45 1 0.14 8083.40 cf 10YR POST ® 10YR PRE 0.35 1.59 1 1 102.93 2 0.35 10206.58 cf 2YR POST ® 2YR PRE 0.14 1.04 2 3 102.09 3 0.13 8774.64 cf 10YR POST ® 10YR PRE 0.35 1.59 2 3 102.72 4 0.29 12115.80 cf 100 YR 0.67 2.28 2 3 103.10 5 0.68 14277.40 cf • • /o,XIME kEPvI/ZEl> el) • Wetpond Sizing Worksheet Summary of the 1998 Surface Water Design Manual Requirements Project Name: Group Health Project Number: 7241 Step 1) Determine volume factor f. Basic size f= 3 Large size f= 4.5 Step 2) Determine rainfall R for mean annual Storm Detemine rainfall R for mean annual storm Rainfall Step 3) Calculate runoff from mean annual storm V, = (0.9Ai + 0.25Atg+ 0.10A.i + 0.01 Aog) X R Ai = tributary area of impervious surface A,2 = tributary area of till grass Atf = tributary area of till forest A� = tributary area of outwash grass R = rainfall from mean annual storm V, = Volume of runoff from mean annual storm otep 4) Calculate wetpool Volume Vb=fV, f = Volume Factor Vb = Volume runoff, mean annual atorm V, = Volume of the wetpool 0.039 (feet) 390,000 (sf) 82,900 (sf) 0 (sf) 0 (sf) 0.039 (feet) 14,497 (cf) 3 14,497 (cf) (cf) 43,492 6.4.1 WETPONDS — BASIC AND LARGE — METHODS OF ANALYSIS FIGURE 6.4.1.A PRECIPITATION FOR MEAN ANNUAL STORM IN INCHES (FEET) ST 1.0/ LA 1.2 ST 1.0 LA 0.8 LA. 0.9 LA 1.0 0.54" (0.045') 0.47" (0.039') �+ .. Incorporated Area ..;:=3 River/Lake — Major Road 0.47" (0.039') NOTE: Areas east of the easternmost isopluvial should use 0.65 inches unless rainfall data is available for the location of interest 24 The mean annual storm is a conceptual storm found by dividing the annual precipitation by the total number of storm events per year 0.52" (0.043'b.56,, (0.047') result, generates large amounts of runoff. For this application, till soil types include Buckley and bedrock soils, and alluvial and outwash soils that have a seasonally high water table or are underlain at a shallow depth (less than 5 feet) by glacial till. U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) hydrologic soil groups that are classified as till soils include a few B, most C, and all D soils. See Chapter 3 for classification of specific SCS soil types. 1998 Surface Water Design Manual 6-69 9/1/98 ATTACHMENT A VISTA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. ASTM SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT May 26, 1999 rurcnase Lonitenea http://www.vlstacheck.com/vista/contirm.asp!order_id=1999032613295 1 705. VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. ORDER SUMMARY Thank you for your order, we appreciate your business. o Please print this page for future reference. o When finished click one of the icons below. Order Number 24152 Product ASTM Site Assessment Report Order Date 5/26/99 1:31:10 PM Description 3417 South 120th Place, Tukwilla, WA, 98188 Price By Contract Subtotal $0.00 Shipping $0.00 Total $0.00 This site subject to the terms and conditions of the provided License Agreement. Copyright 1999 VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. 5060 Shoreham Drive San Diego, CA 92122 All rights reserved. Home Page SEARCH Order Form SHOPPING CART HELP Comments on our Site? Contact the VISTA Webmaster atyvebmaster@vlstainfo.com 011 5/26/99 1:29 PM SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT PROPERTY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION Project Name/Ref #: East Marginal C East Marginal Corporate Park 3417 South 120th Place Tukwiila, WA 98188 Latitude/Longitude: ( 47.494437, 122.288228 ) Paul Frankel Boeing Company PO Box 3707 M/S 7A-XA Seattle, WA 98124 Site Distribution Summary Agency/ Database • Type of Records within 1/8 mile 1/81? 1/4 mile 1/4 to 1/2 mile 1/2 to 1 mile A) Databases searched to 1 mile: US EPA NPL National Priority List 0 0 0 0 US EPA CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Actions and associated TSD (TSD) 0 0 0 0 STATE SPL State equivalent priority list 1 0 0 0 B) Databases searched to 1/2 mile: STATE SCL State equivalent CERCLIS list 0 1 0 - US EPA CERCLIS / Sites currently or formerly under review by US EPA NFRAP 0 0 0 - US EPA TSD RCRA permitted treatment, storage, disposal facilities 0 0 0 - STATE LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks 1 2 2 - STATE SWLF Permitted as solid waste landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations 0 0 0 - STATE TOXICS Washington Site Register 3 3 1 - C) Databases searched to 1/4 mile: STATE UST Registered underground storage tanks 3 2 - - D) Databases searched to 1/8 mile: US EPA ERNS Emergency Response Notification System of spills 0 • - - US EPA LG GEN RCRA registered Targe generators of hazardous waste 1 - - - US EPA SM GEN RCRA registered small generators of hazardous waste 0 - - - For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 • Version 2.6.1 Page 01 This report meets the ASTM standard E-1527 for standard federal and state government database research in a Phase I environmental site assessment. A (-) indicates a distance not searched because it exceeds these ASTM search parameters. LIMITATION OF UABIUTY _ Customer proceeds at its own risk in choosing to rely on VISTA services, in whole or in part prior to proceeding with any transaction. VISTA cannot be an insurer of the accuracy of the information, errors occurring in conversion of data, or for customers use of data. VISTA and its affiliated companies, officers, agents, employees and independent contractors cannot be held liable for accuracy, storage, delivery, loss or expense suffered by customer resulting directly or indirectly from any information provided by VISTA. NOTES For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 02 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Map of Sites within 1 Mile DUWAMIS ERWAY r Ston St zel St tain St S 116t 26th St 0 Subject Site Category: A B C Databases Searched to: 1 mi. 1/2 mi. 1/4 mi. Single Sites Multiple Sites �\ Highways and Major Roads Roads Railroads • Rivers or Water Bodies Utilities • a A • 0.25 0.5 Miles D 1/8 mi. 0 0 NPL, SPL, CERCLIS\ UST ERNS, CORRACTS NFRAP, GENERATORS (TSD) TSD, LUST, SWLF, SCL For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 / Page #3/I SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Map of Sites within 1/4 Mile S 117th SI S 118th St S 124th St S 125th St S 126th St 5 127th St Subject Site 0 Category: Databases Searched to: Single Sites Multiple Sites Highways and Major Roads Roads Railroads • Rivers or Water Bodies - - Utilities A 1 mi. • NPL, SPL, CORRACTS (TSD) B 1/2 mi. CERCLIS\ NFRAP, TSD, LUST, SWLF, SCL 0.05 0.1 Miles C D 1/4 mi. 1/8 mi. 0 0 0 UST ERNS, GENERATORS For More Information CaII VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Page #4 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT Street Map DUWAMIS '\ ERWAY 1.14°S Subject Site 169th St !39th PI Miles Highways and Major Roads Roads Railroads Rivers or Water Bodies Utilities For More Information Call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403 Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Page #5 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SITE INVENTORY MAP ID PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 118 mile) VISTA ID DISTANCE DIRECTION A B C D a Z LORRACTS(TSD)1 a Cl) CJ.1 N CERCLISINFRAP 1 TSD LUST SWLF H V 0 C. UST ERNS [LG GEN SM GEN 1 SAMS TIRE SERVICE OF SEATTLE 5749843 12115 EAST MARGINAL WAY SO 0.08E SEATTLE, WA 98168 N VISTA /D _oJ H X Z 2 METRO S OPR BASE 270234 12100 12200 E MARGINAL WAY S 0.08 E1 SEATTLE, WA 98168 1—= WDIRECTION DUWAMISH FILL SITE DOT 1856289 X X 2 SOUTH BASE 5749842 12100 E MARGINAL WAYS 0.08E SEATTLE, WA 98168 4 S 124TH ST SR 99 0.13Msw X X 3A PLANE SPACE INVESTMENTS . 6808693 12303 E. MARGINAL WAY S. 0.09 E/ SEATTLE, WA 98168 SEATTLE, WA 98168 X 3B METRO SOUTH BASE 7225159 12200 E MARGINAL WY S 0.11E SEATTLE, WA 98168 X KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT 6999865 X 3B UNIT REPAIR FACILITY 1846666 12200E MARGINAL WAYS 0'11 EI SEATTLE, WA 98168 5 11911 E MARGINAL WAYS BLDG C 0.14 NE X X MAP ID SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 118.114 mile) A B C D NPL CORRACTS(TSD) I SPL CERCLISINFRAP 1 TSD SWLF LG GEN SM GEN N VISTA /D _oJ H x Z DISTANCE N 1—= WDIRECTION DUWAMISH FILL SITE DOT 1856289 4 S 124TH ST SR 99 0.13Msw X SEATTLE, WA 98168 KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT 6999865 5 11911 E MARGINAL WAYS BLDG C 0.14 NE X X SEATTLE, WA 98168 METRO S BASE ANNEX 270233 5 11911 E MARGINAL WAYS 0.14 NE X • SEATTLE, WA 98168 SEAFIRST BANK (EIGHT REPORTS) 5412476 6A 12400 E. MARGINAL WAY S. 0.22E X SEATTLE, WA 98168 X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 1.6.1 Page 16 MAP ID SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8 -114 mile) VISTA ID DISTANCE DIRECTION A B C D a Z CORRACTS(TSD)] a co, 0 N CERCLISINFRAP TSD 1- >.