Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA87-042 i '-,. W. ,-,,rT S r. i J I w. 34ru ST REL- T bi �- ��11 . k,,\ a I LL i M _ P 3 n W I ; o el W a p �� • 1� J 4 • �. Q�% D v 3 b. 1 AJ J / Id v v 0I 1 4 / P �I-- �-i.w. )- 3q*0 ST LL Ea--r---- Q (4 7 // (( '� S0 M — P , 7_,( 0 ki 4 } I � ' v 0 S . w. 4 11T S. T sz C E.T � , rE -_-Y � di M — P I �' AI f L -1 M - P I ( I B - 1 , fil I A fof,,e__‘ __._ d ' � "w• _, 4T 4 E E T c. i -TY of KEti+ T I If M — 1 > M - 1 I r000 ►Z 60 oo , 0 1. 43 1-11 SCALE 114 .e.T VICINITY MAP FOR h i a,p.ELlh1E 4PPLIGoT ,..... . ' to 4GZ...as'ACIS..M?OMD ay/b'.l SLOPES ILIO T yly_eS "I� - �P (Re FlPtf FNT FOz FWoo 5Y0EA6P- Fi LLbD) .b'y��,,,. =1k 10 tSz' 4oP f s --I r11G' UW 54--\� z��Yy`'' vO 4tlew[6k u :�I• ' `_ n11� :::: 1. � FNTuaF P-1 [u_HwbL F}1�P €gM411ar II1-L7 , �' ��1� x3t xx FM .1:2s. �__ b / 1 Z %T � Ni1 I I r — f�T�.i _ r— / _®e�.� xxxx.. �, .z ue mv.r w+y mISoe No CI \ \ \ sue. © .. .... © w• .--- F: ' ii- J fbµD I \'le'0 \ •1-I ba ws=21£ o ti¢ ``ce a �.,0 l3F- Q',, 23:1 . , Si • ., o"yr. m N £XlSTIk' I Q MOO Cf malloWNIS ' 1 _� Zt' / RAIL,'9 Gli CAPCGITV ,� + c'. N\ ® Lf / O\ ,RF1,mcAr oN I11,, ■■� �: T �� 0VVV y �; ` x / ,FAGILr I � a �a o� jl �l ) URNoEt lilErb. a1 i �J /4-Pc t / `+rA9nN Ifl / .. -ffri// ..-K1 n 11 • g P y I g9 �� L I ID (� .5.4 t • / �b; in20 Z W• r ) �'[/ I�; r > �. 2.s,4c cF .�' l/' II. Di rn©''y�.e. p O w ; ' 2a,4o�cf ♦ 111 �111 �v 111 ' dal' u m V >J�W 2 • ■ w 3n.z6 •may §' UPAGInt �•' i•/ Y/ i Z W"Q ■ _' �1 2 n� ''I VIER IM �_ l• OP-car' in 1 In '�® : t m —I of III Renee n\ �O 6. INSThµ�OYE eN �. : Z'• ,1 (7 z 0 a �'A e \GtnP \ ® �[ Z Wm 1— Ld Z Ili 4= ® 7 :1 \\ � IL j±!nap ���. f Q to in K e �. 1t o ' �1� Qi �_. F5i•l1�_ —L L� rh!Li__ •.y m.1l . °.,. \ _ NV RAW. kf- Suers-2oFq i i" 50' S 1•B7 —'�� 1 1• I 87067.01 I i \ \ yz bT ..,. 3 x 4 • F DLBcnITI W �t n�i 'O T.LTSQUAT.OP OR'P"GST QUARTER AND ION WITH AN EASEMENT Pox ROADWAY OVER A STRIP OF LAND BO AT T.NOT.AST CORNER OP THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION TM.� ' I'L ,C6 T QUARTER O ET QUAKER OF SA R 36, -IH TEC NO RTHEAST QUARTER OF THe NORTHWEST QUARTER OP OM;2HENe ENT H 180Tx ��T � I� O![)] 1 I O TEY 23 a RAW 6 B•"EE", Y.M ECTTIONO 36, T P 2]NORTH. RANGE♦EAST STREET (FORMERLYEA ADI`11♦E P A'�7,Y PP' 141,{4 Ti A 1HGiaN,LYING EASTERLY OF THE[veu EAST, o¢segieen'LINE A, coax;;,!Y THING NORTH OF SOUTHWEST♦IRD'sr IN SOUTH n)6.)e v .'` • q.:.}y.4 Y1114.S..1'• . ZZZ a m OF THE P SAID SECTION,i LINE OP SAID BO FOOT TLC:. 55` BEGINNIEG AT TN.NORTHEAST CHENRY ADAMS D SIN.BEING,. E LINE OF DESCRIBED'MINE A. PARALLEL 'IS(.‘', '\ .�1,_ • W !J W • � r (SS"OU°TH`CLAIM, A EAST 114 FEEG EHE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD WAY,TO T ALSO TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID O ANC NT`"THEEREONCR0 WHICH IS •. ....p))O."- --- .4-W'-, •---I.-.-Ir.-• . -- OF THIS DESCRIBED`LINE; TH[ NORTH P THE WORTH NORTHEAST CORNER OF S !J • xERLY B RAIGHT LINE"V THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED THREE(3)PARCELS. QUARTER FEET WEST TER: THENCE 3 /// IT PACIFIC RAILWAY coonor RIGHT-OF-WAYOTH LINE TO-WIT, 3•40.00• WEST."s 730.69EP FEET; NORTH 84.1♦.00. W ., J/ Q \ \ O -�- OF SAID P ON 36 AND TEE T " 649.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS.TO THE TRUE POINT OP BEGINNING.es / • 8 OF SAIDSECTION TERMINUS OF LI 6 Fir 1. i HE T QUARTER O ' \� \ �[I I VA C%C61T TtlAT POR}TOY THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 330 FEET OF QUARTER OP3BER N]66 i T. N.N., u60 TOGETHER MI2H THENCE T ^�� ' I \\ 1 L1V $I A1T JT , •A Z 3Rd3LTlW 3a; N KIN ASHI GTON,DESCRIBED A6 FOLLOWS, x °COUNTY. NORTHWEST OF THE NORTHEAST QUAKER OF a In Di ALSO EXCEPT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THAT THE EAST. X.M., IN KING ��11II/1< % I y eGINYING ATTTTHE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 2 T QUARTER D S30.25 CRtl FEET RYTADA CSENTff•WASx[NGTON, ¢sCRIB¢D AS FOLLOW. �1 T w @ �\I� • 0 SECTION 36, M RANGES♦E W.M. !d T"807.91 PE OR LESS, TO THE AT T QUARTER O F. N`.� "•\ Q 'COT v COUTY.W BtlItlaTOg3r3 Tb[tlCEOtl NORTH B)•J1')6•EAST. PE NORTH D SUBDIVISION; dORTHCB9•]♦'l0 tlW¢ST SECTION 36,THE NORTHWEST NO EAST. T ' [ iBOTH Z cc • NCE SOUTH 01V)'23• WEE'! 330 03 FEET; THENCE ALONG S SAID LINE 52.9 MORE OR LESS,T NORTH 87...36.00 313♦0.95 FEET RANGE SOUTH 1•♦T13•"w S:e�3EuT g T631.36 WEST.260.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;THENCE IGx WOULD LIE 801.37 Peer E NORTHER 330.03 P H 83.31.36•WEST 260.0 P TO 2H <I • 40 T.N SOUTH B)•31.36•W 460.0 FEET' SOU 02.THENCE a SAID NORTHWEST GUENTER OF THEwHOT"G1.S'T QUAKER]TT POINT O H 87.31.36•WEST 460.0 EP FEET, • N ICWD x _1 _ V 192.0 FEET' THENCE NOTCH8)•31'36•Er . 460.0 FEET, ORTN 3•♦0'WET 923.69 FEETSCET NE OF SAID THENCE SLOUGH; The ECEP FEET* 38.1 EAST 197.0 FEET; THENCE ���III 6�Z ---mot-_ - - " 0Z 02•0'24.WEST.. 197.0[ET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. tlAT, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF LINE SLOUGH NORTH NORTH 87.31.36•FEAST'♦60.D2 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2.28.24.WEST 197.0 ♦•31•10•FAST 184.71 FEET:THENCE NORTH)3•26'EAST 70 PET; FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.` '¢/ . . . 36. I M .I ' I 31 =.3 g • ALSO PER1O[TOOT NO.32912 PORTION THEREOF DRAINAGE DITCH NO.CONDEMNED1 IN RING COUNTY THENCE BEGINNING;RTH EXCEPT PORTIONEATS BOPS]COPSE; T BON SO 30tlN YIdb20tl BY DEED DATED MAY 3,190E,BY MAY•1) ALSO TOGETHER WITH I •W , i 1 TEE NOTE 30 FEET CNIV6YED TO KING COUNTY FOR COUNTY 19SET1tli20, UNDER AUDITORS PILE NO. 68563♦. RECORDS OF KINGUT E WENT 1341.56.FEET F 5 E ,.• M P 1 g I I TOUARTER OF HE SOUTH=5 P THE QURTER.ADT F SOUTH 1 F I I • 1 W f:1 NORTHWESTTHAT QUARTER O LAST 196.64"P HE SOUTHEAST N QUARTER O THE S 1 9 3RMW n V1 O W TRLIT BY DEEDS ALSO.CIFT TRE RECORD.CONVEYED TILE NOS.35895689 AND 8011180♦96;DENING OF SOUT.EST.103 3 QUARTER OFsec-rum 36,TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH. RANGET, W.M.• QUARTER..A CTIIHONN`25. TOWNSHIP 13 NORTH. RANGE♦EAST, • • •� .T€ -/ ¢J QU WASHINGTON.50 PORTION PORTION CRND6MNOD FOR WIDmlHG OF SOUTHWEST 43RD N KING COUNTY. HBCRIBED POLLSM.. K!G CC STY. W 1 1* S > STREET IY NIYO ALSO cross, TCCU..SUPERIOR COURT duce NO.B1-2-0811)-); EGINNING AT A pOl NT o THE CENTERLINEV --- • 1-[T2 MT, =- 100.a) e AI"AMss3o.Hs s a f N U g ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORrl OW OF NORTHWEST°URA..ETGRR O CORNER OF HENRY DONATION FEET - •Ay.p9 TTlbE6�Mlnrss OF E[CTlW 36.TOWNSHIP 33 NORTH. ♦EAST. AST FEET. MORE OR LESS.TO THE 2.v.lUSn .. m 3 W RING COOaTF,WABHILIOII.DESCRIBED A9 PoLLOYs; F SAID SUBDIVISION*6 I28;T m 1 •• OB 0•EAST 63ALONG WHICHSEGINNING AT A POINT BEARS FAH.784.19 FEET AND"DRTM IN 0.13.SOUTH290SUBDIVISION, THENCE EET'NE OF SAID S SOUTH LOULINEGH; °F VICINITY MAP SECTIONS THE WORT[ALT CORNER OF H.ADAT,DONATION CLAIM I" T.ENCEA CAST 190 FEENL OF SAID OPT SAID seLW SO Tl ON EET VOW RUBE[F 23 WORTH.RANGE♦e vo W.M..(THE BEARING D 301.E EET; T E CE SOUTIY5 OP SAID WEST 24 SOUTH ET,4.T ENCE Gli OF NN CEa[.IM[OF}40.46FE ROAO HLINO TERL NE WEADI AHD 30.1 M.N WEST 0.3E ET THE WEST 3 6.BE INNIN THENCE▪ tll E TMN C ♦OfES FELT TO SA D DITCH UP A TINE; BOTH)5.3B'W69T 3)0.]FEET' THe Po[T OP aCOIxNING. EOM. 6s Bo WEST 10 SAID D AEON FEET, N OEEA.. LOVI'B. ]08.10 FL NORTH M ). THAT PORTION OF THE NOBET TOT QUARTER O NORTHEAST F GENERAL NARRATIVE ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN. 218.19 MARGIN T TO THE SEATER OF THENORTHEAST QUAKER O T QUARTER CONSTRUCTION FINER 0601®iLO. tl 36.TOWNSHIP]] .. IN Re . 1. 9B.)00 SITE. OFILL N QUO R[03OUMTY.WAstltNG'IW.DESCRIBED AS FULIUYB; BE IMPORTED TO THE 2 SwAs oe ND MERCER WILL BL MeoUL FOL.., MATERIAL FROM I--J K�LR IY PRAT (1LJ -J�� a M-P WEEKDAYS -7100 AM TO 0 PM TO 3 6,00 PM 130 AM i SATURDAUNDDAYSYH-NO Oe¢MZION2.OAL7s00 AM TO LOWED I. EROSIW/BEDIMPENTATION COTROL THE 3. E PILLED COMPLETELY PRIOR TO PROPOSED BUILDING AL FACILITIES GE SYSTEM.RE THENT LADEN SSTEM MUST BE6 }TOY I •- `�• I CONSTRUCTION. TO PROPERTY. GR CLCARSNGCOM OTHER D P TENTIAL Q ONDICTA.. D �ROSION _ AIWED O• L TRADING I L9MPLTC RNO STRTIAL Po IOW IOES ♦ OUT MATE IMPORT IS DOWtl OWN t-5 T ♦05,E%IT Otl E LTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEP1 ON THE HE N♦3RD TO SITE AND I-90 TO♦O5 TO SR I.TO MET INIMUM REQUIREMENTS. AS .• .. +,.+ ...... •NLASO VALLO COTROL DOBT PUN N• CONTROL FL MAY CONO REQUIRED FACILITIESBE EDUC[HG Tp oRAINE 5. GRADINGOPERATION.IT SHALL BETHE OBLIGATION AND Y OF M-P w MEASURESLTO CONTROL xMUDD. BY d. THE DEVELOPERED ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT ADDITIONAL 9 CLEANING AS ENTRANCE OF QUARRY SPREES AND STREET NEEDED TO Y OVER AND MINIMUM TREQUIREMENTS AS MAY ER CONSTRUCTIONtlB0UTAEU FACILITIES,ROTECT AANDJ ABOVE PROPERTIES. MEASURES TO CO 1. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED OR 82ABILI2CD BY OTHER +•' zmi a M¢ O CONTROLEgIsrIC6ASITE FOR THE PREVENTION OF ON- Q 3 RESTRICTED TIMES OF OPERATION. W. WAITER MANAGEMENT METHOD OF GRADING OR WITHIN SIXTY Q O J t' •- `• • 6UA95ReOUIHEDBY GOVERNING AGENCIES C3 D 3 DAYS OF EST CONSTRUCTION BTB.C[S9SHALL�65• FEET OE B F W .. • 6. P FILL MATERIALS WIL IS SPECIFICATIONS. BY A SOILS ENGINEER AND LOONNGG BY II INCHES THICK MAT OF QUARRY 2&DULS.Y Y 50 FLEf W Z q ] •�, I( _�_ l ACED ACCORDING TO WILL S AS AP CATIONS. I O • t I ). ESTIMATED TIME OP CTMPLTIO", ONE YEAR 4. v"AETOp iNED"T4T.1.0 T N°:11°CBDCAIWGE HODURSEE ANTADiACEAaT z i R Z /L/\ I 11,TDT CUBIC YARDS OF SURCHARGE MATERIAL WILL Be RE-USED AT LwEN WATER DURING GRADING oeeuTlW. • j M-P . v .`- T, " EACH BUILDING PAD AS CONSTRUCTIOE PHASE PROCEED". PROPERTY FROM SILT w Q 2 REHABILITATION n W M-P ;rF. 1. L TO BE U6 IE FINAL DEVELOPMENT WILL RE HTOC[PILED W O 06 THE SITE IN MOUNDS WITH NO STEEPER THAN 3;1 SIDE SLOPES RED' I. S. W /y M-P 3. PLANTED COMPLETION S EROSION TOGCOOT R9 SHOWNON THE PLAN, ▪ L-1--li B DISTURBED AREAS WILL DE emsloNDCRrRoc WILL a THE r)Z y/ 3. P FIRST Z O 0 • (� - ..l-r 'or --i• �, _ .- ♦• POMTStlC 9RE.DRESSED. PE OE LI;.ABI OF rHE W Z 111` CONTINUE PTR APPRO%I MMMMMM TWOFER.. EXPECTED A T CONTINUE TO INSURE THAT DRAINAGE Q N(n TC M- t s M 1 � vtln ^V P G M R J I^LJ -V6c.. ;u ♦ r A i R 50WMODJ5.1•87 VICINITY MAP 67067.01 POE .MOMRLIOS A..L,G4,;o. I s 4 • FILMIC 11I014Y434-WAY .L".0.00 {p y`1� 'if-- $a CMIM. .0 / 'iN/ ig 2 CO ri St si IVMWAY RAW 1 8 60 MIX V $ .. iit ; M Lb aroux V U 4 uu...0 U , a' =N tt ...1 1 L,y PUN V Z 2 to _ :.. __.__ ____. .w 4-0MLyr RU t1011 EI.ITF.�GE A d_. Ie -- Ia AI 2 it 14 -_ - I1. Q W W--7 F bEGTION A- A star. 2.es.4 • 2w s sa SR CO)U 4 Ur w D to - 34 roe - _—_ GI t'/ so so PL �� La 20 t4 LY t4 — I 24 e • t2 \ zz • 20 • 5ECTIOIJ A-A *HT. a OP4 t4 1«sr..1 - I 24 I r _✓ 111 22 22 �/ 20 20 Q tea. Is 1- N 'Z W' c S Fn ---.'...*\ 4 W SW-, 14 — _— O S z 0Ts Z It. - _n • .6 J s ,' + 1...d u I-, SECTION ere) star. L e►4 ,. '` 'W/' 'O E - LAl�E.: *ROW to 1041. X 0I+1 Z 1".2a' vRarm.t_ _ -O 1.•:so .:tLI Jam FL' W 4. II 1•• �; \ w-• PG HRJ ..•_ Sn7•B7 TAMP •v ;mem 0fr�2, SILT FetJGE - G - .....o... .. , ........ mmA.. stx7w.1..•.. 87067.01 ";' _., 4 0. 4 r- q, S.W. 43 rd ST. t d 350.45 ill. Q 0 ril�IiK,:.L .. �.. .. ,C �EgJ7 ro.t2. — ram" ®` OM b pnp C}i• ® ;. ® 1� �\ ° • / — 9 ® ®IJ - /-- \ f /. r Ip EV ,/ i . • M ' 6 m . r: „ ilifj / Ers• Is____,,..../.: .- .emu� / iii_—Et © i El eoll/1_ 1 --- I - Irr , 1 il 4 E I E El .1 @ I:` c=3 -•G-i- -----------: 31-- ---- "'"117:31C." "11 lr----;"-- . "i�' / �� r" / 1 •O' -151 u 2 «p, 49 4, $ U: l'' .* yle l' '` .?11' '---r• .\\• 1-1 ,) 1 ,• 14" p7,"(- ,,-- , ,- - N . : LJ, 0- - F''. i ( _t-.\ . IN 15 )„,Ms J W,.0 3-/.M f 1 ±L ©3 y\11 „ • ' / a_—,. 2 70 c: 1_ [ ,gp,'/. a ._ 1'; 3 _ • ::Trt,7—...,=,______:___________.--=---=-...--iTr-- — •••,._1 ".55. ..•.. • .1 --II I p I[�k, 1 pig - ,ik_ ...... ,,,, ,____ . . .p . . 41 P "n""""LY7:m .... vna L33q.iS _- �RCR ,TY P I_ 04;,,,-: f 9 CO e . 1 GRADING&EROSION CONTROL PLAN _ ��/�1� N rn 8 0 STERNCO DEVELOPMENT r� BUSH,ROED&HITCHINGS,INC. jecr'mt'�,L+r, ,, V M, S W 43rd ST.&OAKESDALE AVE. CIVIL ENGINEERS&LAND SURVEYORS SEAL " O - A: RENTON, WASHINGTON p1J 2809 MINOR AVE EAST SEATTLE.WA98ID2 4,7abq + 1.... • �_ BRH MO 328<IaC El .• ...o. d.. gsNING�G r BEGI NING • OF ILE FILE TITLEfri S p s7 / id atlefialaA /41,i4,1691 alottAd A/W atetAdiAlift ovs3 12D#4‘7. • , • / / / • S. . ..--1 7----- rM_w' + __ f-' ff4LfY _' PI & I i l l l l l l l l] I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII SI STATE l N : I. I ` Nryy±ram... I I w y'•m = ~ — — — 1 • 1. g twre.,°°,mi:in•O°+n��..r.-a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 111111111 t] _ _ ....,.,„,,,,,:,.,................, dmiiiii,inilmiliii 11111111� ' IJ , _ _ y- _ wewrw�s+.e+TM uawart g$I I I I _ MGM. I _ ,. ,, 7{ I it i -di Ill I .} / 1 i i 1 � � r§« . i r r _ - UIIIIIUIL 11O :4:i: • i5 i ; 1 . _ I kgiW 81 III�I I11 C_ tEH 1 � C. I = 04 t��� 'II Illilllulullll111111ulllllr = = w Q 1 = ' it 1 1111111111111, = 11 1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl110 > g I1111117 111111111111111 = 1 11111111111 I' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111(`� 1 _ f r If II _ o —i-- .-._u,ao'- - - ---»air-- _.. USW --Mir— -'I._ ---n..w' ; /2 - o S.W. 43rd St root I • FLQ? PLAN eo i r a CIVIL ENGINEERS / LAND SmoolalomURVEYORS . ROBERT M. ROED _ PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER - CITY OF IiNTON 1 BUSH, ROED 8 M rF 111lig Il HITCHINGS, Inc. D ' 2009 Minor Avenue East Seattle,Washington 98102 (206)323-4144 4 EXHIBIT 1 8UILDING/Z0NINQ DEPT, i 1 • d 1 i s : ! ;.- 3-• .rt r �� I L, s i IA ;.. i.. . • II.- t .0., it.i. , '7,. 4, 104 i.,ill it.t:1!, • (.......... li r �1 r cis!) q Q�� al lil I � t � I{ •°Q ` ` \ 1 ` � '� N O M pQ�- ---- - ® � t \ — I t "'y ` ` \ N \\',.. v tv , ti : •: ,, tTai=tf----------\\N:17111 N. N .1\ . \4 • _ ,.......ti NL.k:: - ' s -s 1 4 e 7 r e. F ,„ , %J.\ , Nii; g ... ... y 1.41 1ri � L a� gees all • �,\ „• I _' — — 0.31 -R•1 . R ..-,.0 ' `t\ t ,• ...ti 1 r 40. 41, Q dE 3 I y - t882/ 4 I 1302.23. A9'15A0' J ' _— I BUIL D IeN G 8 `] I IIIIIIIIII lll lll l l STATISTIC•., • . S , •-= _ u e eyeo. ° lite..zi_i ■ BG — 1 sss un iZ12..r. I 1 1 l = I ■ i eiss — ec zs..r. zsx Mx -• = se 0 x Ste... ...co,.r. ■ B L DG.B-4 50.225 s-f. djLtLI/i1:i1: E ...... ___j A%.4 nssurnta sw.atTM ALIGNMENT soo s.. MI .i LD B FUTURE SM.,3 ,200s.. I / \\I �\ N O1 9. 