- J 1'6J N N U O t- UST CA g w LG GEN ISM GEN 6A SEAFIRST BANK 10680030 MI 12400 E. MARGINAL WAY S. 0.SE SEATTLE, WA 98168 I+- 0 DISTANCE X a v 3 o H 6A GROUP HEALTH RIVERTON OPERATIONS CEN 10680027 12400 E MARGINAL WAY S 0'22 E SEATTLE, WA 98168 DIRECTION Z H U H 1- M VI'S CAF 7697429 X 6B VI'S CAFE/R-1 PLUMBING 3629310 12539 E MARGINAL WAY 0'24 101 SEATTLE, WA 98168 X 7 126TH ST. E. MARGINAL WAY S. 0.30 El MAP ID SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4 -112 mile) A B C D aa.. Z CORRACTS(TSD)] aa... N c..)H N CERCLISINFRAP TSD LUST SWLF N H =. ERNS LG GEN SM GEN No Records Found VISTA ID I+- 0 DISTANCE a a v 3 o H DIRECTION Z H U H 1- M VI'S CAF 7697429 7 126TH ST. E. MARGINAL WAY S. 0.30 El X SEATTLE, WA 98168 AMCAN TRANSPORT INC 1846667 7 12677 E MARGINAL WAYS 0.32 f1 x • SEATTLE, WA 98168 FARWEST TAXI FACILITY 2884077 8 11180 E MARGINAL WAY 0'47 N X SEATTLE, WA MAP ID SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 112.1 mile) VISTA ID DISTANCE DIRECTION A B C D aa.. Z CORRACTS(TSD)1 aa... N c..)H N 1 CERCLISINFRAP F- LUST SWLF TOXICS H =. ERNS LG GEN SM GEN No Records Found X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Pagel] UNMAPPED SITES VISTA ID A B 1C D —1 Z CORRACTS(TSD) 1SPL ISCL 1 CERCLISINFRAP ITSD N 1SWLF TOXICS UST ERNS LG GEN SM GEN LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER KM 7.5 7696979 RIVER KILOMETER 7.5 SEATTLE, WA 98168 X INCO EXPRESS, INC. 10645505 3600 S 124TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 X PORT OF SEATTLE NOISE REMEDY 3629415 VARIOUS ADDRESSES SEATAC, WA X SEATAC TEXACO 11510298 20707 MILITARY RD S SEATAC, WA 98198 X SEATAC PAN AM AV GAS TANKS 4266848 P.O. BOX 68727 SEATTLE, WA 98168 X SEATAC PAN AMERICAN AIR 7248212 SEATAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEATTLE, WA 98168 X SEATAC PAN AM FUEL FARM 7497934 SEATTLE, WA 98168 X M.A. SEGALE SHOP FACILITIES 11650901 19212 GRAGER RDS. TUKWILA, WA X FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 11510200 6400124TH AVE S RENTON, WA X X FOSTORIA PARK INDUST CTR BLDGS ABC 10659521 4400 BLK S 133RD S 134TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 X KENT WA LINE SEG 51 PRINT 468 1841308 MP 16.3 3RD SUB PACIFIC DIVISION KENT, WA X HOLNAM-MARKEY (FOUR REPORTS) 10644045 10TH AVE. S. ' SEATTLE, WA 98027 X HUSKY IDEALEASE 11650844 13123 48TH AVE. S. SEATTLE, WA 98138 X SOUTH TS / SOUTH HHW FACILITY - MRW 11623479 7800 SECOND AVENUE S SEATTLE, WA X WSDOT 1-90 6808640 LACEY MURROW BRIDGE SEATTLE, WA X X = search criteria; • = tag -along (beyond search criteria). For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800.767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 18 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DETAILS PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) VISTA Address': SAMS TIRE SERVICE OF SEATTLE 12115 EAST MARGINAL WAY SO SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 5749843 0.08 MI/E Point STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5702 Agency ID: 9293 Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: SAME AS ABOVE NOT REPORTED 1 Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): 1U UNLEADED GAS 35 NOT REPORTED (NOT AVAILABLE) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE STEEL Map ID 1 VISTA Address': METRO S OPR BASE 12100 12200 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 270234 0.08 MI/E Point RCRA-LgGen • RCRA-Large Generator 1 SRC# 5596 EPA ID: WAD980738983 Agency Address: Generator Class: METRO KING CNTY DOT TRANSIT 12100 12200 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE. WA 98168 Generates at least 1000 kg month o/non-acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely hazardous waste). WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Region: State Detail Description: Contact: METRO SOUTH BASE 12100 E. MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE::PETROL EUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT•4/29/92 Description: MEDIA SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.25 Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.:11/2/94 Description: MEDIAGROUNDWATER Description: MEDIASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE.:INTER/M Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:93-42 Description: WASTE.:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:3/10/92 Description: MED/AGROUNDWATER Description: MEDIASOIL • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 19 Map ID i PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) CONT. Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.20 VISTA Address': SOUTH BASE 12100 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 5749842 Distance/Direction: 0.08 MI / E Plotted as: Point STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5702 Agency ID: 10102 Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: SAME AS ABOVE 33 NOT REPORTED 17 Tank ID: SB -DV -1U Tank Contents: USED OIL, WASTE OIL Tank Age: 10 Tank Size (Units): 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW-1AU Tank Contents: MOTOR OIL Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW-2AU Tank Contents: ANTIFREEZE/COOLANT Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW-3AU Tank Contents: USED OIL, WASTE OIL Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW.AU Tank Contents: UNLEADED GAS Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFWSAU Tank Contents: UNLEADED GAS Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/INSERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW-6AU Tank Contents: DIESEL Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBFW-7AU Tank Contents: DIESEL Tank Age: 5 Tank Size (Units): 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/INSERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL Tank ID: SBM -TAU Tank Contents: USED OIL, WASTE OIL Tank Age: 6 Tank Size (Units): 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE Leak Monitoring: NOTAVAILABLE Tank Piping: NOT AVAILABLE Tank Material: COATED STEEL • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800.767.0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 110 Map ID 2 PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) CONT. Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM•2AU DIESEL 6 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM-3AU MOTOR OIL 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOr AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM•4AU MOTOR OIL 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVEIIN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM-5AU OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCT 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/INSERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM•5AU OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCT 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/INSERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SBM•7AU USED OIL, WASTE OIL 5 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/INSERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW10 ANTIFREEZE/COOLANT 20 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCEDPLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: - Tank Size (Units): SOBFW1U DIESEL 35 1100 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCEDPLAST/C Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW2U DIESEL 35 1100 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVA/LABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW3U USED OIL, WASTE OIL 20 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW-411 UNLEADED GAS Z0 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW-5U DIESEL 20 10000(GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page /11 PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 118 mile) CONT. Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW-6U DIESEL 10 10000(GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED _ NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW7U DIESEL 20 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW-6U DIESEL ?0 10000(GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBFW-9U ' MOTOR OIL 20 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-1U DIESEL 10 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM2U DIESEL ?0 1100 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: EXEMPT NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-3U MOTOR OIL 20 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-4U HAZARDOUS Z0 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-5U OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCT Z0 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOTAVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-6U USED OIL, WASTE OIL 20 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-7U USED OIL, WASTE OIL Z0 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBM-8U USED OIL, WASTE OIL 12 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOTAVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE STEEL • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1.800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 112 PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) CONT. STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank 1 SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SOUTH BASE 11100E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 981681580 Facility ID: 10102 Leak ID#: 2998 Leak Report Date: 1/5/91 Remediation Status: CLEANUP STARTED Media Affected: SOIL Region / District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE:: 6/1/95 Description / Comment: FACILITY COUNTY: KING VISTA Address': PLANE SPACE INVESTMENTS 12303 E. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 6808693 0.09 MI / E Point 1 WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 Agency Address: Region: State Detail Description: Contact: EPA/Agency ID: N/A SAME AS ABOVE NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE::PETROL EUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:6/15/92 Description: MED/ASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.29 Map ID 3A VISTA Address': METRO SOUTH BASE 12200 E MARGINAL WY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 7225159 0.11 MI/E Point SPL - State Equivalent Priority List I SRC# 5429 Agency ID: 2064 WARM 1 Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Status: UNKNOWN Facility Type: NOT AVAILABLE Lead Agency: NOT AVAILABLE State Status: NOT AVAILABLE Pollutant 1: EPA PRIORITY POLLUTANTS -METALS CYANIDE Pollutant 2: PETROLEUM Pollutant 3: UNKNOWN WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: METRO SOUTH BASE 11200 E. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE WA 98168 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED Description: Description: WASTE::PETROL EUM PRODUCT DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:3/1/96 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::FINAL Description: Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:94.16 WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 113 Map ID 3B PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) CONT. Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:3/11/96 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:FINAL Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:94.27 Description: WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.:7/31/96 Description: MEDIASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE.:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:94-35 VISTA Address': UNIT REPAIR FACILITY 12200 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 1846666 Map ID 3B Distance/Direction: 0.11 MI / E Plotted as: Point STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5702 Aaenc vID: 10104 Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: SAME AS ABOVE 9 NOT REPORTED 3 Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): UR -DV -1U USED OIL, WASTE OIL 10 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOrAVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF-1AU DIESEL 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF -1U HEATING OIL 10 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF-1AU MOTOROIL 5 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF -2U HEATING OIL 35 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF-3AU MOTOROIL 5 2001 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF -3U USED OIL. WASTE OIL 10 2000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF-4AU OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCT 5 2001 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVA/LABLE COATED STEEL • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800.767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 1.6.1 Page 114 PROPERTY AND THE ADJACENT AREA (within 1/8 mile) CONT. Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): URF-4AU OTHER PETROLEUM PRODUCT 5 2001 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 118 -114 mile) _ VISTA Address': DUWAMISH FILL SITE DOT S 124TH ST SR 99 SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 1856289 0.13MIISW Point SCL - State Equivalent CERCLIS List 1 SRC# 5428 Agency Address: Status: Facility Type: Lead Agency: State Status: Pollutant 1: Pollutant 2: Pollutant 3: Agency ID: 2063 WARM SAME AS ABOVE UNKNOWN NOTAVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE EPA PRIORITY POLLUTANTS -METALS CYANIDE PCB'S PESTICIDE Map ID VISTA Address': KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT 11911 E MARGINAL WAY S BLDG C SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 6999865 0.14MIINE Point Aaenc vID: 10103 Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: SAME AS ABOVE 5 NOT REPORTED 3 Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBMX-1U MOTOR OIL 13 1100 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBMX-2U UNLEADED GAS 13 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBMX-3U UNLEADED GAS J3 10000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCEDPLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBMX-4U USED OIL, WASTE OIL 11 1100 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: EXEMPT NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASTIC Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): SOBMX-5U UNLEADED GAS 2 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 - 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 115 Map ID 5 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8 -114 mile) CONT. STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Facility ID: Leak ID#: KING COUNTY METRO TRANSIT 11971 E MARGINAL WAYS BLDG C SEATTLE, WA 981682597 10103 5622 Leak Report Date: 1/20/95 Remediation Status: CLEANUP STARTED Media Affected: SOIL Region / District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE.: 6/1/95 Description / Comment: FACILITY COUNTY. KING VISTA Address': METRO S BASE ANNEX 11911 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 270233 Distance/Direction: 0.14 MI / NE Plotted as: Point WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: METRO SOUTH BASE 11911 E. MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE. WA 98168 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.1/20/95 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:93-44 Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:3/1/95 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:93-48 Map ID 5 VISTA Address': SEAFIRST BANK (EIGHT REPORTS) 12400 E. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 5412476 0.22 MI/SE Point WA Toxics - Washington Toxics 1 SRC# 5701 _EPA/Agency ID: _N/A Agency Address: Region: State Detail Description: Contact: SAME AS ABOVE NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:5/14/98 Description: MEDIA:GROUNDWATER Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:98-04 • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1.800.767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 116 Map ID 6A SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8 -1/4 mile) CONT. VISTA Address': SEAFIRST BANK 12400 E. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 10680030 0.22 MI/SE Point WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Description: SAME AS ABOVE WASTE::PETROL EUM PRODUCT Description: MEDIAGROUNDWATER Description: MEDIASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:93-43 Region: State Detail Description: Contact: NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED Map ID 6A VISTA Address': GROUP HEALTH RIVERTON OPERATIONS CEN 12400 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 10680027 Distance/Direction: 10.22 MI / SE Plotted as: Point STATE UST - State Underground Storage Tank 1 SRC# 5702 Aaenc vID: 101420 Agency Address: Underground Tanks: Aboveground Tanks: Tanks Removed: GROUP HEALTH RIVERTON OPERATIONS CEN 12400E MARGINAL WAY S TUKWILA WA 98168 3 NOT REPORTED 1 Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): 3757U OTHER 23 NOT REPORTED (NOT AVAILABLE) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: REMOVED NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): 47661SU DIESEL 13 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOTAVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Tank ID: Tank Contents: Tank Age: Tank Size (Units): 47662NU DIESEL 13 5000 (GALLONS) Tank Status: Leak Monitoring: Tank Piping: Tank Material: ACTIVE/IN SERVICE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE COATED STEEL Map ID 6A VISTA Address': VI'S CAFE/R-1 PLUMBING 12539 E MARGINAL WAY SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 3629310 0.24 MI/SE Point STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank 1 SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Facility ID: Leak ID#: VI'S CAFE/R-1 PLUMBING 11539E MARGINAL WAY TUKWILA, WA 200182 1846 Leak Report Date: 5/30/90 Remediation Status: REPORTED CLEANED UP Media Affected: SOIL Region / District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE: 5/21/95 • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 -800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 117 Map ID 6B SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/8.1/4 mile) CONT. Description / Comment: FACILITY COUNTY:: KING SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 1/4 -1/2 mile) VISTA Address': VI'S CAF - 126TH ST. E. MARGINAL WAY S. SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 7697429 0.30 MI/SE Point WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Description: SAME AS ABOVE WASTE: PETROL EUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.: 11/19/90 Description: MEDIA•SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:90.17 Description: WASTE:PETROLEUM PRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:1/10/91 Description: MEDIASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER91-20 Region: State Detail Description: Contact: NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED Map ID 7 VISTA Address': AMCAN TRANSPORT INC 12677 E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 1846667 Map ID 7 Distance/Direction: 0.32 MI / SE Plotted as: Point STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Facility ID: Leak ID#: EDWIN J BECKER 11677E MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE, WA98188 97401 5593 Leak Report Date: 1/6/95 Remediation Status: AWAITING CLEANUP Media Affected: SOIL Region 1 District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE: 6/1/95 Description 1 Comment: FACILITY COUNTY. KING VISTA Address': FARWEST TAXI FACILITY 11180 E MARGINAL WAY SEATTLE, WA VISTA ID#: Distance/Direction: Plotted as: 2884077 0.47 MI / N Point STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank / SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: Facility ID: Leak ID#: SAME AS ABOVE 200365 1533 Leak Report Date: 5/9/89 Remediation Status: REPORTED CLEANED UP Media Affected: SOIL Region 1 District: N • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1.800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 118 SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 114 -112 mile) CONT. Description / Comment: Description I Comment: STATUS DATE: 5/21/95 FACILITY COUNTY: KING SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA (within 112 -1 mile) No Records Found • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 1.6.1 Page 119 UNMAPPED SITES VISTA Address': LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER KM 73 RIVER KILOMETER 7.5 SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 7696979 CERCLIS 1 SRC# 5790 EPA/Agency ID: EPA ID: WA0002329837 Agency Address: EPA Region: Congressional District: Federal Facility: Facility Ownership: Site Incident Category: Federal Facility Docket: NPL Status: Incident Type: Proposed NPL Update #: Final NPL Update #: Financial Management System ID: Latitude: Longitude: Lat/Long Source: LatlLong Accuracy: Dioxin Tier: USGS Hydro Unit: RCRA Indicator: SAME AS ABOVE 10 0 Agency Code() NOT AVAILABLE unknown Agency Code () NOT ON NPL Unknown 0 0 NOT REPORTED 0 0 Agency Code 0 Unknown Unknown 0 Unknown Media Affected: SOIL Alias Name: LOWER DUWAMISH RIVER RM 7.5 Description /Comment: FACILITY COUNTY:: KING Alias Street: RIVER MILE 7.5 Alias City: SEATTLE Alias Zip: 98168 Alias State: WA Alias Latitude: Alias Longitude: 0 0 Alias Description: NOT REPORTED Unit Id: Unit Name: 0 51TEWIDE Type: DISCOVERY Qualifier: UNKNOWN Name: NOT REPORTED Plan Status: Unknown Lead Agency: EPAFUND•FINANCED Category: Unknown Actual Start Date: NOT REPORTED Actual Completion Date: MARCH25, 1998 VISTA Address': PORT OF SEATTLE NOISE REMEDY VARIOUS ADDRESSES SEATAC, WA VISTA ID#: 3629415 STATE LUST - State Leaking Underground Storage Tank 1 SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: NIA Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Facility ID: 200753 Leak ID#: 7120 Leak Report Date: 10/31/91 Remediation Status: CLEANUP STARTED Media Affected: SOIL Region / District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE.: 5/21/95 Description /Comment: FACILITY COUNTY:: KING VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 120 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. VISTA Address': SEATAC PAN AM AV GAS TANKS P.O. BOX 68727 SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 7248212 4266848 _ WA Toxics • Washington Toxics 1 SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: Description: N/A Agency Address: SEATAC PAN AM AV GAS TANKS P.O. BOX 68727 SEATAC, WA 98158 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED MEDIA:SOIL Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT REPORT TYPE:!NTERIM Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.:1/21/93 ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.08 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER92-45 WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: _N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT::12/29/92 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.41 Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT.10/31/94 Description: MEDIAGROUNDWATER Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:93.41 Description: WASTE:PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED R£PORT:10/28/92 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.38 VISTA Address': SEATAC PAN AMERICAN AIR SEATAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 7248212 WA Toxics • Washington Toxics 1 SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SEATACPANAMERICANAIR SEATAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SEATTLE, WA 98158 Description: WASTE.:PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT: 10/4/91 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:!NTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:92.08 • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 121 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. Region: State Detail Description: Contact: NORTHWEST NO NOT REPORTED VISTA Address': SEATAC PAN AM FUEL FARM SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 7497934 WA Toxics - Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Description: WASTE:PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:: 10/24/97 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:95-16 Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:12/26/96 Description: MEDIA:SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE::INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:95.16 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED VISTA Address': FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 6400 124TH AVE S RENTON, WA VISTA ID#: 11510200 STATE LUST • State Leaking Underground Storage Tank 1 SRC# 5703 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Facility ID: 479769 Leak ID#: 479952 Leak Report Date: 7t24/98 Remediation Status: AWAITING CLEANUP Media Affected: SOIL Region I -District: N Description / Comment: STATUS DATE: 7/25/98 Description / Comment: FACILITY COUNTY. RING VISTA Address': FOSTORIA PARK INDUST CTR BLDGS ABC 4400 BLK S 133RD S 134TH ST SEATTLE, WA 98168 VISTA ID#: 10659521 SCL - State Equivalent CERCUS List 1 SRC# 5428 Agency Address: Status: Facility Type: Lead Agency: State Status: Pollutant 1: Pollutant 2: Pollutant 3: Agency ID: 2411 WARM FOSTORIA PARK INDUST CTR BLDGS ABC 4400 BLK S 133RD S 134TH ST TUKWILA WA 98168 UNKNOWN NOT AVAILABLE NOTAVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE EPA PRIORITY POLLUTANTS -METALS CYANIDE CONVENTIONAL CONTAMINANTS, ORGANIC UNKNOWN ' VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 122 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. VISTA Address': HOLNAM-MARKEY (FOUR REPORTS) 10TH AVE. S. SEATTLE, WA 98027 VISTA ID#: 10644045 _ WA Toxics • Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:: 11/3/98 Description: MEOIASOIL Description: MEDIASURFACE WATER Description: MEDIA.SEDIMENTS Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:98-09 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED VISTA Address': HUSKY IDEALEASE 13123 48TH AVE. S. SEATTLE, WA 98138 s;.• VISTA ID#: 11650844 WA Toxics • Washington Toxics / SRC# 5701 EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:12/29/98 Description: _ MEDIAGROUNDWATER Description: MEDIASOIL Description: REPORT TYPE:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:98.12 Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED VISTA Address': SOUTH TS / SOUTH HHW FACILITY - MRW 7800 SECOND AVENUE S SEATTLE, WA VISTA ID#: 11623479 STATE SWLF - Solid Waste Landfill / SRC# 5619 Agency ID: NKS6 Agency Address: Facility Type: Facility Status: Permit Status: SAME AS ABOVE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE NOT AVAILABLE VISTA Address': WSDOT 1-90 LACEY MURROW BRIDGE SEATTLE, WA VISTA ID#: 6808640 WA Toxics - Washington Toxics 1 SRC# 5701 _EPA/Agency ID: N/A Agency Address: SAME AS ABOVE Region: NORTHWEST State Detail Description: NO Contact: NOT REPORTED Description: WASTE::PETROLEUMPRODUCT Description: DATE ECOLOGY RECEIVED REPORT:8/14/96 Description: MEDIAGROUNDWATER ' VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 123 UNMAPPED SITES CONT. Description: MEDIA -SOIL Description: REPORT TYPE.:INTERIM Description: ISSUE OF SITE REGISTER:94-42 • VISTA address includes enhanced city and ZIP. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Verson 2.6.1 Page 124 SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED A) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1 MILE NPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5789 The agency release date for NPL was April, 1999. The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites identified for priority remedial actions under the Superfund program. A site must meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking system score, be chosen as a state's top priority site, or meet three specific criteria set jointly by the US Dept of Health and Human Services and the US EPA in order to become an NPL site. SPL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5429 The agency release date for Confirmed Contaminated Sites Report was November, 1998. The Washington Confirmed Contaminated Sites Report contains a WARM (Washington Ranking Model) BIN Number of 0-5 which is assigned to an NPL site designating it as a State Priority Site. CORRACTS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA maintains this database of RCRA facilities which are undergoing "corrective action". A "corrective action order" is issued pursuant to RCRA Section 3008 (h) when there has been a release of hazardous waste or constituents into the environment from a RCRA facility. Corrective actions may be required beyond the facility's boundary and can be required regardless of when the release occurred, even if it predates RCRA. B) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/2 MILE CERCLIS VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5790 The agency release date for CERCLIS was March, 1999. The CERCLIS List contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List(NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. The information on each site includes a history of all pre -remedial, remedial, removal and community relations activiies or events at the site, financial funding information for the events, and unrestricted enforcement activities. NFRAP VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5791 The agency release date for CERCLIS-NFRAP was March, 1999. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly, or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1 • 800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report May 26, 1999 Version 1.6.1 Page 125 SCL VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5428 The agency release date for Suspected Contaminated Sites Report was November, 1998. The Washington Suspected Contaminated Sites Report is not assigned a WARM (Washington Ranking Model) BIN Number, designating these sites a contaminated site. The Washington Affected Media and Contaminants Report includes sites in the following categories: (1) National Priorities List (NPL) Sites, Federal Lead; (2) National Priorities List (NPL) Sites, State Lead; (3) State Sites, Confirmed Hazardous Substances Sites (sites where the presence of hazardous substances has been confirmed by laboratory or field determinations; (4) Potential Hazardous Substance Sites, these sites have been reported to the Department of Ecology and further investigation including sampling is underway; (5) State Sites Under- going Long -Term Monitoring; and (6) Sites For Which Cleanup is Complete. This report includes some leaking underground storage tank sites. RCRA-TSD VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA TSDs are facilities which treat, store and/or dispose of hazardous waste. SWLF VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5619 The agency release date for Municipal Solid Waste Facilities was September, 1998. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology, Solid Waste Services Program. The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-6133. The Washington Solid Waste Inventory does not provide facility locations. LUST VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5703 The agency release date for Leaking Underground Storage Tank List was March, 1999. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. The agency may be contacted at: 360-4077179. The Washington Department of Ecology Leaking Underground Storage Tank List contains some of the same sites included on the Regional lists. This list is being used because there are some new sites and it includes a site identification number. Because two lists are being used, sites may be reporting twice. WA Site Register VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/2 mile of your property. SRC#: 5701 The agency release date for Toxic Cleanup Program Site Register was February, 1999. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology, Toxics Cleanup Program. The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-7200. The Washington Site Register Toxics Cleanup Program report details activities related to the study and cleanup of hazardous waste sites under the Model Toxics Control Act. Note that the State of Washington cautions that information contained under the Site Description is summarized information from an Independent Report and the Department of Ecology is not responsible for the accuracy of these reports. This report includes some leaking underground storage tank sites. For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1- 800.767.0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 126 C) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/4 MILE UST's SRC#: 5702 VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 114 mile of your property. The agency release date for Underground Storage Tank Database was March, 1999. This database is provided by the Department of Ecology, Solid Hazardous Waste Program. The agency may be contacted at: 360-407-7179; Caution -Many states do not require registration of heating oil tanks, especially those used for residential purposes. D) DATABASES SEARCHED TO 1/8 MILE ERNS SRC#: 5598 VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. The agency release date for was December, 1998. The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database containing records from October 1986 to the release date above and is used to collect information for reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. The database contains information from spill reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. The ERNS hotline number is (202) 260-2342. RCRA-LgGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Large Generators are facilities which generate at least 1000 kg./month of non -acutely hazardous waste (or 1 kg./month of acutely hazardous waste). RCRA-SmGen VISTA conducts a database search to identify all sites within 1/8 mile of your property. SRC#: 5596 The agency release date for HWDMS/RCRIS was February, 1999. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of facilities which report generation, storage, transportation, treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA Small and Very Small generators are facilities which generate less than 1000 kg./month of non -acutely hazardous waste. End of Report For more information call VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. at 1.800 - 767 - 0403. Report ID: 415201901 Date of Report: May 26, 1999 Version 2.6.1 Page 127 ATTACHMENT B BOEING PROPERTY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY REPORT May 25, 1999, (Revised June 24, 1999) Property Name: East Marginal Way Corporate Park Date of Assessment: 5/25/99, Revised 6/24/1999 ransaction Property Purchase Property Sale Property Lease: New Lease ❑ Lease Renewal ❑ Lease Termination Lease Start and End Date: Responsible Division: Military Aircraft and Missile Systems Boeing Property Manager: Mark Kowalski Property Manager Phone Number: 425-477-3861 Site Contact Phone Number: Same Building Number: 21-01 through 21-06 Transaction Start Date: Property Square Footage: Intended Use: Environmental Questionnaire Submitted: Yes ® No 0 798,254 P. Property Name: Address: Owner: Owner Address: Phone: East Marginal Way Corporate Park 3417 S. 120th P. Tukwilla, WA 98188 Boeing P.O. 3707, Seattle WA 98124 Property Manager: Mark Kowalski Address: P.O. Box 3707 MS 4X-04 Phone: 425-477-3861 Building or Property Description: Other Current Occupants: Warehouse, laboratories, machine shop, hoz waste transfer Prior Uses of the Property or Building: Boeing has been the only occupant of the facility; prior uses of the land were for farming 6/24/99— Company Office SHEA, E Marginal Corp Park Assessment Summary Form, Page 1 of 4 Suiii><inaiy_ of Findings This review is for the purpose of assessing environmental risk, as part of a "due diligence" review to satisfy, in part, the "innocent purchaser" provisions in the Superfund Amendments and Re -Authorization Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 9601(35)(A)(i)). Discussion: As part of the due diligence process in evaluating the environmental risk for the subject property, Boeing Company Office Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs (SHEA) contracted VISTA Information Services, Inc. To prepare a Real Estate Transaction Screen Report (V) for the subject property. VISTA's Real Estate Transaction Screen Report (V) meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard E —1528 for standard federal and state database research in a Tranaction Screen environmental assessment. Boeing