0 - -f Gf■i i ;W f / LQ NI gRi _ j 3L = W f■m CEI apI 7 3.1% � =— r'''''''-,,!:. :v I� I I. � UIL�E?!i , _ '" • I I T = I— I I Q��oe, Z /�. i t I . = Ilia.I F't I 77,800 6.f. = O [_., - J I I I I I l I I I I I I W> 1II IY/ I111111111191111111 II III I IILI ILLI l l ll! ILLLWI II II rII IIII I ijn I mI 22B.11 k_ _180.22-_ _ _ ___]23.03'___ z cc o S.W. 43rd Street I- d CO PLOT PLAN NORTH 1"■80' �' - � .• ..—mow —, .. 4I 4• • tc/ r • r s liftiteith P. •..4,P * ' fr '.... - Illriaja 6 ':Nal: . *! :••. .4 • 4 v • . r- I . 1 ? *j dI•i . ''�..rIi. AO •• .. •$ i y •4. • .. Vartr• '�1" l f ,x,. +ram r' r 7 - ', f x 7 C. :`" . 4 `. • - f•1 .V. Wit. ♦ r 414.4 t •� • r 1AH :; k :" i'. .,w'_ • j r, '++ 4,44k, . • .. . .10101„:::14.: ... 72:7-11. /"••• •...:* r. • i X •-, , e. -'., ,4- 0..:P • „„ ..4;.*"....1" '.. iP r�• �911► :err - t'I4 •` r -- -.-. .. �'I i ^ .4 • - Cry • - -, r! • efti `piaill I) VA 0 H rr YELLOW FILE: • SP-042-37, ECF-038-87tit ' 01) SM-007-87 Nos .,` _ A 7 — TO MAY a 11,' a e . PRELIMINARY EVALUATION POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION OF SOIL AND WATER STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON E-3000 FOR STERNCO 1 It Earth k1; Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Geology May 6, 1987 E-3000 Sternco 13541 Southeast 26th Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Alan Sternoff Subject: Preliminary Evaluation Potential Contamination of Soil and Water Sternoff Metals Property SW 43rd Street Renton, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) has completed a reconnaissance level evaluation of the potential for contamination of soil and water at the subject site. This report presents the results of our field and office studies along with preliminary conclusions . PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF WORK The subject site is located north of and adjacent to SW 43rd Street; the southwest corner of the property is located roughly fifteen hundred (1500) feet east of the Green River. From that point, the property extends roughly eighteen hundred (1800) feet (estimated) east along SW 43rd Street and nine hundred (900) to nine hundred fifty (950) feet north of the road (see Vicinity Map, Plate 1) . A large northeast trending drainage ditch bisects the property; to the south of the ditch, land remains largely residential with some undisturbed agricultural land. North of the ditch, various industrial operations including metal shredding and car salvage apparently operated for many years . Significant thick accumulations of shredded debris cover many segments of the northern area as shown on Plate 2. 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue,Washington 98005/Bellevue (206)643-3780/Seattle (206) 464-1584 Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987- Page Two The objective of our preliminary study as defined in conversations and meetings with you was to provide an assessment of the potential for contamination of groundwater and soils. The scope of work for this study included a review of available documentation regarding contamination at Western - Processing, monitoring well installation and water sampling, test pit excavation and soil sampling, chemical laboratory analytical testing and preparation of this report. METHODS Our initial approach was to perform an on-site visual examination of surficial soils, cultural/industrial debris and other factors which could have bearing upon the ultimate scope of the field sampling and testing program. Subsequently, we reviewed the bulk of EPA documentation pertaining to hazardous waste, groundwater and soils for the well known Western Processing site which is located about one mile south-southwest of the Sternoff site. Both the on-site review, and research of EPA documents for Western Processing provided a tentative basis for design of a chemical analytical program that would be generally responsive to types of contamination likely to occur. Field sampling of soil and water was accomplished using a variety of methods; soil samples were obtained from backhoe test I pit excavations as well as selected hand "grab" sampling localities while water samples were obtained from wells installed in Borings B-1, . B-2 and B-3. A surface water sample was obtained as a "grab" sample from location G-7. Please refer to the Exploration Location Map, Plate 2, for familiarization with various sampling localities. Test Pit Sampling 11 A total of six test pits was excavated and sampled at the subject site. Exploration Location Map, Plate 2, illustrates the position of the test pits in relation to existing cultural and geographic features. Test pit locations were mapped by geologist' s Brunton Compass and reel tape referenced from existing features including roadways, buildings, and fencelines and are accurate to the degree implied by these methods. • Under the supervision of the field geologist, the backhoe was brought into position over each selected sampling location. As conditions permitted, each test pit was excavated and sequentially - sampled with the maximum depth for each pit being controlled by the thickness of fills and landfill deposits overlying the Earth Consultants, Inc. • Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page Three jundisturbed native soils. Sediment samples were also obtained ; from the stream channel passing through the property. Upon completion of the excavation, a scale detailed log was made of each test pit. Logging procedure consisted of a visual inspection of the pit followed by notation of significant features including soil types, lithologic contacts, cultural debris and sample locations . Ground level adjacent to each pit was used as reference with vertical control provided by a small hand tape. Samples taken from various depths in each pit were placed in ' sterilized, labeled glass jars. Sample jars were stored in ice-packed chests at the site and were transferred to the lab in that condition following sampling to minimize excessive dissipation of volatile fraction hydrocarbons. Each jar was clearly labeled as to test pit number, sample number, geologist, site name and date. To establish chain of custody, transfer in the field was documented on ECI' s standardized chain of custody control form by logging sample numbers as they were received by laboratory personnel. Monitoring Well Installation and Water Sampling As a preliminary step in attempting to evaluate potential impacts of various fill deposits upon groundwater, three monitoring wells were installed and sampled during our field program. Under the supervision of the project geologist, a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drilling unit equipped with four inch I .D. hollow stem augers was brought into position over each boring location and leveled prior to drilling. The soil sampling technique consisted of advancing the auger string, incrementally to selected sampling depths, and then lowering a split spoon sampler (ASTM D-1586) and connecting rods through the center of the - hollow stem augers . The inner rod sampler assembly was then driven eighteen (18) inches using a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer while keeping a record of the number of blows required for each six inches driven. The sampler was then withdrawn and opened for brief visual examination and transfer of the sample. Each sample was transferred from the sampler directly to a sterilized glass jar. Samples were stored in ice chests at the site and transferred to the lab in this condition to minimize Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page Four excessive dissibation of volatile organic fractions. Each jar was clearly labeled as to boring number, sample number, project number and field personnel, etc. Chain of Custody records were maintained as with the samples obtained from the test pits. Following removal of the sample, the split spoon was subjected to a three phase cleaning before reassembly to avoid contamination between samples. All components of the sampler were washed and scrubbed by brush in detergent and water. This was followed by a rinse in methyl alcohol, and finally by a wash in triple distilled, deionized water prior to reassembly. During drilling a field log was made by the project geologist for each boring. Information recorded versus corresponding depth included a rock/soil description, color, texture, moisture, sample number and depth, and standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts obtained during sampling. Water Sampling Following completion of the drilling and soil sampling, a two inch diameter PVC monitoring well was installed in each boring. Details for well installation are provided on the boring logs. Water sampling procedures consisted of development of each well using a downhole piston-lift pump to develop and purge each well for a minimum of three well volumes until water flow became clear. Following well stabilization, samples were obtained using a sterilized teflon bailer. Water samples were placed in laboratory furnished containers and stored on ice in the same manner as the soil samples. LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM The laboratory analytical program was designed to provide an economical first scan for a broad range of contaminants which might be found in a metal processing facility or at a site in a potential receptor area downgradient from a documented , solvent/metal waste site such as Western Processing. Soils Composite soil samples from five locations throughout the site were analyzed for EP Toxicity in accordance with methods defined in the Dangerous Waste Regulations, Chapter 173-303-090. Analysis was for eight metals as follows: Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page Five Metals Arsenic Lead Barium Mercury Cadmium Selenium Chromium Silver In addition to EP Toxicity, two samples were analyzed for hydrocarbons using EPA Method 503B (Infrared Spectrophotometry) . Water Analyses From the onset of the project, ECI has been cognizant that the value of the current program depended to a certain extent upon our ability to detect potential impacts of on-site and off-site sources of contamination upon groundwater quality. Three water samples were obtained from shallow groundwater aquifers from wells installed in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3. A fourth water sample was taken at the surface at G7. Analysis for hydrocarbons followed Method 503B using Infrared Spectrophotometry. . RESULTS OF THE STUDY Soils Table 1 presents the results of EP Toxicity and hydrocarbon analyses for five soil samples. For convenience in reference, the maximum allowable concentration below that required for designation as dangerous waste per Washington Department of Ecology Dangerous Waste Regulations is provided in one column as MCL. The EP Toxicity analysis results verify that in our sample 22 group, none of the contaminants were present at levels required for designation as dangerous waste. `' With respect to hydrocarbons in soil, it will be noted that elevated levels of hydrocarbons were detected in shallow surficial deposits at sampling locations G-1 and Test Pit TP-3. G-1 was sited in a shallow surface runoff channel in the northeast corner of the subject site. The runoff appears to emerge from the property to the north, with flow leading to the main drainage ditch described earlier in this report. Test Pit TP-3 was sited just south of the fenced area in the central property as shown on 5 i Plate 2. Both hydrocarbon occurrences are thought to be relatively shallow seated resulting from minor surface spillages. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6,- 19 8 7 Page Six Water Table 2 presents analysis of four water samples. Parameters evaluated included oil and grease for total hydrocarbons using infrared spectrophotometry (IR) , repeat analysis by IR using silica gel separation to scan for non-polar, petroleum-derived hydrocarbons and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) to detect Isomers that might fail detection by IR methods. In all cases, the analysis of groundwater for hydrocarbons show trace levels generally well below thresholds of concern currently expressed by regulatory and health agencies. Limitations The observations, testing and conclusions presented in this report are based upon widely scattered selected sampling localities selected on the basis of apparent former use, visual appearance of soils and other judgmental factors. If, during subsequent site work, differing conditions become apparent, we recommend that ECI be contacted to re-evaluate conditions on the site and to provide supplemental analysis or recommendations as may be appropriate. We trust that the information contained in this report will be adequate for your current needs. If you have any questions or we may be of service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, TH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 y .J �-lJ 01 S• L i, .. Don W. Spencer '�0 q-of w ASH�y `Project Manager/Project Geologist "� w w� o ert S. v n n, P. E. RSL tm ‘� S FQ 1A59iLv'fi ��'f11President DWS / / F 'SSr-,��#14 s 1i�iiro/6N'� . Attachments: Tables 1 and 2 Plate 1 - Vicinity Map Plate 2 - Exploration Location Map Plate 3 - Legend Plates 4 through 8° - Boring Logs Plates 9 through 11 - Test Pit Logs cc: Berkley Structures Al Clow Earth Consultants, Inc. • Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 TABLE 1 li\ ; / SOILS ANALYSES STERNOFF PROPERTY Parameter . Sample STD G-1_ TP-2 TP-3 TP-5 R-3 (0.5) (1+3 ) (1 ) (1 .5) MCL EP-Tox Arsenic <0. 2 <0. 2 <0.2 <0. 2 <0. 2 5 Barium 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 100 Cadmium <0.01 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 0. 02 1 Chromium <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5 Lead <0.1 0.6 <0.1 <0. 1 0.1 5 Mercury <0.005 <0.005 In Process <0.005 <0.005 0.2 Selenium <0.2 <0. 