SHEA personnel also reviewed the following reports and documents related to this site: Title Author Date Contents Preliminary Environmental Audit Earth Consultants 9/12/88 Phase I audit for Building 21-05 Property Transfer Assessment Chempro Sweet -Edwards 1/25/89 Summary of PCB removal and sampling work Draft E. Marginal Way Cleanup Study Chempro/Sweet- Edwards 2/20/89 Sampling results from sampling on Berkley Parcel. Real Estate Transfer Environmental Assessment R. F. Weston 2/27/90 Phase I Assessment for Berkeley Parcel Option Real Estate Transfer Assessment, Berkely Parcel Option R.F. Weston 3/90 Phase II Assessment: Sampling on Berkley Parcel option above and south of Building 5 (21-05). Memos Berkley East Marginal Way Environmental Assessment S.D. Ryan to F. A . Waterworth 2/16/90 Review of environmental conditions from Weston Report Berkley Addition and Option Property Environmental Assessment S.D. Ryan to F. A. Waterworth 3/29/90 Review of environmental conditions of Carisino property. Assessment of UST liability Documents Tank Summery Report Internal Boeing 5/11/99 List of Tanks onsite Revison of Wastewater Discharge Authorization No. 211 King County: Arnaud Girard, Investigator 1/14/99 Wastewater discharge permit Laboratory Report Boeing Lab 5/14/99 Laboratory results of PCB testing of elevator hydraulic oil In addition reviewing the above documents, The following activities were conducted: 1. Mr. Paul Frankel, corporate SHEA's representative, conducted a site walk on 5/25 and 5/27 to observe the facility for potential environmental liabilities. 2. Mr. David Logsdon, SHEA representative from, Defense, Space and Missile Systems was interviewed and accompanied Mr. Paul Frankel on the site walk on 5/25. Mr. Logsdon assisted Mr. Frankel in completing the Boeing Real Property Environmental Information. Request Fortn 3. Mr. Rourke Doubt, SHEA, representative from, Defense, Space and Missile Systems was interviewed with respect to transformers and capacitors regarding PCB's. 4. Mr. Frankel interviewed Mr. Steven Fuller from R.F. Weston regarding Weston's property assessment conducted in early 1990 (report referenced above). 5. Mr. Frankel Interviewed Mr. Lance Smith who manages the tanks at the facility. The purpose of the interview was to determine the purpose of the 850 gallon UST located at Building 21-03, door 6/24/99— Company Office SHEA. E Marginal Corp Park Assessment Summary Form. Page 2 of 4 N-4 and whether it has or the soil adjacent to the tank has been tested. Mr. Smith indicated that the tank is used as an overflow spill prevention tank to catch any overflow from drums in an adjacent drum storage shed. The drums in the shed have secondary containment in the form of metal pans. Mr. Smith indicated that the tanks them selves and the soil have not been tested for integrity or leakage. UST's used solely for emergency containment are not subject to integrity testing. Discussion The East Marginal Way Corporate Park site contains six buildings consisting of five warehouses and one hazardous material handling facility. These buildings were used for storage, laboratories, Light machining, composite materials testing, painting and other black box activities. SHEA can find no evidence of past onsite activity that would have had the potential for subsurface - contamination based on observations of the warehouse buildings, a review of recent use and interviews conducted. The underground storage tank located at the north side of the 21-03 has not been tested for a release. The following items of note were observed during the document review, site walk and interviews: 1. Building 21-05 Soil Removal Action. During the construction activities for building 21-05 in late 1988 an uncontrolled disposal area was observed at the building 21-05 and hillside to the west. A substantial soil removal project was conducted to remove 400 cubic yards of soil containing petroleum and about 5000 cubic yards of soil containing PCBs from beneath the current 21-05 building and on the hillside west of building 21-05. The documents prepared by Chempro and Sweet -Edwards, referenced in the table above, document this soil removal action and subsequent soil sampling and analysis. Sampling conducted after the building 21-05 soil removal action indicated that no significant levels of contaminated soil remained under the 21-05 building after the removal action. Soil collected from boring TB -04, located on the hillside above as shown on Figure 2.1 in Property Transfer Assessment, East Marginal Way Site, Chemical Processors, Inc. (January 25, 1989), contained PCB's at a concentration of 1.8 mg/kg in a composite sample formed from samples collected from 1.0, 9.0 and 18.0 feet and 7.4 mg/kg in a discrete sample collected at 18 feet below ground surface. 2. Additional Parcel Property Assessment. R.F. Weston conducted a subsequent property assessment study in early 1990. This study focused on the area to the south and west of Building 21-05. Weston sampled soil in the area to the south, at the base and on top of the hill slope above the 21-05 building. PCB's were found in concentrations ranging from 200 to 950 ug/kg (pbb) and total Petroleum hydrocarbons were found in concentrations ranging from 40 to 550 ug/kg. The sample collections depths ranged from the ground surface (1 to 6 inches) at the base of the hill to 7.5 to 30 feet below ground surface in soil borings drilled on top of the hill adjacent to Highway 99. 3. Catch Basin. During 1997, Boeing representatives observed oil in the catch basin located north of building 21-04, about 20 feet south of door E-3. Boeing installed an oil water separator as a capital improvement best management practice per the site's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. During the site walk conducted on 5/25/99, oil was observed to be in the catch basin of the new oil/water separator. The source of this oil is likely from the trucking facility that borders our facility to the east. Amcan Transport Inc owns this facility and has an unknown number of underground storage tanks. However it is known that Amcan Transport reported a leaking underground storage tank to the WADOE in January 1995 according the VISTA report. The VISTA indicates that the status of this tank as awaiting cleanup. The SRC # for this tank is 5703 and the leak ID # is 5593. 6/24/99— Company Office SHEA, E Marginal Corp Park Assessment Summary Form, Page 3 of 4 4. Carasino UST. Weston investigated the UST's at the Carasino property (Vi's Cafe on E. Marginal) as part of their 1990 Additional Parcel Assessment. Sampling results adjacent to the UST's showed high concentrations of petroleum product. At that time Boeing opted to not purchase this property due the environmental liability associated with these UST's. The VISTA report indicates that these tanks were closed and soil remediated as of 5/95. Signed: �, I /Paul Frankel SHEA Project FocI OIJ Steven Tochko Company Office SHEA Remediation Manager 6/24/99— Company Office SHEA. E Marginal Corp Park Assessment Summary Form, Page 4 of 4 12-14P-.2 - y _ . 46, P.plar Wetland fla I flag d6`a X/ L etland flag c13' t - .j, Wetland flag � v ■2b.1 2' Pop 2�y arbed 9.5 nc h 30.0 1111 fene ¶ 29.4 lone fenc _`pj "•—.i.'- ..yup •. czr IIi• r� lone e jE 128.7 29.4 arm x. 'rr c 29.8 29.9 amv ▪ "3 Yq3 30.0 pnW tl�o /29.4 : ;34. a•=47:5=aa 27.1 4' chain Zink fen e 6� top rockery sa.a _ arra=a�a=�ca�=r M n b Z' 4' cll� - fen s' •rdard 6'' 5 � _ . � . : Ery_. • � - _4.310tkerll-+LAPPK•ots,�slt__��i •e Z�" w� fen .."7.411,' 331.1 P 1 n w d ag Ii' Clot\ •s 1 \ N w od I 4' f ult gree opk\> •Olet etland flag A2 c o a / Zl r Wet and A �( '+ +y/ YY r \a(�eonwo C tbrS�1'oo� tla: d flag 10/5 r�Wetlan a�gC°1�4� ‘6s % I Alder Pine , 8' otto wood o & Q� f 4 Alder abo ""111 o, ' Cotto wood et coG k• t' der ��a ].•.453agld �0itf a • er No harm er • • 1A •i' PVC pipe 09. • Guar 2o,1f \ �A3 Sa it tar sewer + • thea ou 5,01.1 . 1 Clothes line E� •dew / 3 D 12" cmp cu N EX. CB ro RIM --27.9 m 2172cyc1or-J %21N 11 17' ple 1 1 7' ornarlerfnl tr \ X10' Cedar arch 4' Id e= 5' Al Alder 6' Alder 6' Alde op D z m c IR Ir 269 Im Top 1 Top NN IZACrillbf w }'4' e f / il'9laltd>F ag A9 �Jr*10' i1 der 1 j 1 \ 1 I r 3Q 19. g *4 A t / • Wet nd i ag . \ /8r :I ch N 2' 26D I 1 \ \9prC° •/ To To I \I3oAt•• Toe r / I OP.1 / 21 • G vel 1 Q69 • Grve] 2 0 Ir. A Ri 21. ir •Gra e • 39.3 • 38.3 / \ \ • 395 This area • 41.4 Gam- 39.7 ) •25.5 { 3B, �We dflag c6'a 2' QST P• \ M1J\\b 1 6�t1 d tag c6`a 1' / • 41.7 24.7 V tlarc f ag 25.0 3 D N L. g c6'a :3 r 1 z fc6'o c rn •43.0 ,:a 25 Vett d f 6'a 5'' 12' Bjrch# Q `aZ 0 ch fla b5' • 302 `4413 14' Cottonwood • .14_ V45 38i -Cedar 42 16' Birch .1 #32 ttel.lar dust #38 14' B1r`R 14' B rch - Jn \) 1 II143 18' Cedar 28' tree 17,1�,% 4,0 342---- 34_` R�l��� ter pb`i' #39 10' Birch .036 12' Birch" 4140 8' Birch \ 41 0 016°' Birch twin > �_ r 41 14' Birch 35 4b51'•t r *V34 (ljg1ly . c clone fe8 i r *12' AAldedi \\ tland flag d6'a e44 Wetland fla etland flag c13' lb4land flag 69' P $6b ' P .""e 01133 14'�'ednv- line o ver, cur. gu er Alder g alb ,, Wetland flag 1 �� • 26,1 �t� lt4 /8• cyc1nr1 fen- -wgr arbed 95 nch r Poplar rnn Poyser pa" brwitgE-14ra rP a stamned 28f L 2 O v t0 3110 g ire fe Fsy m Hydra ab lumina. :.; S.. BOUTH 124TH 8TAEET "'"7 &;,4 AA1 K eYH 0a1K K K K K K .s` ..ri1 V iw\ 4 4► I K7. e7■Rl135neuaC N SBFi, Vila! 1i/19eeeesi��aw� �sucace�eesCS , /ZU 2.1110M UUUUUU 1,K KKK KALI W BUILDING 2 STORY BUILDING 45404 SI. 8001 MG PROJECT STATISTICS • MING; REMEILSC1N1f]5 FRONT s«5 REAR OCCUPANCY CROUPS: CONSTRUCTION TTPE: SEISMIC ZONE: 5111.28f1:PHA5 PHASE I BU4II ML WILDING MAIN FLOOR MFA SCOW FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA BUILONG Lbw FLOOR AR(A Rpm (1.009 AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA 1997 UBC, U1H: UPC, WC. AND CBT OF TUIDNIA zoic COX •NIG/L 25'-O, KIK NONE 8 ( OFFICE 55x) / F (1Eo1/RB) 65*) 11-11 SPRINNLIR(D 5 255,149 SF. (836 9CREs 275.7193 SF. (63! ) 40.806 SF. 40.806 S.F. 6L,6L2 51. 