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.2 1 Silver <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5 Oil & Not 210 Not 180 Not N/A Grease Tested Tested Tested Notes: 1) MCL is maximum concentration below designation as Dangerous Waste (WAC 173-303-090) 2) Concentrations shown are in PPM. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 TABLE 2 WATER ANALYSES STERNOFF PROPERTY Sampling Location Parameter B-1 B-2 B-3 G-7 Oil and Grease 6.8 7.6 8.6 14.4 Petroleum 3. 9 2.0 4.2 1. 5 Hydrocarbon _ Total Organic 13.0 8. 5 21.0 27.0 Carbon • Notes: 1) Values in Mg/L (ppm) Earth Consultants, Inc. • • ii s u 4 `I \ �I, t_ Z I 1 1 Tv 1 5 q M - FII NL�� , - ss •• . S RB170M� I sift I iii .00.Werlresrelli\._ - ISIsl ST .. I • P . . N. 4 "A°0... 4101E. Iii .....-111 \ I- • *tit/ I L : . ' ;-404:4,. ,:,-, --"" ,. 11r T A ■v. Y ~ es. ` . . \ Nap-41,7—al-n...„60,01•0111r- k6 mil, se:. . r! • 1 : ,e_ r ,t---.7 , I. . c,..ffi 1 41 I A i. •• -,A1111::::: .=.. "q1, i ifix C . 0 t. '''..." ___..4__3_ _ If-..1 z rim s M T , ,TJ1 K MZ/MBT ,�' i MTH T f 11• •� ,- j I I 17111r r sit: • I 26 i I 1 �. • 251 �I sT I \ .....,., n 1/ ',. , al I - i aT I ir C�p11�T[ fI'III I i MD �r .I • � 4 1111- �• I T © 3 51.1' _� -nvu• —-Tnuuo ar — a °3�� —1 __ 1:1 __T—_ _ --i— — j w�T SII' STs_LT 0 '1 'j SI I Jy � T • ..;reTH I o1G I w . ,, a I s7mH T • I "/yp el TN ST T rLIL�an. '.�- Q V Il I • I / YLLLET 5 �T c` I R,i 8 - I I E1b`$. - - H.: I„ i s TOTH �� \ . n a a D I ST I ,/ G et ' • c•_ 11Cg. 8�181,�T BT -_ ..�SH?.�' Ts' -' rT-' s�ICH I I . l'IIIj Q� • / ST 3 . , / 36 I I r0 31 </ J ,„ sT I • R I • I ■ (I. ""�\ �` , T Isr, . � a a 1 _ If k I . F J / ~ ' -- ---, ' • ` i 7 U1MQ ;' S ,„ I s MIN sr I i \� t 0 Reference : King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1986 ,I. Vicinity Map Earth + .` I' 1!". )4 (lit Sternoff Metals Property Consultaists Inc.\' Renton, Washington GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOGY Proj.No. 3000 1 Date May '86 I Plate 1 1 . „_� G-3 i /1 _^- . a�J a=J (�'��-` i; �,r`,,� L /'�_/! I - imp . . , ' Approximate Scale �_,Y_.��=,_v-- 1 -:. ��, \�:;'`-� SHREDDED NON-METALLlC � G-2 � � � __-'M1 -- __--� lc, i;-� �' �' , AUTOMOTIVE DEBRIS I fIIi 0 100 200 400ft. r. -.1._ .•"•^Q GI-7 s•/.1\%�\r r -i':``1 `!, ;sl !\,v s\,`\N` ( / « JUG- 1 - 1 .� .w / \,; ;; G-I ' LEGEND MARSH took•• `C c'=,'-/,-/= - / S B-3 Approximate Boring „•�•�••• �j``_jy— 1 B_2 it / Location ; �o;,G-5 TP-3 ,� .,'R-I SHREDDED ,.�lf _ _ B_4 .P-5 I N I ®TP-I Approximate Test Pit MPHTONE oCABLE— '" 1 I TP-2 Location ( I 1 R-3 ® Approximate Location of I i---_-----r-- - Boring by Others Existing STREAM I . , Dirt Rood CHANNEL - - �,1.-- Property ♦ R-2 Approximate Location of I ' ( Line • Stream Sediment Sampling �_6 Existing Build' s ,, . - o G-3 Approximate Surface Grab 1 Sample Location , , 1 ----) ,..r % I B l Reference \� , / R"2� __ Site Plan -- __ _,_ Received From Client S.W. 43 rd STREET Undated 1 yr/ i III, �-+I Earth r I l' . , Consultants Inc. .\ ' M I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Exploration Location Map Sternoff Metals Property Renton, Washington • Proj.No. 3000 'Date May .86 'Plate 2 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL t.t•4.4or'i Gravel ��,. ••,o,''GW Well-Graded Gravels,Gravel-Sand And Clean Gravels .'•'o•'•'.'O'•'• gw Mixtures, Little Or No Fines - Gravelly (little or no fines) ' :e: :0: :•: : Gp Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils .. •, .. •' •.. •' - gp Sand Mixtures,Little Or No Fines Grained Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50°° Coarse Gravels'With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable ;If ; Retained On amount of fines) /. GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve /A gC Clay Mixtures Sand o 0°00 °0 p o°• SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand o°o o; p'o°c SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) �•.. More Than Soils SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly 50°%c Material •• •:• Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than A+••' •,.t••, More Than I No.200 Sieve Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures • Size 50° Coarse Sands With Sm Fraction Fines(appreciable �I �../I SC Passing No.4 amount of fines) Sieve ��;•f.,,, SM SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures �arJ!_d ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour.Silty- • rttl Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity -- Fine Silts Liquid Limit Cl., Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 � CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays. Silty Clays. Lean Soils Clays I I 1 I I I 1 I I j I OL Organic Silts And Organic I I I I I 01 Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50°o Material Silts Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High , No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity. Fat Clays Size /,,A OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High //////' Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts ////// � PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils �. -.,:. _ pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil ...,. Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents 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 Notes: Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification.Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab— oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. • I 2-0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf Tr 2.4' I.D. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf IL SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight ilE SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED. pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft. 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent • 1 WATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX { I' t LEGEND IV Earth I • Consultants Inc. \ ''� .GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 `Date May'86 (Plate 3 , • BORING NO. _i____ Logged By RWB • Date 5/10/86 • ELEV. +14± US (N) As-Built Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows ( ) We I I Ft. Diagram. ti.✓J J✓✓. 4-1 D sm Silty SAND, brown, loose, moist • I. 5 22 I.,. , , on, ° u ° .0 a °.-I . p0.° ,.ca. , a •u• 0 6 ° 3 2 8 ' 'staq o t . sp SAND, dark gray, — ,:._titi medium to fine, medium - 10 .. .. ,:,: dense, wet. - o:::;,i :o_ ... Silt Z increases with depth grading •to : = 13 nn silry sand — 15 _•:• • • • �;�. V _ ,.mot • • ••o. 19 24 A:j,°' oI-. �tif -20 V - T 15 :.. ; x'.- _L ..p, p. �,- -25 :0'°'- Cd al - . :a).. p;n): :2ti sm _ = 10 30 i.';u•'` U :.0 ml Sandy SILT, light gray, medium dense, - Ili;.....4,.;:. �.,.' some organic fragments, wet - = 11 �'w'•-.. —35 ::roots. e•:::u: - - 40 : I . sp SAND, dark gray, medium to fine, dense - T 52 .�;�':r' �; to very dense, wet --45 •,o•�:` ;;�' 1 52 . :•.::: • 750 '.::::::.Z ;•:::•03:.•:•.-----4'A..1:.::::-::.• • :; sm q -55 y: o; 31 of :• _- = :: a T : 30 .. Total Depth = 58.5 feet . (B) denotes •bentonite pellets • BORING LOG .•-..Jit , STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY y V RENTON, WASHINGTON • Earth ‘1111 i ti GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 30001 Date May'86 !Plate 4 BORING NO. 2 Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 ELEV. +14± Depth (N) w As -Built Graph US Soil Description p Sample Blows Well (ft.) Ft. (91 Diagram 'I• sm Topsoil, silty SAND, brown - 4;, : 'r „:ti , %, L,,. - 5 32 •aV al o� Silty SAND, brown/mottled, medium to - 5 a :.a�i,° ' �a fine, subangular to subrounded, loose, : !, wet = 6 30 J >Y a . rr •.a :••.: : : — 10 ... •• .. JJ •:J.J; sm - J JJJ lJJ ��' J .1.< ,:fti - I7i-�. P <r 15 _; medium dense T ' �•'. J.. 10 22 � -{n: .'. — 20 ':.m•:�—. b ; i :%' » -- � vr:: (.5.:' J J9J JJJ •.• dense - • - T 35 . Total depth = 29 feet • (B) denotes bentonite pellets NG LOG /f it; hi STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth • ConsultantsOn • IP/ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Prof. No. 3000 I Date May'86 ,Plate 5 BORING NO. 3 Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 ELEV. +14± US Dept (N) w As- Built Graph CS Soil Description Sample Blows Well (ft.) Ft. (%) Diagram 1e44. sm SiltySAND, bluish-gray, : o a o 4 4, �• • �. -dense,(fill) , noticeable odor = 17 30 °`®° °• sm Silty SAND, gray,• loose, wet, some odor 7 5 11 _ I 4 27 sm Silty SAND - -10 ��'' Q 7 o�;•a '0 0 -- -+- 29 0 .O �-I •i. -15 ., :, .n c.. : 1 li mh Clayey SILT, tan, soft, some organics ; ... : :y i`�t�1 _SILT and PEAT • _ I 12 i' . -20,• Silty SAND,, gray, fine, loose to medium _ 10 20 cv dense _ .,' 25 ;Y .' it, ___ - T • . �•..—'.•••. 1 12 '.�:: . III ! Iml/mh Clayey SILT, tan, medium high,. plastic, _ _ 12 17 s'c ' `.; --- -Q3II�_ r.g zLlcs - ism Silty SAND, medium to fine, dense, wet I_ 47 ' :: ' I:l T 40 '.'4'.......' ..._ Total depth = 44 feet (B) denotes bentonite pellets BORING LOG - ./..JI (It• , STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth I Consultants Inc. �1:.� GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 I1'1a 6 BORING NO. Logged By RWB Date 5/14/86 ELEV. +14± Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows W (ftJ Ft. (96) 1 ml Sandy SILT, gray, some clay. Brick - = 9 32 rubble at surface, mottled, low _ 5 Q plasticity _ I 4 35 —10 - 2 -". _ —15 0•7„_ -pt PEAT, brown fibrous,. very soft, wet - - = --- --- ----- _ = 13 30 • sm Silty SAND, gray, medium to fine, —20 medium dense, wet = 15 — -------- —25 IIIIIII I °1 SILT, gray, very soft, organic, wet _ III --- _ I 2 III1IHI—ol Tan SILT —30 sm Silty SAND, gray, medium to fine - = 0 sand, very loose to medium dense, wet 1_35 :! J. - 16 16 t ♦ ' ..: ,:,: 0 IF: = 21 22 c<�JJJ .: -�5 tit {!:,, : - � 29 Total depth = 49 feet • • / BORING LOG . . d STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth111." 14) VI"Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 I1ate BORING NO. Logged By RWB Date 5/14/86 ELEV. +14± (N) Graph CS Soil Description Depth ft)h Sample Blows ( ) Ft. ml SILT, brown, soft, wet _ 5 30 - JJ lJJti J 11 J �1 `tL1 t 3 25 sm Silty SAND, brown to tan, fine sand, -10 loose to medium dense _ = 2 22 —15 JJJ J!� lJlti ti 24 \t �tt1 ,.t'. .�.. —20 24 28 —25 »5 J11 J. JJJ JJti J., T {;; tit 25 Total depth = 29 feet • • // BORING LOG • r' { I' /, \ STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth! VIIConsultarts Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 11ate 8 TEST PIT NO. Logged By RWB Dide 5/10/86 +14± Elev. Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (%) 0 FILL N/A FILL, unit consists of shredded non-metalic auto parts in sand/silt matrix. Unit is gray and wet 5 SZ • sm Silty SAND, bluish gray, medium to fine, loose, 1. occasional clay-silt inclusions 10 —' Total depth = 9 feet 15, Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 TEST PIT NO. Elev. +14± 0 N/A FILL, mixture of steel slag mixed with native soil, traces of oil : • ��i�i• •:O 5 _•♦�1 ml/mh Clayey SILT, bluish gray, mottled, soft, medium plasticity, moist 10 _ Total depth = 8 feet 15 TEST PIT LOGS e'• STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY Earth I RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 J Date May'86 'Plate 9 • TEST PIT NO. Logged By RWB Date 5/1O/8fi Elev. +14± Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description 1961 0 ����� sm FILL, silty sand, black with some oil - ml SILT, tan with fine sand, loose, non-plastic, - moist 5 — Total depth = 6 feet 10 — 15 RWB Logged /1/0/86 TEST PIT NO. �,_ Elev. +14± 0 ml/ Sandy SILT, brown to tan, loose to medium dense, - * sm some roots - i 5 J<< Total depth = 5 feet 10 — 15 TEST PIT LOGS � I { �• � , STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY i RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth •Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 'Plate 10 TEST PIT NO. 5 Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 Elev. +14± Depth W (ft.) USCS Soil Description (%) 0 v. • N/A FILL, debris includes ash-slag, brick, concrete • and scrap iron • ml SILT, bluish-gray, slightly mottled, occasional 5 -- lili organics, noticeable H2S odor - I Total depth = 7 feet 10 — 15 Logged By RWB • ' Date 5/10/86 TEST PIT NO. S2_ Elev. +14± 0 11 ' ml/ Sandy SILT, brown, fine, loose, moist 1l 'tiff! sm �tt1 t.t 1 err.+---- ----- 5 —' ml Clayey SILT, brownish-gray, mottled, soft, moist to wet Total depth = 7 feet 10 — 15 k TEST PIT LOGS , STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY >t'tli RENTON, WASHINGTON Ea Consultants Inc. " GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 'Plate 11 . ' mow' . . _ ..i+ ' • ,w • l rr• . • •lb, ' •4'riDe.• -.- • ill II) , ; ) - NI"'; I..' '• Eillit Illith ? .ir ._ 'I' •j"\ 1. r L • 2,..•••••••••44.0' • .tabie pit • • '.}• Ott ' • iktel ' .y'.t . Xyta .ry, v,, c Jo 1'..!ity Pr' s .wc 4' C• f. ry . . • !+ • 11i il n ••• • O» (05 r pia YELLOW FILE: SP-042-87, ECF-038-87 0 SM-007-87 vt iiii IN wigiNi.. h lU� l f� SAY 1, BUELDiNG/Zo\ING DE PT, PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY SOUTHWEST 43RD STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-3000 FOR STERNOO 1( /4 Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Geology May 6, 1987 E-3000 Sternco 13541 Southeast 26th Bellevue, Washington 98005 Attention: Mr. Alan Sternoff Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Sternoff Metals Property SW 43rd Street Renton, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) has completed a preliminary evaluation of subsurface soil conditions at the subject site as they may relate to possible future development and construction. This report presents the results of field and office studies along with tentative conclusions. Our study indicates that the site is underlain by thirty five (35) to forty (40) feet of soft and loose sands and silts with occasional thin interbeds of fibrous peat characteristic of alluvial deposits found in some parts of the Kent Valley. Single-story, tilt-up office/warehouse buildings can be constructed on conventional foundations founded on a structural fill mat. We estimate that total settlements may be on the order of three to four inches with post-construction differential settlements of one and one-half inches. If this range of anticipated settlement cannot be tolerated, it can be reduced by pre-loading the site with a surcharge fill as described further in this report. This report has been prepared for specific application as a preliminary evaluation and planning document. Once the locations and designs for buildings or other proposed structures have been tentatively selected, we recommend supplemental subsurface investigation to confirm conditions at the building sites and to address specific requirements of each structure. 1805 I36th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue,Washington 98005/Bellevue (206)643-3780/Seattle (206) 464-1584 • Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page 2 This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Sternco and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included along with any supplemental studies in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. The _ following sections of this report describe our study and contain recommendations regarding foundation design criteria , earthwork considerations, and site drainage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building locations were as shown schematically on the Exploration Location Map, Plate 2. Assumptions made in developing criteria for this report rely on a tentative development scheme that would call for construction of typical single-story tilt-up panel office buildings. We further assume that perimeter wall loads would be on the order of 3 kips per lineal foot with maximum column loads on the order of 60 kips. If actual design and construction plans developed for the site structures differ from the assumptions stated in the preceding paragraphs, we should be consulted to review the recommendations presented in this report. In any case, it is recommended that ECI provide a general review of the final design. The scope of work for this phase of work included review of studies made by earlier workers, drilling, sampling and logging five geotechnical borings and excavation, sampling and logging of six backhoe test pits, laboratory analysis of physical properties for samples and preparation of this report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located north of and adjacent to SW 43rd Street; the southwest corner of the property is located roughly fifteen hundred (1500) feet east of the Green River. From that point, the property extends roughly eighteen hundred (1800) feet (estimated) east along SW 43rd Street and nine hundred (900) to nine hundred fifty (950) feet north of the road (see Vicinity Map, Plate 1) . A large northeast trending drainage ditch bisects the property; to the south of the ditch, land remains largely residential with some undisturbed agricultural land. North of the ditch, various industrial operations and accumulations of shredded Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, .1987 Page 3 debris cover many segments of the northern area as shown on Plate 2. Subsurface As previously discussed, the subsurface soils evaluation was facilitated by drilling five test borings and excavating six backhoe test pits. Plates 4 through 8 provide a detailed description of conditions encountered at each location drilled. Review of boring logs made for evaluation of neighboring parcels (Twelker, 1967) provided additional information on engineering properties for soils at the site. Plates 9 through 11, illustrate schematically soil conditions encountered in the backhoe test pits. Based upon our review of boring and test pit data, it is apparent that the site is typically underlain by thirty five (35) to forty (40) feet of interfingering and poorly stratified silty sands and sandy or clayey silts. Occasional lenticular peat interbeds four to five feet thick have also been noted at depths of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet under certain parts of the site. The silts and upper loose silty sands in most of the borings have Standard Penetration Test (SPT/ASTM D-1586) values of approximately one (1 ) to fifteen (15) blows per foot. The borings were terminated in medium dense to dense sands encountered at depths ranging from twenty nine (29) to fifty eight (58) feet below the ground surface. Groundwater The groundwater seepage levels observed while drilling are shown on each boring log. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from five (5 ) to fourteen (14) feet below the existing surface during drilling. The groundwater seepage level is not static, thus one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors . Generally the water level is higher in the wetter winter months. DISCUSSION AND RECONMENDATIONS General ' The principal geotechnical consideration for site development is the presence of the soft and loose soils: These soils are moderately compressible. The amount of settlement is a function of thickness and composition of the soils and the building and, fill loads. It is our opinion that the buildings, can be supported on conventional footings constructed on a minimum of two feet of structural fill below footings and at least one foot below slabs and pavements. The granular fill distributes the foundation loads • and provides more uniform foundation support. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page 4 For planning purposes, if we assume that two or three feet of fill will be placed for building grades, we estimate that total settlements will be on the order of three to four inches. The subsurface soils, while varying in composition, appear to have rather ' uniform compressibility characteristics. Differential post-construction settlements of about one and one-half inches between building corners are anticipated. This could require some maintenance but should not cause excessive structural distress . We recommend placing building fill to building perimeters and allowing it to stand until most of the settlement due to the weight of the fill has leveled out. We estimate this settlement would take about three weeks. At least six settlement markers should be placed in each building area to monitor the rate and magnitude of settlement. If this amount of settlement is not tolerable, we then recommend the placement of a surcharge fill over the finished grade. We recommend that the fills be placed early in the construction schedule. Foundations One-story tilt-up office structures may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. Overexcavation of soil below the footing may be required depending on final site grades. Fill placed under footings should extend outwards from the edge of the footings at least two feet. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. Interior footings may be at a depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of the slab. Footings bearing on structural fill should be designed for a bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) pounds per square "foot (psf) . Continuous and individual spread footings" should have minimum widths of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the.. pressure_ of a fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . We recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter foot- ings. The drains should be constructed with a four inch diameter perforated pipe bedded and covered with free draining gravel. The Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page 5 drains should have a positive gradient towards suitable discharge facilities. The footing drainage system should not be tied into the roof drainage system until the drains are tightlined well away from the building. The footing excavation should be backfilled with granular soil except for the top foot which should be backfilled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay or topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete pavements. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. Any unstable native soils must either be • recompacted or replaced with structural fill. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free draining sand or gravel. We also recommend that a vapor barrier such as a 6 mil plastic membrane be placed beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab and the resultant moisture accumulation. , Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Site Drainage Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging. from five (5) to fourteen ' (14) feet below existing grade. However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels change significantly due to changes in rainfall amounts, surface drainage or other, factors. The excavation and site should be• graded so that surface water is directed off the . site and away from the tops of slopes. -Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or ' pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building founda- tions. We suggest that the ground be sloped 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings except in areas that are to be paved. Pavement Areas All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native soils or existing fills if these soils could be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density and more stable at the time of construction. These soils are moisture sensitive and were near the optimum moisture content at the time of our visit. . We recommend supporting the pavement section on a minimum of twelve • (12) inches of structural fill. A greater thickness may be needed Earth Consultants, Inc. • Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page 6 to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas . The upper twelve (12) inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Below this level a compactive effort of 90 percent would be adequate. The pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) . Heavier loaded areas would require thicker sections. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Site Preparation and General Earthwork Building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. It is antici- pated that a stripping depth of six to eight inches will be required. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. Soil in any loose or soft areas should be removed )and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designa- tion D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor) . The fill materials should be placed at or near the 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. Structural. fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. During dry weather, any compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. • Surcharge Program As indicated earlier in this report, if the anticipated • settlements cannot be tolerated, we recommend that the building Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, . 1987 - Page 7 areas be pre-loaded with a minimum of three feet 'of surcharge fill. The purpose of the surcharge fill is to induce as much settlement in the building areas as possible prior to construc- tion. This fill is in addition to any structural fill materials required to achieve design finish grades; thus, the top of the surcharge should be three feet above finish grade and should extend a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter. If future expansion is anticipated, the surcharge should extend at least, twenty (20) feet in the direction of the future addition. The extra surcharge is to reduce the possiblity of differential settlement from future building or surcharge loads. Also, no fill for landscaping purposes should be placed near the building since any additional fill could induce further settlement. The side slopes of the surcharge fill should be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) . We estimate that the surcharge fill will need to remain in place approximately three to four weeks to permit primary settlements to be completed, after which, building construction may be started. Before placing the surcharge fill, structural fill should be placed six inches above finish grade to allow for anticipated • settlement. Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to overexcavate soil to provide the required thickness of structural fill below footings and slabs. Alternatively, footing excavations can be done after removal of the surcharge fill.. The surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements except that it should have a minimum in-place total density of one hundred twenty (120) pcf. However, if the surcharge fill is to be used later as fill on another part of the site, we recommend it meet the requirements for structural fill, i.e. , contain no organics and be compactible. Structural fill to be placed in wet weather should contain no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Prior to placement of the surcharge fill, we recommend installation of at least six settlement markers within the surcharge area for each building. These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction equipment. In addition, these markers should be surveyed by ECI personnel or a licensed surveyor during fill and surcharge placement and at intervals of 2, 4, 8, 16 (so forth) days after completion of the surcharge fill placement. The initial reading should show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during surcharge placement should show the surcharge fill thickness. The settlement readings should be evaluated by ECI. The surcharge may be removed when the required settlement has been reached. The exposed subgrade should be proofrolled and any exposed loose pockets should be overexcavated and replaced by structural fill. Earth consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 ' Page 8 Use of Existing Waste Material For Fill As suggested on the Exploration Location Map, Plate 2, a considerable volume of industrial debris was found concentrated in the northwest corner of the subject property. The material has been coarsely differentiated into two types of material. In one area near Test Pit TP-1, shredded non-metallic automotive debris (plastic, rubber, glass, etc. ) had been concentrated. Near G-5 (see Plate 2) , a considerable volume of shredded telephone cable has been stockpiled. In depth laboratory analysis of these deposits has been performed by earlier workers (Dames and Moore, 1975) . A summary of conclusions presented in their report can be highlighted as follows: 1) Heat generated through biodegradation has been noted in some deposits. • 2) Compacted dry densities of seventy (70) to eighty (80) psf have been attained (AASHO-T-180) . • 3) Mixing with 50 percent "slag" having grain size distribution of slightly silty sand permitted maximum dry density of one hundred six (106) psf. if4) The use of these materials for structural fill was not recommended owing to likelihood of substantial settlements. 