40.806 Sf. 40.506 SF. 81.612 S.F. pMI5NG PW1.5E 6RFOUIRFIt OR10E 28,564 5F. 5/1.000 S.F. 87 STALLS ILANUFACIUPoNG 55,048 85. 1/1.000 5F. 54 STALLS TOTALFFI141 STALLS PHASE R OCE 25.564 S.F. 5/1.000 SF. 57 STALLS YANUFACBJRING 53.048 SF. 1/1.000 SF. 54 STALLS TOTAL 141 STALLS PARIONG PRONGED: PHASE 8 STANDARD COMPACT IWNICAPPE0 x ',al. 1 • • , A/5 < ... t I \ .i ► I I I' 1' ,e. 1 .. 'c, < < I 1 r �� REL a I � 1 1 I I I I t i. 1~ l . I I I I A I I I I I I I I I I I 1 5 STALLS TOTAL PRON0E0 PHASE It STANDARD COMPACT HANDICAPPED TOTAL PROMO (RATIO 4.3/1.000) IMO SJI:113 410 WM. 412 STALLS 264 STALLS es STALLS 6 STALLS 360 STALLS ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOUTH 126TH STREET 1 ` I I II .1 I o( Cao � � 1• \'• it Ii i I / /.' ).aj l'' / / / / • / �0LLA6�IAND CHAIN / i !FIRE nF�i nf'f'F[c1 ��- / __ --, „ / / / �. 1 �a / .,. •l3I• ,` ` Y/�` ``mo' ' 1l•'•.' 5' R/W DEDICATION \/ ;� I-^© i` 12'S0 %/ilk Am. `� .:0 •z,.. ,r.) 3 • •�1 VICINITY 1 MAC EXISTING,i42IEWAY (. LIGHT PO13E • 0 �Fd SOUTH 126TH .TR F, — t.>— • W CB RT1 \� 1' ) c. TEMP. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT EX. LIGHT POLE EXTEND EX. 18" 10 LF± W/ RIP RAP PROTECTION 1Y IE=22.1±(EX. 18" CMP) 1 40'.. R/W /M 0)) 30' TABER TO EXISTING (10:1) 8" SS PLAN VIEW 1•=20' EX. SSMH RIM=30.92 8" PVC W) IE=17.77 8" PVC N IE=18.24 8" PVC E IE=18.35 l EX. 18" CMP TO BE REMOVED 0 O CONSTRUCTION KEYNOTES SAWCUT UNE 1' MINIMUM INSIDE EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT. STA 37+15, 16' LT TO 21' LT. EXISTING POWER POLE TO BE RELOCATED. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE RELOCATION WITH SEATTLE CITY LIGHT AS U.S WEST. STA. 35+65, 16' LT. TO 21' LT. EXISTING POWER POLE TO BE RELOCATED. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE W/ US WEST L SOUTH 124TH STREET \ • Seating Area b I-.'.ete ai IUn fUti l'.'. /itdll '" 3 67 ' `Of �� t ��nmbe fi]i.� l di ltfdl J "tlM �,.. /4 �niita:aifiZ—tAII•s WEillIN ...ia"'.li 100.,1111111/41V- �'�•�!'�iMII AMiiti.e�aiindrl1110 �1I IE foee oflcore. 1 UIto i r wRb.ei1l,,W!ilJ,�lea!`L:/r'rf�::,u11111reu1 �. )14 ;.,1! �� \ \• NOTE: \ ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE EQUIPPED WITH PROFESSIONALLY DESIGNED AND INSTALLED AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. JI 11,‘ conternne Of ere. .rff.. te' canteen.. of art. »„» .f cr.. •3' "Olin. of cr... TYPE 3 lnL 5' WIDE •• •<..<..l:.. of creel, rot... —.f • •• cancer.. of creek LANDSCAPE PLAN 1"=30' 0 WI 347 12 OP e d1i " ail x-xx x 41 H 0 0 U 0 sheet L1.01 1 1 1 EXISTS.* MAPLE 7—EXISTING HOLLY EXISTING POPLAR EXISTING PIM EXISTNG FALSE CYPRESS -�1��ii�ii i1 r j�;'impi nunu_____r_____ge��������____�il�����iiimmuldimrrill■■■■■11 EXISTING POPLAR • EXISTING ALDERS /—EXISTING POPLAR K J. ti (- EXISTING LAUREL K ,TA sT ELEVATION from SOUTH 126th ST Abte: Plantings shown 4-6 years after installation y8 i E O r I o' I'p IrO� 'Ql 1.�4TdLd>2ttll$11Daati,3Had)aMirtm' F4i a�r( .4©i3C rhmie 0, 1.111 v i�ai�Vege'�a+�'6S 3�9 d/i'ii� oa Ir.=�e9d.3Ti�812�fraib' Wetland flag b6X 8 6' Alder *.g° •a swam Tar 32" Holl. 160 •�% - t- IILCnJIf -■IJ .. O r"_4 __ ,vwveov.� i- ��O y it.-�'�� : �q•���q.Er34A.RlRI;ty60�� a Row or Poplars (Can not be saved) 12.5" Pine a 0 26" and 32" Pr • i el't ____________ 12 plan E- .LY ENLARGEMENT PLAN 1/16%1"-o- IIIIIII. 37 ISTING ROADWAY? Wei sheer L2.01 • ( r 1 SOUTH 124TH STREET wear %ta 1 ' 1-7 / / 1.z •= ;' i;` 1.0. P LI, I 101 o 1,' Vau ��.;�... PHAsG1_/ --is J fp _..r.. �... rH S€iIC �.'` : - - ass4:__-___-f----- T 1. J1'I!II (`•!`...,!,I'ti, Si`t�. i;`i.I�JiIII ?rI.,i :_ pia , 1 c: , , 4,.. 1.•. RUSE 2570! _eos !lill!1l X IN AN AL ZONE _yea�}�y'rnu�N.uu...�.uri.r4s �t4 9 tip_. n�oQuu� �I_ ,I S�tu I "I 111 I ■�L: i '' \S.�y142`K7fil STREET n SITE PLAN L- 0 25 50 100 300 50. VICINITY MAP J PROJECT STATISTICS COT/EC . 1997 U8C, UMC. UPC, UFC. AND CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING CODE MIC/L ZONING: 60001000 BA K FRONT SIDES REAR OCCUPANCY CROUPS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: SEISMIC ZONE: SRF AREA. PHASE I PHASE 11 gull 01911 AREAS, BUILDING 'A': MAIN FLOOR AREA SECOND FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA 8811.0040 'B': MAIN FLOOR AREA SECOND FLOOR AREA TOTAL FLOOR AREA 25'-0' NONE NONE 8 ( OFFICE 355) / F (TECH/R&D 6511) V -N SPRINKLERED 3 286.149 S.F. (6.56 ACRES) 275.719.5 S.F. (6.33 ACRES) 40.806 S.F. 40.806 S.F. 81,612 S.F. 40.806 S.F. 40,806 S.F. 81,612 S.r. PARKING REOUIRFD. PHASE I: OFFICE 28,564 S.F. 3/1,000 S.F. 87 STALLS MANUFACTURING 53.048 S.F. 1/1000 S.F. 54 STALLS TOTAL 141 STALLS PHASE II: OFFICE 28,564 S.F. MANUFACTURING 53,048 S.F. TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED. PHASE I: STANDARD COMPACT HANDICAPPED 3/1,000 S.F. 87 STALLS 1/1,000 S.F. 54 STALLS 141 STALLS 336 STALLS 62 STALLS 8 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED PHASE 11: STANDARD COMPACT HANDICAPPED 406 STALLS 313 STALLS 65 STALLS 8 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED (RA110 4.8/1,000) 386 STALLS W$ $� Fri 0 0 U H 0 SITE PLAN shwl A1.1 • L ILLUIDATED kIAL ISO SF. LOF OSUPSE EVERGREEN TINTED REFLECTIVE SPANDREL GLASS IIED1. ROOF TOP HT Pt -4 • ammuummommonallimmummumm .-s--4--%4!1•S'20.,..:01`re TENURED CONCRETE PT -2 PREPRINED L4ET COPING PT -I ! •", ;V05, • 14 NORTH ELEVATION NECK ROOF C) TOP UNT P1-4 111 1 IN21007NA441 4tItall,N,A10,4A4-14 00144,1,5100MAilimL 000,1tIVEP* tiV.• ii?!PIFT1,01!!!!',44, WEST ELEVATION P0670600100 000004. PANELS - PT3 '9) CONG PANELS PANNED PT -I GRADE 111 ® -GI 100206(0 006011020 r_01-2 / f 14 ill 115.:%i 'MOW t7 iapWir!:( NECK ROOF C) TOP UAW PT -4 PARK0606100 00000. GLUM. WINDOW ,TsILN EAST ELEVATION 0 © GRACE ISP ECSC EVERGREEN INSUL GASS •;14- 01 5. SOUTH ELEVATION 106400 0000 PANTED PT -I LOF 000200 EVE/GREEN T00TE.0 REFLECTIVE SPANCRO. GLASS T. T. 1. T. 'T T. DIRK BRONZE ARDOR SISTER T. ,GRA11115,;41,415.10,01,01,1 111..,,L.G,A112,..24.1012N112',VVX, gq19NPAV,Aitt. „ IDOUREO CONCRETE PT -2 EXTERIOR 0210000 061150 CO/CRETE PAAELS TENLIRED 03ICRETE 006 64064000 METAL PANES ...____044110. TEXTURED PORED COLUMN COVER PT -S GLASS LOF ECLIPSE EVERGREEN TINT COORS/MI/ES OARK EIFICAff AlCONED &WPM SPASIXEL GLASS EVERGREEN DRIED REFLECTIVE PTI/PAINT Prj/PILfr P73/PANT NEM COWIN/ COKR P85/PAN2 HANDIGGILS CCPRAG PrI/PARN SOFFIT PT4/ PAINT CORSO 0006 PTI/PAINT ICCIMNIGAL SCREEN PTO/ PANT PRI/PANT SHERWIN VALLIADS SW 2064 .OUTERBGNKY SHERWIN WILLIAIS NXENT PANEL SA 2087 VASON EILANCIIE. UNCLAD TO 440100 SHERWIN VALAIS SW 2064 *POTING SPEW DRAVA/ MUMS INNERS° puma 'awe 061 G 16 SFIERVIPI WILUNG 500 2060 'CATER/IAA/CS' 000200 500000 SW 2065 NANTUCKET we SHERWIN AILLPAIS 11002064 "OUTERBAKS' 06101106 004.00 116 2066 NANILICKET MINE' h. .1 j al a4 sheet A3.1a • • 60.00' 50.00 40.00' 30.00 20.00' S. 126TH ST. POSED STREET mICAOON • • Wirt ILKEKARD PROPOSED PAP STREET _ _ �..—m..2— __:.- t - - 1:u.i711iiiiilliiiiilliiii■- L�hn o AT =z. :.:au . �" � ti7� - .imvu-n.l�L��._..1,__.,.— 1. n : UMW— • — i�1�tJ_I—t3l�tJ,?�,, 1•30rlIi•^J..ois.... .. -,, •••••-41111i1 IIII . S. 124TH ST. WOSfiPNG SITE SECTION — NORTH/SOUTH E. MARGINAL WAY SOUTH I.—PROPERET UNE SITE SECTION — EAST/WEST LANDSEARN' L.KOC.IP.IG �ni_i Iw.Iw�_" tC3n .. ..ten .1�:. . I guseeiCiiiionsoiiiilliiifil iifiiiiamgaaii- M s 11lsu ,Iiu 7iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiOmuiiiimiii_ iiiiiiii i�ii.iiiiiilliiiii �Li„' cy _aunnnuiiununmiiiimiE .1,_n._mmunfium.inimnin tui I0-0' Nr0m 03rmc sol S. 35TH AVE Aik Group Health 1114., Cooperative ofPaget S000d MONUMENT SIGN r0' sru� IE= ROB MIX 250 .. NP.S S0. D0Y MUNE h II I IIIA i 60.00' 30.00' 40.00' 30.00' 20.00 S0 SIL POLE P40? 0Y.( BRONZE 60.00• 50.00 40.00 30.00' 20.00' n=1 % d=A 24' . m10S1E BASE (RIND) ,I1 II 040 OVA 02 PRONG (SEE P>RLS) a ri I 1p LIGHT STANDARD w sc.Ic Il (� li=-III—III=! n 0 0 n !=1 s 1 to 8 11 (1) J .25 W 0 0- LaU W V) 1•— V) C AYYOCIATEB 0: J 00 3 00 0 J sheet A4.2 5 0 37 .7 8 £� s MATCHUNE: STA :35+50 'SEE :SHEET :R4 NII•I.9NI NI.Irl.l.I _I I• IN I MIMI WWI■IL• • ..37.8.... 