5) A 50/50 slag-waste mix could possibly provide adequate support if overlain by two feet of granular fill, but this would have to be confirmed by conducting a test fill section wherein observation of settlement and reaction to loading could be made over some period of time. . 6 ) Use of the "old" slag without mixing could, through "sound" construction and engineering methods, be used for filling in parking areas. 1 In conclusion, the earlier study for the potential use of waste materials as fill presents an encouraging case for an economical means of utilizing and disposing of the sizeable volume , of waste. At some point prior to commencement of construction, we would recommend implementation of a test fill program, possibly utilizing a 50/50 mixture of waste and sand as a subgrade fill configured in a "typical" pavement/parking area design for this -- project. Analysis of response of the test section to abuse of construction traffic and possibly other load tests could then form the basis for refinements in design, possibly leading to implementation of large scale use of the waste material in non-critical fill areas such as parking. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 , Page 9 In addition to load bearing considerations, in view of the reported biological activity and heat generated by the waste, the potential for methane generation should not be overlooked. Follow- up monitoring of emissions from the existing deposits, as well as in any test sections via monitoring pipes or wells would be advisable. We recommend that ECI be consulted in design and implementation of a gas monitoring program. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on May 10 and May 14, 1986. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling five borings to a maximum depth of fifty eight and one-half (58. 5) feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Drilling Unlimited using a truck-mounted drill rig. Continuous flight, hollow stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. The locations of the borings were approximately determined by use of of a steel tape and visual examination of terrain features. Elevations of borings were approximately determined by topographic analysis of an undated site plan. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. In addition to the borings, six backhoe test pits were excavated and sampled to evaluate shallow soils and fills. Locations for the borings and test pits are shown on the Exploration Location Map, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored, by a representative from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit or boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. Logs of the borings and test pits are presented on Plates 4 through 11. 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 boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were per- formed at selected intervals in accordance with ASTM Test Designa- tion D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers • and returned to our laboratory for further examination and test- ing. Moisture contents were performed on all disturbed samples. Results of moisture determinations, together with classifications, • are shown on the boring and test pit logs included in this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. Sternco E-3000 May 6, 1987 Page 10 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the preliminary and final design and specifica- tions to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. It is also recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. Because of the nature of this project and the soil conditions, 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 observa- • tion and testing services. 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. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate .2 • Exploration Location Map Plate 3 Legend Plates 4 through 8 Boring Logs Plates 9 through 11 Test Pit Logs Respectfully submitted, - EARTH CONSULTANTS cry fi/f,e S. L Y= Don W. Spencer LSH, '/fi. Project Manager/Project Geologist cc Ala r = �� _ o q i69 �$ Robert S. Levinson, P. E. • i F FG's i c. V #1 President DWS/RSL/tm i SiONg4 �e� i�� Earth Consultants, Inc. • • I '—._ ° :, I ; . /TT1T I lTl oiIS I.TN a 150TS � , d: \ � 1 w0. s � B YS _.- i i j: :i.:, *1lI,T$T ,9 . < . rN. . ... a T I: _ - N S ';' \ \ 4� iir ....... S .7,1l`t 1.S . � 40 \ � / � .1', STN z t i —_ 44110\ IHC rt { . ' Trop •_ _ j,, t` 1 . .II tr,..6T /N �,., A/ s�° E N li 0 N sue.''IT•"• • rat ''"''•: EYAMS . i I ', II ► T• � uc T . 1 • -A, •/I. � ZG a .� sTT 11 • T T --- - — _'L- I i ' ST • S NST f . K I I / alln in.- 4o sT • � I �, ., � 1 s wl� r 1T f i 26 R j 1 • _ 251 T 16 ST I .: �'" - 1< 1I i- iii8T i I CC . •1 I I 1 M ND .. 1 I. t. i .T S17' 1T 1 I _..-_-____--_ ram L' 1 P 3) I ST ST ,, ..II4 dV SI 1 1j= ,: `'.ITBTN .p/` N N g SW '1.' 41ST ST / S 177T11 T 1 -,TILT ST �_ I =' > a1,�P S '°: T �' C I • ! I YULE, , 1T' 7 ' :a1. } _n t .0 ST I GPI, DDA © :1 T ST '1 9I / g sT.'' I \ • 41 i I I Q Q0 I .f . a 1 • ST 3 ' i ,5' II 31 ItM!i ..j36• i II 44 « 4- ST ( i T • / R a. J4�I \ •• , • I I - I R / I •� _ 7 J' ' . u S 1o1 sraxiom_ 3ESE - - sr S. 192MD T t IQ T2 '-N: 1 II Kom j• 1'STM p , I s r,TNsr i .. �_ d r i S . I ! --• 0 KReference : King County / Map 41 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1986 • 111')(tit Vicinity Map Earthyi + Sternoff Metals Property . Consultants Inc.1:' y Renton, Washington GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May 186 I Plate 1 — ""4--•-•-••4-%-----X...... i/1 ir :.. ` ay a}._ ek.L •'��1 V ,`I:f" iZs•-r`'/ A G-4 I I 1 : ' I - • ♦ •-•-''•' X I . ��-`" ..I ,/i''I /�'-'= A SHREDDED NON-METALLIC ..I. A Approximate Scale .,. G-2 I a4—y---_NV-.M' •- •1 , I;`-" '� `,':� 14 AUTOMOTIVE DEBRIS . .... r i 0 100 200 400ft. -,..,�,. '-,';_ G_7 r 10. -r '`�'�;is I:,%`?, , /. I .. __`6.o.a--•a•• Q I ,,'_♦/,`��4f/ Ili '-b -�/—__-, ,- , \ ••(• - y_a4. e4,u= f 1 't- 1. l S. ,`';,1+.t—`.,.—t%rf ._ �! -- -- —...7 , .,._._, ,IV, ,I, -,",_ _-►_ ,\ii G- 77" LEGEND . . 1Pi - 0 MARSH i••i••�•• �/c"�:� ,�_ •_1;�J '��} .���•�•�i• c`.-,'__�,;;� '�y/ IS B-3 Approximate Boring .0.0.•• ` ZI.�./.-•a =-'' I Location ;•?�'1�;,G-5 _-- TP-3 B-2 //-/R-I SHREDDED •0*- B-3 .' MULTI- CONDUCTOR • B-4 TP-5I 19 �� '� I TP-1 Approximate Test Pit PHONE CABLE I TP-2 , Location G-6 Loca on • R-3 ® Approximate Location of ";ff - Boring by Others Existing STREAM Dirt Road CHANNEL- -- - -- Property ♦ R-2 Approximate Location of I Line Stream Sediment Sampling .4,) TP-6 - ,i' - Existing Buildi s - -' o G-3 Approximate Surface Grab I % I Sample LAoation I i S B-5 1 : Referenc :1....... ,•••y , S : R_2� Site Plan \ ---- -- Received From Client S•W. 43 rd STREET Undated I l\ li, * I Earth + � ••� Consultants Inc.\ . t GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Exploration Location Mop . Sternoff Metals Property Renton, Washington Proj.No. 3000 'Date May '86 Iate 2 is MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION • SYMBOL SYMBOL Gravel �� ;;{:{ GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand And Clean Gravels elk l{'°''i'{'■'{'O. gW Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) ' :IV AP::A: : GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse • Soils i• • S • ' O. gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel Sand 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable ; - ,...,.. Retained On amount of fines) J GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No.4 Sieve AO gC Clay Mixtures Sand o ° °° ° SW Well Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand, °°°°°; pO°°o SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) O..;t• More Than. Soils SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material .•'•.:;� Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines No.Larger 200Than S eve More Than A I 1 I SM 50% Coarse Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures Size Sands With } Sm Fraction Fines(appreciable �J___s, Passing No.4 amount of'fines) � SC Sieve ssi SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Ve Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- �pl-- Clayey Fine Sands:Cry layey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Grained And Liquid Limit r��/ CL Gravelly Clayss a Low To Medium Plasticity, Soils Clays Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean I , I OL Organic Silts And Organic 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 i 1 i 1 pl Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts - Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 502107,,, Ch Plasticity, Fat•Clays Size // OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High ////// Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts (O ////// Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, Humus. Swamp Soils ,z_,_� _ pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents 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 Notes: Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab- oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not ' verified by laboratory testing. I 2-0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER C TORVANE READING, tsf -r 2.4-I.D. RING SAMPLER OR qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf 1L SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight SAMPLE. NOT RECOVERED pcf DRY DENSITY,pounds per cubic ft, 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) LL LIQUID LIMIT,percent iWATER OBSERVATION WELL PI PLASTIC INDEX �,; t ! LEGEND Earth ‘..D i/ • Consultants Inc{ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Prof. No. 3000 I Date May'86 (Plate 3 BORING NO. ____t___ Logged By RWB • Date 5/10/86 ELEV. +14± De th (N) yy As-Built Graph CS Soil Description (ft.) Sample Blows , Well Ft. Diagram :' - • vv, ° " a e .✓.•✓.•.• v 1J ° e u 2 Z y ti sm Silty SAND, brown, loose, moist - = 5 22 • �• , o W. • S ° e r — 5 p o. ,�G, . >� . a- • •: e v •• v .. = 3 28 ; •y: sp SAND, dark gray, medium to fine, medium — 10 0.•.0 dense, wet. - .... Silt % increases with depth grading to : . 13 �; :� ▪ .,Z %. .;.. •.::' n silty sand 7- 15 +r. - 1 19 24 4 �.� • -1.. ''tip —20 ;o>°+� ti ti v - 15 ;��130� x�.� •. —25 �a a�- m .a� �.: •.�' • • —30 :o: 6.. ml Sandy SILT, light gray, medium dense, �'= - a)ra,-r • i some organic fragments, wet - 11 ::a:/Pri ,.,••;:�::• ---35 :roo:.a: B-:::ui!f 19 sp SAND, dark gray, medium to fine, dense _ = 52 . to very dense, wet - ?� � —45 ':• _50 :' :f �. _ = 31 • : ' $l r ' '. sm - • T Total Depth = 58.5 feet (B) denotes bentonite pellets BORING LOG • i, .1,• \ /e STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY .,w , RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth � Consultants Inc. • , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000i Date May'86 IPate 4 BORING NO. 2 Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 ELEV. +14± US (N) yy As -Built peps Graph CS Soil Description Sample Blows Well (ft•) Ft. (96) Diagram ii.Ak sm Topsoil, silty SAND, brown o • 4 ' I °a0 ► a ° a .3 :f 5 •32 QP Silty SAND, brown/mottled, medium to _ 5 a e;(0)� '°tea fine, subangular to subrounded, loose, .1 wet I 6 ; r 30 ;}As a, rti sm - — 10 .-. Q I 4 • — 15 • •' '•• medium dense - r 10 22 •vi•: --• ; : s - :ur•• Vo�ww aru�.• l J! - ▪• •�••I:i - 9 .; ; •.�.• — 25 '.:�:. dense - 'i;c�d:;: • , 1 i - T 35 : : •:::.it: Total depth = 29 feet • (B) denotes bentonite pellets BORING LOG r' i l STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY 1l'th •, RENTON, WASHINGTON Ea • Consultantsi / 1y GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 IDate May'86 1Pkite 5 BORING NO. 3 Logged By. RWB Date 5/10/86 ELEV. +14± Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample BlowsN W AsWBuilt (ft.) Ft. '%' Diagram •Q• V° sm Silty SAND, bluish-gray, medium dense, _ •:° ° c4e• • ••• 6 (fill) , noticeable odor = 17 30 • ° ' 44 I... 9 6 • v P 4..40 ...... a....• .. • 11'• . • •.f.1 sm Silty SAND, gray, loose, wet, some odor _ 5 _ I 4 27 sm Silty SAND —10 .• • ��▪' ®�,a ''-'4.)• • �� • --- = 7 .•Oa ctf •o o . 29 °:2 .: :a 'bo: mh Clayey SILT, tan, soft, some organics 7-15 12 • e:t.-;r• a, •rn? :77=4- t511 SILT and PEAT _ I ' a • sm Silty SAND, gray, fine, loose to medium - T :N dense ..L 10 20 ••_ ' I 12 o •: :; —30 • III ! ml/mh Clayey SILT, tan, medium high,, plastic, _ = 12 17 •`'b�•� :�� �.4JIIP—arzar .Cs —,• ' _ sm Silty SAND, medium to fine, dense, wet ;:•'�.� 47 ,t44: w ' —40 : 4-1: . '. T 40 •- -• _ . Total depth = 44 feet (B) denotes bentonite pellets / BORING LOG • , 11111 /lit l• STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth ,• Consul �" Consultants �. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 kfte May'86 ,Plate 6 BORING NO. ____4.__ ed By RWB 5/14/86 ELEV. +14± (N) GraUS Soil Description De p- Sample Blows (W) Ft. Sandy SILT, gray, some clay. Brick _ = 9 32 rubble at surface, mottled, low — 5 Y plasticity - _ = 4 35 —10 u='4 —15 r..= PEAT, brown fibrous, very soft, wet - .7+. — --- ----- - = 13 30 Silty SAND, gray, medium to fine, -20 medium dense, wet = 15 —25 11 :21Ligray,SILT, gray, very soft, organic, wet _II _ 2 • II11—ol— Tan SILT — -30 ;1 • - Silty SAND, gray, medium to fine - = 0 • sand, very loose to medium dense, wet -35 16 16 --40 - = 21 22 ' 5: - 45 <• -r 29 Total depth = 49 feet BORING LOG • 110 irit STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY RENTON, WASHINGTON Earth I. cow l :, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 i Date May'86 'Plate BORING NO. ___5___ Logged By RWB Date 5/14/86 ELEV. +14± Graph CS Soil Description Depth Sample Blows W (ft.) Ft. (%) t:I. _mlST, wn, soft, wet _ 5 30 j J.JJJJJ _ J jllJ..IJ _ {J{{{J{ .., `,. - I 3 25 sin Silty SAND, brown to tan, fine sand, -10 loose to medium dense _ = 2 22 —15 J.J.'' 'jjj• j tiJJJlJl J JJ.ti' - = 24 •.' ti�� . . .;,tiff.{ - -20 1 _ = 24 28 —25 J• :JJ J J . - J jJtiJ.J.• I25 J ,:J'ti;J{ / - Total depth = 29 feet // BORING LOG Alt1/ 1' Ii'i STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY Earth irRENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Prof. No. 3000 I Date May'86 'Plate 8 TEST PIT Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 Elev. +14± • Depth yy (ft.) USCS Soil Description (96) 0 444 FILL ------- ;� �� N/A FILL, unit consists of shredded non-metalic auto parts in sand/silt matrix. Unit is gray and wet 5 •••• • ••• ---- -- - SZ _ " sm Silty SAND, bluish gray, medium to fine, loose, .1 occasional clay-silt inclusions 10 -- Total depth = 9 feet 15, Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 TEST PIT NO. _. 2 _ Elev. +14± o •••••- •� �. N/A FILL, mixture of steel slag mixed with native soil, ♦•♦ •�•• traces of oil ••�•�•. ••• i•.•• . 5 --•O••ti ---- - ml/mh Clayey SILT, bluish gray, mottled, soft, medium plasticity, moist 10 — Total depth = 8 feet 15 - TEST PIT LOGS { / STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY Earth , 0 ' / RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants tants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 'Plate 9 TEST PIT NO. ..a__ Logged By RWR • Date 5/10/R6 Elev. +14± • Depth y� (ft.) USCS Soil Description (96) ����� sm FILL, silty sand, black with some oil ml SILT, tan with fine sand, loose, non-plastic, - !I moist - 1 5 — Total depth = 6 feet 10 — 15 Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 TEST PIT NO. 4 Elev. +14± 0 • I ml/ Sandy SILT, brown to tan, loose to medium dense, sm some roots 5 • Total depth = 5 feet 10 — 15 - • TEST PIT LOGS STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY Earth I RENTON, WASHINGTON Consultants Inc. Y •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Prof. No. 3000 I Date May'86 (Plate 10 TEST PITNO. ._25 • Logged By RWB Date 5/10/86 Elev. +14± Depth �y (ft.) USCS Soil Description (96) 0 N/A FILL, debris includes ash-slag, brick, concrete and scrap iron ml SILT, bluish-gray, slightly mottled, occasional 5 i organics, noticeable H2S odor - I Total depth = 7 feet 10 15 Logged By Rk'B TEST PIT NO. _� E lev. +14± Date 5/10/86 0 - :•l:G I! ml/ Sandy SILT, brown, fine, loose, moist sm 5 ; ( 11' — . ;L, ml Clayey SILT, brownish-gray, mottled, soft, moist HlH; to wet Total depth = 7 feet 10 -- 15 TEST PIT LOGS 4) / , STERNOFF METALS PROPERTY 1'th RENTON, WASHINGTON Ea Consultants Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. 3000 I Date May'86 Iate 11 p -A r I - , 1 1 '- -..�..f • I • I • . r . I . 1 _.�"_� I 1ppp000' 1 r j .L Mi d. A� I V 3 ' • I i -1--4-4--•....,...........................1=0......,..__.. ' ' - Cr i 1", 'Az - �%,/a Q G-4 - I -_ - �^`^' F - ► I - Approximate Scale • __,,._=y �� @tiI'i%%Ji .;/;►-1 . SHREDDED NON-METALLIC:' - G-2 I , I >�: _ 4: . . ,�- lit..;I ; ='`.. AUTOMOTIVE DEBRIS • I ...• r• 0 100 200 400ft. • f.a—•.4.. -O.. —1 r \ /\/ /. /�1/ I / I .. __w o.a.--- ®7G—� �1�1:/� / i,�,mil/ _ ,!.,./`1® / I gip-. / ,....-::::....„ 4-4„...:,,_ //>, G-I / LEGEND MARSH ` . -•-•��•••. \ 'mot_ i`- . /-:/ / I �.:4� p /,__%. / x S-3 Approximate Boring �������°. `�:�a.ci��`f B_2 // / I Location • +�:�•o;G"5 =- TP-3 / ./'R"i SHREDDED ;' �� w� G-3 . , MULTI- CONDUCTOR / _ G"4 TP-5 ■_ �,'', � ' Si TP-1 Approximate Test Pit PHONE CABLE • l TP-2 S �' G-6 ' Location ! • -P R-3 ® Approximate Location of i r�_� ;` - Boring by Others e Existing STREAM , - 1 Dirt Rood CHANNEL—NI, Property A R-2 Approximate Location of Line Stream Sediment Sampling TP-6 I ,--;;,- Existing Buildi s ® Ge3 Approximate Surface Grab i II) frii I - ; ' Sample LOC®tiorl .._ S f3-5 1 I%• f•�y�i T -- Reference:_ ---~ I Site Plan ,/ / -21 ®_ _ l —_ - Received From Client . - S.W. 43 l d STREET Undated /(f/ . :if -• it, •-•1i,: ! - ' Earth ++ ) , 1.t . - Consultants Inc.\, i .- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 8 GEOLOGY • I Exploration Location Map Sternoff Metals Property Renton, Washington . P,roj.No. ,3000 ;Date May '86 Plate 2 DJC CR 45(a)(2) (714) 1971 ® Daily Journal of Commer (Copy Receipt) (Clerk's Date Stamp) SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of King ss. ROBERT STERNOFF, ET AL,, Plaintiff__ No. 88-2-13988-1 vs. B. T. STERNOFF, ET AL.l SUBPOENA DUCES--TECUM FOR TRIAL (Civil Rule 45(a)(2)) & 45(b) Defendant__:__-_ -- THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, To Mr . Donald Erikson Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department _Rent on_, I LAA 9.80.5.5 You are hereby commanded to be and appear at the Superior Court of the State of Washing- ton, King County, in the Court room of Judge Peter Steere Department No W813 in the King County Court House, in Seattle, at 9:30 o'clock in the fore noon of the 9th day of _January A. D. 19___9_0__, then and there to testify as a witness on behalf of plaintiffs and to bring with you the items listed on the attached sheet in a certain cause therein, pending, wherein Robert Sternof f, et al ,, Plaintiffs , and , Defendants , and to remain in attendance on said Court until discharged, and HEREIN FAIL NOT AT YOUR PERIL. WITNESS our_ hands this 22nd day of( December 19 89 Attorney(s) of Record fIlfr [Name and Address for Window Envelope) Karen I. Treiger Karen I. Treiger Davis Wright & Jones DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES 1501 Fourth Avenue . Address...1551---4th.J v enu4e,---Suite...2 6 0 0 2600 Century Square, Seattle, Wash. 98101 Seattle, Wa 98101 622 3150 L J (Telephone) Subpoena 12 ' v Bring with you: (a) The July 15, 1987 Building and Zoning Department Environmental Review Committee Staff Report; (b) The July 17, 1987 letter from you to Mr. Allan Sternoff regarding the Oaksdale Associates Fill and Grade permit; (c) The September 16, 1987 Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS; and (d) Any other documents in your possession, custody or control that relate to or convern the property located at S.W. 43rd street and Oaksdale Avenue in Renton, Washington. TREIK\00009.AGM/12.22.89 DAVIS WRIGHT& JONES LAW OFFICES 2600 CENTURY SQUARE • 150I FOURTH AVENUE • SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98101-1688 (206)622-3150 KAREN I. TREIGER (206)628-7785 December 22, 1989 Mr. Donald Erikson Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department Renton, WA 98055 Re: Sternoff Litigation Dear Mr. Erikson: This letter accompanies a subpoena for trial in the referenced case, scheduling your appearance for January 9, 1990. While I have done my best to estimate the time for your appearance, it is possible that the trial schedule may not require your appearance until later than the date and time scheduled. As the date approaches David Tarshes or I will contact you and let you know if there is any change in the date or time. If this subpoena creates scheduling problems for you, please let us know and we will do our best to try and work it out with you. Very truly yours, DAVIS WRIGHT & JONES Cry n A� , Karen/ I I. Treiger KIT/kq Enclosure cc: Mr. William Sternoff Mr. Robert Sternoff Ms. Sandra Sternoff TREIK\00004.LTR/12.22.89 TELEX: 328919 DWJ SEA • FAX: (206) 628-7040 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA • BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON • RICHLAND,WASHINGTON • WASHINGTON, D.C. Oaksdale Associates 13541 S.E. 26th Street -Bellevue, Va. 98005 . CIV ©t7 G' ` 0[11 (206) 747-5000 r� F C E D OCT 2 tuf Mr . Donald K. Erickson, AIC� � � � Y, October 28 , 1987 Zoning Administrator City, of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Ave . South Renton, WA 98055 Reference : Oaksdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit Files : ECF-038-87 , SP-042-87 , Shoreline Management SM-007-87 Subject : Withdrawal of referenced permit applications Dear Mr . Erickson, Please take note that I , Allan Sternoff , on behalf of the Oaksdale Associates , am officially requesting your department to withdraw our applications for grade & fill and shorelines management permits for the Sternco Renton Center project . As per our previous phone conversations and meetings , you were aware that the scope of our project had changed. The original scope , as submitted, involved approximately 45 acres of land and the merger of two legal partnerships into one , namely , The Oaksdale Associates . Due to personal family 'matters', the scope of the project has been reduced to approximately 33 acres and only one partnership . After bringing this reduction in scope to your attention earlier this month, you advised that we withdraw our original applications and resubmit a new, completely revised set of drawings and application . It is for the above stated reasons that we are withdrawing our permit application. A new set of documents will be forthcoming . I certainly appreciate all of the help and time that you have provided this project to date and I look forward to working with you in the future on our new grade and fill permit . Please advise me of any "permit fee refund" due to the partnership and what I need to do in order to procure it . Thanks again for your help and cooperation on these matters . Sincerely , Allan L . Sternoff cc : Richard A . Gilmore Stephen 0. Kenyon Norman D . Peck The Oaksdale Associates 1 ♦� 4-/p • i ANDREA BEATTY RI\1}.ER - --:* Director .1�.•- STATE OF WASHI\G T O\ DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350- 150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington !-:•352-5301 • (206) 885-1900 August 19, 1987 0'" VN TON rOeMV CT L-1.997 City of Renton Building and Land Development Dept. 200 Mil; Avenue South BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. City Hall Renton, Washington 98055. Attention: Donald K. Erickson Re: Oakesdale Associates/ Allan StFr pp i tion for Fill ,and Grade Permit (File N.qs SP-042-87 M-007-87 ELF-038-87) Dear Mir. Erickson: Thank ,you for the opportunity to review the Oakesdale project proposal. The environmental checklist, application and accompanying reports by Earth Consultants, Inc. fail to address several serious concerns with regard to the site of the proposed project at 43rd St. and Oakesdale Avenue S.W. Further information will be .required regarding specific past practices at the site before preliminary investigation requirements can be fully addressed. Those that immediately present themselves are: 1. In what area(s) on the site were Seattle City Light transformers stored? 2. Were any other transformers stored and/or dismantled on the site? 3. In what area(s) was/were hydraulic equipment and/or hydraulic oil tanks or reservoirs operated or , maintained? In light of the known presence of transformers at the site and the oils detected in all water samples, testing for chlorinated hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynucleated aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will be necessary at, and downgradient from locations at high risk of contamination dui: -�• past practices. Soils and water should be tested in those areas, and in the railroad bed downgradient from the site. City of Renton August 19 , 1987 Page 2 Metals testing results presented are not complete and do not address all concerns at the site. 1. No testing for copper (Cu) was documented. The presence of copper is highly likely as a result of wire/insulation shredding at the site. Groundwater and soil testing for copper should occur at the wetland area, where accumulations of waste resulting from copper recovery are or have in the past been present and downgradient from those areas. 2 . No testing for zinc (Zn) was documented. Elevated zinc ' levels are often associated with 'non-metallic" automotive demolition wastes. Soil and groundwater testing for zinc should occur where "non-metallic" automotive demolition wastes an galvanized metals are or have been shredded or accumulated on the site, downgradient from those areas and in the wetland. Elevated levels of Cu, Ni and/or Zn (greater than 5 ppm combined total) will require fish bioassays utilizing Salnio gairdnerii. Borings and monitoring well(s) must be installed between the waste piles and the wetland and analyzed for oils, PCBs, PAHs: Cu, Ni and Zn and EP Tox metals (E.P. Tox method) . Metals results must be provided for all existing borings and well data, including Cu, Ni and Zn, in addition to new monitoring and sampling points. Off-site, upgradient .soil and water samples should be collected and analyzed to establish representative background contamination levels for comparison with site data. Undisturbed buffer areas of at least 100 feet from wetlands edges and at least 50 feet from stream edges should be maintained throughout the project. Buffer edges are where silt control measures must be installed, and all detention structures must be outside the buffer R i'f Ca.. areas ha_- beer, p1 Cv iVt J 1 disturbed must be revegetated prior to or as the first phase of the project. The storm drainage system on-site, including a detention structure shall, at a minimum, be capable of maintaining a minimum eight-hour mean detention time for a ten-year, twenty-four hour storm event. The outlet of the detention structure must be equipped with an oil/water separator, and all catch-basins in the storm drainage system should be equipped with turn-down elbows at the outlet (s) . A verifiable maintenance contract for catch-basin, detention structure and separator maintenance and clean-out shall be established providing for i._ cpections on an annual basis 7Ind clean--orJ whe.r. necessary to provide specified capacity. The detention structure must be designed or approved by a PE licensed to practice in the State of city of xenton ;;,, .i A. August 19, 1987 Page 3 Construction