34.75 MATCHUNE •1 •LAI -V�1 A '32.3 g2 maul Ni>I- • END 5 S1DEWAIIC PROVIDE CURB RMIP TO STREET GRADE BEGOT 31Y PAVEMEM TAPER 4 3 8+ CO n Q Job Number 7390 R5 6 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0..1.9.1 _ISL Grown _.MIL Checked —1(L Approved 0K0 Dat. 11/8/99 Scab: Horizontal '.20' vortical For. SASEY CORPORATION 101 ELLIOTT AVE. WEST SUITE 330 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-4200 (206) 281-8700 — 9 -N•1,,,. • 24 2 7/07/00 ER EC DEB PER ANAL CITY REVIEW Na. 5/26/00 OW EL Dab Ty Ckd. DKR GENERAL REVISIONS APPr. Meriden NI 0 co O O 173 0 rn (� --1rn m Z V r Title ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN - S. 126TH ST. INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST II GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON E1e: P:\SOSKPRW\ 390\ENGINEERING \7390-R2.0WG Dote/lime: 07/10/2000 11:59 Scale: 1.20 Melinda %refs: Z7390 -S,77390 -T.2739000, 4p • 64.4± • 83.8 • 82.25 .... 55.8 • 51.6 • 47.8 43.9 41.0 s. •ait co J Sn ziT hoc' 6tk.'3i?07 : 81.-s3.20 • O PVI AU. 33+88 {1_40.7 39.5 • 38.6 37.7 Job Matta 7390 Shoat R4 6 Rey...... .:: :4b39.55. . 37111 8. RAY (TO SE VACATED) I • • 3 TCHLINE STA. 35+5 SEE SHEET R5) 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, Designed Drawn checked __EL Approved _MIL Dote 11 /0/99 Kaaba Horizontal Vortical Et. ••• ....$........... SABEY CORPORATION 101 ELLIOTT AVE. WEST SUITE 330 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-4200 (206) 281-8700 .SEB SHEST R5 2 7/07/00 62 KL 01.33 1 5/28/00 ENI No. Date By Md. DKB POI 611AL CRY REVEW GENERAL REVISIONS. 0 co 0 R5 0 rn Retlabte ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN - S. 126TH ST. INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST II GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE 11./KWILA, WASHINGTON Fite: li': SDSKPRO17390 \ ENGINEERING \ 7390—R1 OK Dete/rirtie: 07/10/2000 11:39 Scale: 1-20 Melinda Xref 27390—S27390—U739098, • lam{ 1f� y.> 8 0 0 • 0 X 0 ig'411808S 8� t APA Job Number 7390 Snap C2, 7 (rrOG ENG2 71:11Tii• toie, �articel curs 6 qui t6N — r;'wgluIli 0 ab L 1_ -iii _-I„iIII _ F �o ` llrn linellellig M y- ire u7�u�t�' ►�40- �p �� I. rare liF F.11 � .; saiibtl.;R v r vim I .. a uriff • II 00 1 0 0 Z 0 Z 0 0) H 1 D O to,. t Is;oc5S181 "I \ a _::I P - M� ;,.....„„.,f,i........._....,..F:x:;„....o. 1 :--- ` 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 96032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX m' CML ENGINEERING. LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Design.] _it/– Drawn .NB_ C4.c\.] _EL_ .so _121S8. Dot. I1 /8/99 Scala: Nal -frontal Vartkcl N/A For a s SABEY CORPORATION 101 ELLIOTT AVE. WEST SUITE 330 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119-4200 (206) 281-8700 As 4 8/08/00 BNE BNE 0110 PERMIT 5E1 3 7/08/00 ER 61. 068 MAL CITY REVIEW 2 5/25/00 KL KL 0118 GENERAL REVISIONS 1 5/15/00 KL KL DKB SITE PUN REVISION No. I Data I ay CU. APR. Revision Tttle: GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY EAST II GROUP HEALTH COOPERATIVE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 0 15 r 30 of 114.2.7 60 hk 8' 60110 Hyoran.',4 B- D011a O: 29.0 COND. TRANSFOMER PAD GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN (PHASE 2) :0 „32'30----PHASE-2- 2 �atnr al e age of contra „ i, So... e .a s -e�, ofence' 331.1? aL. 9 r�11 e� T'q,�y/MASOt 2 2. IW -34.6 118.75 ^t7en0 f I A2 (_l' l).0o6 tree_ 1N�35.. t_ , i • e� Met a A � 39.. 'fib CVFconko _ • '0�_wetlanU-,95'10' 9 5'10' o0 gena f a0 l0 0 T% "•0/ 3. iti%ti. n.. 0 �QCK. °/ / le k re y ` '•e amae •1. 1W -34.b .I �. �. peg 1l .35.0 �p 1- P • a 2471 A tl6r rAN ..61k1 O0ST. CB IE -14.08 ,(ROOF 0' • r ONLY-GEED6 DKR Ea, • MER1ANO) 16[•26.0 •54 CMP culvert IE -16.51 t^ 6' PVC ROOF DRAIN COLLECTION PIPE 0 1.04 MN. . 36.0 wetl ,3• centerline of Creek T00 g4-%enterltne °f creek .9' renter line of creek 64; LF-9.:DPEP Aterltne of creek 3' , 4' Centerline of k v. t 0 fle• 01 1„o air __ ......_ , d� Jami 52-____ -=4 � �;,..7.1 1 ..--- , - Mi'� St? /_.�' o:y3 E A • er ..rr,,�4 M \ esy: '� ` , 4 4 6 AlOar % yh� d"Y551.3'- 8" Evergreen y 0o e'•\ :'�26- PoD�ar II 1 _- i / tta5 $" Altle�; -,A a' �9 peva.. \ z evo .� v� a ..v.•O \ 7�.�Y241°ne fe 32" Poplar 9'� 36.� ���_�- a. "11 -..-._....._'��.,,_�..._.._-•_____\J, _. _ i. ..�.e � it�. 'I!1 ,/°' T 0116. 6" altle' • • '_ .. • ,......, = ,_1...-_, .-: �. f / :- v'Na .. , y n n / EX. I1. 1 .4 b.f-"1 EX. 551411 /EX 5.1.1j E 3&23 SV 12- CONC IE 38.62 12" COPIC IE 38.22 N p°I •O' A'!T/ 6' PVC IE 37.91 N Edge of asphalt 8' PVC IE 36.75 E 001ar 8 14.• Etlge Of'aa0nalt 4, 8..r .y7. / Ne• Flow line f t1 .et LEGEND TIPC 1 oda 8.40 711110001900 0 5100 01000E 0100.0 0 STOW WAVE LME mamr CLQ SPOT Bhenom :I COSMOS .y_ 40004.7 arlonE • coca ---- _100-____ L • 1 5'OEDICATtOp z• 1 y'�v add_ 01 8908010' 13 P1PR11Re_gt_L9314 of creek line of creek nterllne of creek Centerline Of creek . enterilne of creek mmirm!.rmRt-=azrr3u�31 sf 8 of 85.0011 CATCH BASIN DATAI 0811 TYPE 1 RW -43.00 IE -39.50 C8112 TYPE 1 R01-40.50 IE -38.00 CBI3 TYPE 1 RN -40.50 IE -37.00 C814 TYPE 1 R0/-41.00 IE -36.00 C815 TYPE 1 RIw35.00 tE-32.50 C816 TYPE 1 RIM -34.50 IE -31.00 CB17 TYPE 1 R -31.10 0 1E-31.10 C818TYPE 1 RIY-34.00 IE -31.50 CB19 TYPE 1 RIM -34.00 1E-32.00 CB110 TYPE 1 RIM -33.00 IE -30.75 08111 TYPE 2-48' R01-35.00 IE -30.20 CB112 TYPE 1 RBI -34.50 IE -29.70 013113 TYPE 2-48' RIM -35.03 1E-28.20 CB128 TYPE 2-54' 9/60110 LOCKING UD FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE SEE DETAIL SHEET 08129 TYPE 2-48' W/SOUR LOCKING L0 CONSTRUCT ON EXISTING 15' SD RIM -17.53 I6-13.0* CONIRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING 15' SD LOCATION ANO INSERT ELEVATION PRIOR TO ANY GRADING/STORM ORAINAIIE CONSTRUCTION. 08130 TYPE 2-60' W/SOLO LOCKING UD FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE SEE NAIL SHEET CBIG1 TYPE 2-60' W/SOUD LOCKING U0 R04-35.80 IE -26.00 vuke eE-asp.l L- _ W _ w<z 0 ILI O 3 o i CC -r � aa� Z O 0 z F = Y z ¢ 0 60 LLL m CV Z p 0- LU 0l ip Z C4 U Q o m r O w 01 J UJ E5 w t�yt T COtL V/ 8' PVC IE 30.85 V 6. PVC IE 31.48 NE 8' PVC IE 30.04 E B' PVC 1E '30.73 S NOTE: SEE SHEETS R4 AND R5 FOR SOUTH 126th STREET 5.4PROVEM951i PIANS. L'. SSI# W 14 of rl Inc P 1_9.11v 107 DIPPED rLONS X•,y8e i6t asona It 9' PVC IE 10:5 v 9' PVC 1E 17.77 N 9' PVC IE 1529E 8 Q Q Aitt—� z 1 1 1 I SOUTH 124TH STREET Ill I II 1111111111111111 11111 1111111 il 1,1 ,111111111111 U 111111111111 LEGEND FffrT,;%-il �u iaJ 1011 LRlttylt It�tic�I e, te�tl�a� IC It IC IC 1. IC , FINAL DESIGN WILL DEPICT A PHYSICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN . THE CREATED WETLAND AND 11 -IE T TSR IFONDITO IWATER WI I D7 G TED }•EjLAND AREA.' L.. 9 BUILDING ,130,3 3.3.660 — 40314 003 Pry WETLAND ABG (4,427 of regulated) • (179 E LANst Dfap o.36 111.11111 J1111 111111111 ., 111111111111L,.. e9. BUILDING 9, Srf 6.4.0 oolor 0.13606000.0.66 lore J .Nti AAo - I -('•f7 5'-,'reglated)_'.i _ 1 .0—IIIJIi111 J 111 IIII o � 111111 .Y 6 c 110 F.-/ 11 1111 I6• 03113.3 1001.34. 0.30 0 6' AIM aV 10. III 1' L I -WETLAND B G , 0,7e.9 of reg,loted) I 14 II H f•l .19 s'NLraA• ° n 0'0 I .,caning ..11 „ .5 „.. cave./ o, crow. PROPERTY LINE WETLAND FILL (41988 of, regulated) (179 sf nonregulated) CREATED WETLAND (11,881 of) ENHANCED TLAND BUFFER (15(15' MIWEN.) (6)01 of) WETLAND euFFER BHGROAGHMEWr (456 90 WETLAND B.PFER REM (484 sf) FAG (25001 5)ER CONCEPTUAL WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN North SCALE. I• = 40' 0 10 40 80 CANDIDATE PLANT LIST DECIDUOUS TRC! SCIENTIFIC, NAME AGER GIRGINATUM . AGER MACROPHYLLUM • FRAXINUS LATIFOLIA MAWS PUMA POPULUS TRIGl 0CARFA SALIX LASIANDRA SALIX SGOIA.ERIANA EVERGREEN TREES PICEA SITCH@ISI5 PSIIEDO755U9A MENZE1511 THUJA PLIGATA SCIENTIFICSNAME CORNUS SEREGIA GAULTHE2IA SHALLON HOLODISCUS DISCOLOR MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM OEMLERIA GERASIFORMIS PHYSOGARPOS GAPITATUS RIBES SANSUINEUM ROSA PISOGARPA SYMPHORIGARPOS ALEUS VIBURNUM DILE EMERGENTS SCIENTIFIC NAME CAREX 0SM PTA SCIRPUS MIGRIXARPUS VERONICA AMERICANA NOTES COMMON NAME VINE MAPLE BIG -LEAF MARE OREGON ASH WESTERN CRABAPPLE BLACK COTTONWOOD PACIFIC WILLOW. SCOWLER WILLOW SIZE 5' HT 8' HT. 8' NT. 5' HT. 8' HT. WHIP WHIP SCIENTIFIC COMMON NAME SIZE SITKA SPRUCE DOUGLAS FIR WESTERN RED CEDAR COMMON NAME RED-0SIER DOGWOOD SALAL OCEAN SPRAY TALL OREGON/SRAM INDIAN PWM PACIFIC NINE3ARK FLOWERING RED CURRANT CLUSTERED ROSE HIGH-BI/5H CRANBERRY COMMON NAME SLOUGH SEDGE SMALL -FRUITED BULRUSH AMERICAN BROOKLIME 5' 147. 5' HT. 5' HT. 512E 8” HT. 6AL. 8" HT. 8' HT. 8' HT. 8" HT. 8' HT. 8' HT. 8' HT. 8• HT. SIZE SEED S® SEED I. TOPOGRAPHY, BASE t CIVIL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY BAR6HAU5Ed CONSULTING ENGINEER -5, INC. - 18215 TTrel AVENUE SOUTH - KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 - 425.2516222. 2. 517E PLAN PROVIDED BY LANCE MITER t ASSOCIATES, 130 LAKESIDE, SUITE 250 - SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 - 206325.2553. 3. THIS PLAN 15 CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND SHOILD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. VICINITY MAP z 0 z z owl zoa.o tjj 1-V=4 W}a-1 zno� o�Y t- or a Data 3-3 -00 Scale 1 =40' Designed a D Draws `'n Checked JA.50 Approved Project 0563 Sheet Hr 1N1.0