phase erosion, silt and track-out control must be provided to prevent water quality violations, including silt fences, mulch, tire washes, stormwater detention and filtration, street cleaning, etc. The location of tanks on-site, if any, now or in the past, should be examined, and contamination which might have resulted from tank or line leakage and to assure that tanks and lines have been removed. Any past practices. on the site which have not been addressed in this letter which are likely to have resulted in RCRA/CERA, Dangerous Waste or Water Quality/Water Pollution violations may require further testing and/or remedial action. Compliance with WAC 173-303, WAC 173-201, RCW 90 .48, RCW 70.95 and any other applicable state or federal codes or regulations pertaining to hazardous/dangerous waste regulation and water quality assurance must be assured prior to commencement of grade and fill activities. If you have any questions regarding any of the Water Quality/Pollution or Dangerous Waste requirements enumerated herein, please feel free to contact me at (206) 867-7047 or SCAN 731-7047. Sincerely, ie ` /�•"_� ri� orman D. Peck Water Quality Investig or 6/ NDP:gm cc: Barb Ritchie, HQ, WDOE, Environmental Review a(/' fb(J. ,// Barb Badger, METRO Surface Water Quality 'l( John Conroy, Dangerous Waste, NWRO. VLE) J� U� Terra Prodan, HQ, WDOE, Shorelands / %v 1:11).4 CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 6, 1987 Washington State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section - Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504 Gentleman: Transmitted herewith are copies of the Final Determination of Non-Significances and Enviromental Checklist for the following projects: Oakesdale Associates SP-042-87 SM-007-87 ECF-032-87 Gary Merlin SA-058-87 ECF-053-87 James W. Dalpay R-072-87 ECF-061-87 Everett Ayers & Eugene Hofmann PP-067-87 ECF-057-87 If you have any questions, please call 235-2540. Sincerely, )1/111 (iDijit• Dona: ona K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator Enclosures DE:BD:ss 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 (206) 235-2540 4$ CITY OF RENTON °e L ' ' BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 1,1987 Allan Sternoff Oakesdale Associates 13541 SE 26th Bellevue, WA 98005 Subject: Environmental Review Committee Decision Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find a signed copy of the recent threshold determination of the Environmental Review Committee that was referred to in our previous correspondence. If you have any questions please call.. ce yours, � J Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:plp:pl021 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 O . ®� CITY OF RENTON tak COMP v BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 1, 1987 Ms. Lee Dorigan Mr. Norm Peak State of Washington Department of Ecology is Northwest Regional Office 4350 - 150th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Subject: Environmental Review Committee Decision Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find a signed copy of the recent threshold determination of the Environmental Review Committee that was referred to in our previous correspondence. If you have any questions please call. ce yours® Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:plp:p1021 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 41 :, CITY OF RENTON a.Nv'�vul. ammoBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director October 1, 1987 • Stephen 0. Kenyon Erickson & Barkshire P.S. Attorneys At Law • 10801 Main St. Suite 204 • Bellevue, WA 98004 • Subject: Environmental Review Committee Decision Dear Sir or Madam: . Enclosed please find a signed copy of the recent threshold determination of the Environmental Review Committee that was referred to in our previous correspondence. If you have any questions please call. ce yours, Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:plp:p1021 • • • 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 it J ... .. ,. 4 ES N.#i �Rvvi ! TALI `'4ARA APPLICATION NO. ECF-032-87, SP-042-87, SM-007-87 . APPLICANT OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES PROPOSED ACTION APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING & GRADING ON '43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CU. YDS . OF MATERIAL & SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILL & GRADE WITHIN 200 FT. OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. GENERAL LOCATION AND/OR ADDRESS NORTH OF S.W. 43RD STREET & WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. POSTED .. TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (E.R.C.) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION ` 4 DOES DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT er-A: WILL WILL NOT BE REQUIRED. THE CITY OF RENTON MU- NOT ACT ON THIS PROPOSAL FOR 15 DAYS FROM THE DDIIE. LPW? COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY I Ub 1 AN APPEAL .OF THE ABOVE DETERMINATION MAY BE FILED WITH THE RENTON. HEARING EXAMINER BY 5:00 P.M., OCTOBER 28, •1987 . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ' AT 235-2550. DO .NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION. 4 • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Audrey Benner , first dulysworn on oath states RENTON,WA being The Environmental Review Committee that he/she is the Chief Clerk of the (-(ERC)has issued a Determination of Signif- icance for the following project: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES VALLEY DAILY NEWS Applicationnd for ia Special it D allow with filling and grading on 43.87 acres with 198,700 cubic yards of material and • Kent Edition • Renton Edition • Auburn Edition Substantial Shorelines Development Permit to allow said fill within 200 feet of Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers Springbrook Creek. Property located are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six north of S.W. 43rd Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. File Nos.: • months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published ECF-032-87,SP-042-87,SM-007-87. in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Further information regarding this action Count Washington.The ValleyDailyNews has been approvedis available in the Building and'Zoning y, g as a legal Department, Municipal Building, Renton, newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Washington, 235-2540. Agencies, affected King County. tribes and members of the public are invit- ed to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments must be submitted to the City of The notice in the exact form attached,was published in the Kent Edition Renton by 5:00 p.m.on October 15, 1987. �( Auburn Edition Any appeal of the ERC action must be Renton Edition , (and not in i filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers i 5:00 p.m.,October 27,1987. Published in the Valley Daily News Sep- during the below stated period.The annexed notice a tember 25, 1987.R2537 • Notice of Environmental Determination was published on September 25, 1987 R2537 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $21.52 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29tb day of Sept 147_ Notar ublic for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. CITY OF RENTON VDN!87 Revisal 1//96 ) C1_,, 11 V o CT $ i987 BUILDING / ZONING DEPT. NotEnvDet/Dskl Pub92587 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WA The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Significance for the following project: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES Application for a Special Permit to allow filling and grading on 43 .87 acres with 198,700 cubic yards of material and Substantial Shorelines Development Permit to allow said fill within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. Property located north of S.W. 43rd Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. File Nos. : ECF-032-87, SP-042-87, SM-007-87. Further information regarding this action is available in the Building and Zoning Department, Municipal Building, Renton, Washington, 235-2540. Agencies, affected tribes and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. Comments must be submitted to the City of Renton by 5: 00 p.m. on October 15, 1987. Any appeal of the ERC action must be filed with the Renton Hearing Examiner by 5:00 p.m. , October 28, 1987. Published: September 25, 1987 r__ CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON SCOPE OF EIS FILE NUMBER(S) : ECF-032-87, SP-042-87, SM-007-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for a Special Permit to. allow filling and grading on 43.87 acres with 198, 700 cubic yards of material and Substantial Shorelines Development Permit to allow said fill within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. PROPONENT: Oakesdale Associates LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located North of S.W. 43rd Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. EIS REQUIRED. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is required under RCW 43 .21C. 030 (2) (c) and will be prepared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely environmental impacts can be reviewed at our offices. LEAD AGENCY: Environmental Review Committee, City of Renton The lead agency has identified the following areas for discussion in the EIS: 1. Hazardous materials contamination and disposal from previous operations on site; 2 . Traffic impacts associated with major office complex; 3 . Drainage implications of new development on Springbrook Creek and underlying watertable; 4 . Wetlands mitigation measures; and 5. Utilities and public service needs. SCOPING: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable significant adverse impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. Your comments must be submitted in writing and received before October 15, 1987. Responsible Official: Environmental Review Committee % Don Erickson, Zoning Administrator Building & Zoning Department 200 Mill Avenue S. Renton, WA 98055 APPEAL: You may appeal this determination of significance in writing pursuant to RMC 4-3016 accompanied by a $75.00 appeal fee no later than 5: 00 p.m. October 28, 1987, to: Renton Hearing Examiner % City Clerk 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact the above office to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. PUBLICATION DATE: September 25, 1987 DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 1987 SIGNATURES: Rona d G. Nelson La, spring= Building and Zoning Director P. icy D• lelopme Director 14(M/A114.) Ri a d C. J, Dughton Public Wor Director OF �•f 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT �$ ® 2, DESIGN/UTILITY ENGINEERING • 235-2631 oMUNICIPAL BUILDING 200 MILL AVE.SO. RENTON,WASH.98055 O9.q7. 0 SEP-T°*�P BARBARA Y. SHINPOCH MAYOR art t O keNt6NI r 13130Z/ 11 MEMORANDUM ' ;1 D.: - IRi DATE: January 1, 1980 =l.IONG/ZONING DEPT. TO: Building Department FROM: Charles Price, Storm Water Utility Engineer SUBJECT: Storm Water Utility Development Application Review Comments Oakesdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit 1 . A spillway and overflow for the ponds should be provided. 2. A 20' gravel maintenance road along one side of Springbrook Creek and an easement should be provided. Entrance of the maintenance road should be chained off from public vehicular access. 3. Applicant is responsible for obtaining permits and approvals from other applicable agencies as required by Washington State Law. 4. The fills appear to be for structural fill and surcharging. I recommend that the Building Department require the applicant to submit a report from the Soils Engineer which will address existing soils, fill compaction requirements, and methods of compaction. Fill sources should also be approved and monitored by the Soils Consultant to be free of contaminants. A Soils Engineer should be present at all times during filling operation. Daily inspection and test reports should be submitted to the City. Char'1 . Price 2J1 .01 .15.cp:jlm ERICKSON Sz. BARKSHIRE, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW STANLEY E.ERICKSON 10801 MAIN STREET,SUITE 204 TELEPHONE(206)455-1414 MARY ANN BARKSHIRE BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 STEPHEN O.KENYON CITY Cy:, RENTON EcEzv September 8, 1987 Jf ') BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. Ms. Lee Dorigan Mr. Norm Peck State of Washington Department of Ecology Northwest Regional Office 4350 - 150th. Ave. N.E. Redmond, Wa 98052 RE: Oaksdale Associates/Allan Sternoff Application for City of Renton Fill and Grade Permit (File Nos. SP-042-87, SM-007-87, ELF-038-87) Dear Ms. Dorigan and Mr. Peck: Thank you for taking the time last Friday to meet with Rich Gilmore, John Moran, Allan, Rick and Burton Sternoff, and myself concerning the above referenced applications. i believe the discussion of our mutual concerns over the environmental cleanliness of the site was productive, and that we have a clear understanding of how the Sternoff project can proceed. At our meeting Rick and Burton Sternoff explained in detail the history and location of the uses on the site, including the transformer processing and wire shredding operations. Based on this information, you requested John Moran of Earth Consultants, Inc.., to conduct several additional tests on the site, principally for possible PCB and metal contamination. You also indicated that it would be appropriate to test for background contamination levels near the southeast corner of our property. We agreed to the location and methodology for each requested test and have already contracted with Earth Consultants to begin this process. We expect the results of these tests within the next two or three weeks and will provide them to you at that time. Page 2 Ms. Dorigan Mr. Peck September 8, 1987 As we discussed, almost all of the processing operations, and therefore the potential contamination, occurred on the northern 12 acres of the property. This property is legally separate from the southern 33 acres, is not under the control of the current applicants, and is not part of the proposed development. It is our understanding, based upon your comments, that our development of the southern 33 acres may proceed, subject to confirmation that the site is clean, without being held up by any environmental problems which may be encountered on the northern 12 acres. If our understandingis not correct, please notify us at once. Even though we have no control over the northern 12 acres, we have indicated our willingness to provide whatever assistance we can in your efforts to test, monitor and/or clean up the site. We are meeting later in the week to discuss this issue and I will contact you afterward with our thoughts. Again, we appreciated the opportunity of discussing with you the environmental issues of common concern. We will continue to make every reasonable effort to cooperate with you on this project, and look forward to your continued assistance as well. Very truly yours, ERICKSON & BARKSHIRE, P.S. Ji Stephen O. Kenyon SOK:pp cc: Allan Sternoff Richard A. Gilmore Donald K. Erickson LETTERS2/see Sp- 0')/. . g 7 PidArd i ai�� fitl��t/1a ;;l 4,g�'�.�` II o. �1- f % .(0. A y il FIL:y I I 1 rl l N. AWILWIFA&MIKOMBEUMPLIka kiL4A0 Lt. 14 iLi • 7 d r e I.rJ. LIB'argiti / liM . ILam..�:..Jr1. I kill ' . . NANII. I f 1.i*MIN. i iill 'i Ilit A k ftcliFir lir'"" dritmirioriFrio=ffr-dow•Aurrwmir IP' , , „.i trAl _ ,i, __ fiA ►• . . �.► '.A_, I. AA-AA A l , MITI , , wca vow ., l `i i iI I/1 J a1Jl I • a `,717 / ' iy a ;1 ,iPAMI ,�PIIFf' « .. . i 111111114"1 ill 1 ikIMIMISIMEMP A/ . / li �, Sri,. 40 ihi I, , . ,, ,, . , r NI,-,- % -0 I I I r "IV F • f • . iergbA_6 efr"ii 11 40460 a•f‘. Va 11 WO 1 11 I .... O6wr4.64. AX) im % JI M . i iJ i ' IILr Diu O.,r aw I-'riarilivAriMErAe72‘41' ' r. -tA/ F''l13� fr f.. rn ii 4 1' --- — --S i 4/41:4\__ IVAv► {/Op Ili 5 rs ail' g 14111 P I , . 4_144j11 Ni • , I 414 7.(,,‘, / 4 aor. AIL 11.- CITY OF RENTON mu. Yam;'�F BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director August 21, 1987 Mr. Stephen O. Kenyon Erickson & Barkshire, P.S. 10801 Main Street, Suite 204 Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: July 31, 1987, letter reponse to Bldg. & Zoning letter of July 17, 1987, seeking additional information, Oaksdale Assoc. 's Fill & Grade Permit, Files ECF-038- 87, SP-042-87 and SM-007-87 Dear Mr. Kenyon: Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1987, in response to my letter of July 17, 1987, to you on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee. In your letter you raise two objections to my letter, namely the issue of phased review and whether your application is sufficiently complete in terms of disclosing the ultimate disposition of the site for a threshold determination to be made and, secondly, whether sufficient information has been disclosed and a reasonable amount of time has transpired for this information to have been properly evaluated by those agencies best qualified to do so. Below is my response on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee on each one of these points. Regarding the issue of phased review, whereas WAC 197-11- 060(5) does allow phased review, it also states that, when this is appropriate (sequence is from a non-project document to a document of narrower scope, etc. ) and when phased review is not appropriate: (ii) It would merely divide a larger system into exempted fragments or avoid discussion of cumulative impacts; or (iii) It would segment and avoid present consideration of proposals and their impacts that are required to be evaluated in a single environmental document under 197-11-060(4) (b) or 197-11-305(1) . 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 ~r ' Mr. StephenKenyon .Ry August 21, 1987 Page 2 Specifically, we do not see your request for phasing to be an attempt to avoid discussing accumulative impacts of otherwise exempt actions but, rather, that the phasing would avoid allowing the Environmental Review Committee to adequately discuss the accumulative impacts of the proposal, which would appear to include a major office development over the filled portions of the site. Since the site is believed to have been contaminated by previous operations on it, its ultimate disposition is of the utmost importance if the adverse impacts of these earlier operations cannot be fully mitigated, or the degree of mitigation required would be a result of the ultimate use of the site. For example, the degree of mitigation of contaminated soils for a low occupancy warehouse operation might be considerably less than that for a high occupancy use, such as office, retail or residential. In paragraph 6. of your letter, you state: "A site plan application for such a long term phased project would be premature and is not required by SEPA. " We agree that it is not specifically required by SEPA but, rather, is left up to the lead agency to make that decision. In this case the lead agency has decided that it wants to look at an overall site plan for the site, even if it is primarily conceptual at this stage so that it can relate mitigation measures to probable future development characteristics. You may find it helpful to look at Renton's Site -Plan Review Ordinance (Section 4-738) , which states, among other things that the applicant is to provide a written description "addressing the scope of the project, the nature and size of each use, and a timetable for development, including phases. It also requires a fully dimensioned site plan of the entire site or applicable portion thereof drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet showing among other things the "location and size of proposed structures, storage areas, buffer areas, yards, open spaces, and landscaped areas. " Although a plot plan was submitted, it would be very helpful if a site plan along these lines could be provided for the Environmental Review Committee to facilitate its deliberations when it reconsiders your application. Also, since this project is likely to require a substantial shoreline development permit, and we have been informed by the Department of Ecology that they will not accept shoreline applications for grading and fill without site plans showing the location and dimensions of future buildings and/or developments, it will become even more important to have such a site plan if we are to move this project forward in a timely manner. Mr. Stephen Kenyon August 21, 1987 Page 3 The second issue you raised in your letter had to do with our concern about insuring the cleanliness of the site, i.e. that hazardous wastes from previous operations do not remain on the site, or if they do that they be treated in a way that would minimize the potential to harm the environment or those using it. You question in your letter our authority to question the results of the applicant's consultants or to get a second opinion. I am sure you are aware that RCW 43.21C.030 (d) states that "Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." We believe that both the Department of Ecology and the Environmental Protection Agency have such expertise. 1 This office, on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee, requested that both these agencies assist us in interpreting the consultant's reports. Norm Peck of D.O.E. is reviewing the consultant's E-3000 study and has indicated over the phone that they had some problems with the methodology used as well as the types of tests done. Apparently,, there were no tests for copper, lead, or zinc in the soils tests nor were metals tested for in the water samples. I expect a letter from Mr. Peck at any time regarding their review. The E.P.A. has indicated that they are too busy to comment and would prefer to wait until after we have made our threshold determination. Per our phone conversation, I am looking forward to meeting with you on Wednesday, August 26, 1987. Hopefully, we will have more specific information from D.O.E. at that time. Donald K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator SP04'2-87 • F STATg ANDREA BEATTY RINIKER t"`` "'`'`'�i Director 1889 a6y STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 4350- 150th Ave. N.E. • Redmond, Washington 98052-5301 • (206) 885-1900 August 19, 1987 _ 1J ,p, _ City of Renton 1 �� f I ' �� �, '� �s Building and Land Development Dept. ��pr, 200 Mill Avenue South City Hall Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Donald K . Erickson Re: Oakesdale Associates/ Allan Sternoff Application for Fill and Grade Permit (File Nos. SP-042-87, SM-007-87 ELF-038-87) Dear Mr. Erickson: • Thank you for the opportunity to review the Oakesdale project proposal. The environmental checklist, application and accompanying reports by Earth Consultants, Inc. fail to address several serious concerns with regard to the site of the proposed project at._43rd St. and Oakesdale Avenue S .W. . Further information will be required regarding specific past practices at the site before preliminary investigation requirements can be fully addressed. Those that immediately present themselves are: 1. In what area(s) on the site were Seattle City Light transformers stored? 2. Were any other transformers stored and/or dismantled on the site? 3. In what area(s) was/were hydraulic equipment and/or hydraulic oil tanks or reservoirs operated or maintained? In light of the known presence of transformers at the site and the oils detected in all water samples, testing for chlorinated hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polynucleated aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) will be necessary at, and downgradient from locations at high risk of contamination due to Vast practices. Soils and water should be tested in those areas, and in the railroad bed downgradient from the site. f i City of Renton August 19, 1987 Page 2 Metals testing results presented are not complete and do not address all concerns at the site. 1. No testing for copper (Cu) was documented. The presence of copper is highly likely as a result of wire/insulation shredding at the site. Groundwater and soil testing for copper should occur at the wetland area, where accumulations of waste resulting from copper recovery are or have in the past been present and downgradient from those areas. 2 . No testing for zinc (Zn) was documented. Elevated zinc levels are often associated with "non-metallic" automotive demolition wastes. Soil and groundwater testing for zinc should occur where "non-metallic" automotive demolition wastes and galvanized metals are or have been shredded or accumulated on the site, downgradient from those areas and in the wetland. Elevated levels of Cu, Ni and/or Zn (greater than 5 ppm combined total) will require fish bioassays utilizing Salmo gairdnerii. Borings and monitoring well(s) must be installed between the waste piles and the wetland and analyzed for oils, PCBs, PAHs: Cu, Ni and Zn and EP Tox metals (E.P. Tox method) . Metals results must be provided for all existing borings and well data, including Cu, Ni and Zn, in addition to new monitoring and sampling points. Off-site, upgradient soil and water samples should be collected and analyzed to establish representative background contamination levels for comparison with site data. Undisturbed buffer areas of at least 100 feet from wetlands edges and at least 50 feet from stream edges should be maintained throughout the project. Buffer edges are where silt control measures must be installed, and all detention structures must be outside the buffer areas. Buffer areas that have been previously disturbed must be revegetated prior to or as the first phase of the project. The storm drainage system on-site, including a detention structure shall, at a minimum, be capable of maintaining a minimum eight-hour mean detention time for a ten-year, twenty-four hour storm event. The outlet of the detention structure must be equipped with an oil/water separator, and all catch-basins in the storm drainage system should be equipped with turn-down elbows at the outlet(s) . A verifiable maintenance contract for catch-basin, detention structure and separator maintenance and clean-out shall be established providing for inspections on an annual basis and clean-out when necessary to provide specified capacity. The detention structure must be designed or approved by a PE licensed to practice in the State of Washington. r • r r / City of Renton August 19, 1987 Page 3 Construction phase erosion, silt and track-out control must be provided to prevent water quality violations, including silt fences, mulch, tire washes, stormwater detention and filtration, street cleaning, etc. The location of tanks on-site, if any, now or in the past, should be examined, and contamination which might have resulted from tank or line leakage and to assure that tanks and lines have been removed. Any past practices on the site which have not been addressed in this letter which are likely to have resulted in RCRA/CERA, Dangerous Waste or Water Quality/Water Pollution violations may require further testing and/or remedial action. Compliance with WAC 173-303, WAC 173-201, RCW 90 .48, RCW 70.95 and any other applicable state or federal codes or regulations pertaining to hazardous/dangerous waste regulation and water. quality assurance must be assured prior to commencement of grade and fill activities. If you have any questions regarding any of the Water Quality/Pollution or Dangerous Waste requirements enumerated herein, please feel free to contact me at (206) 867-7047 or SCAN 731-7047. Sincerely, • 4;1d .�L ' //7/ orman D. Peck Water Quality Investigator NDP:gm cc: Barb Ritchie, HQ, WDOE, Environmental Review Barb Badger, METRO Surface Water Quality John Conroy, Dangerous Waste, NWRO Terra Prodan, HQ, WDOE, Shorelands . f i ; • WA D047482757 POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE County. Kind PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Priority Assessment: Nr_sne Summary Memorandum • Backlog Red. Cat.: A-1 Date/Revised: 09/12/85 Name and Location: Sternoff hetais. Corporation Jay Sternaff 1600 SW 43rd St. Contact: ( So6) 521 8333 Telephone: Renton, WA 98055' Site Status: ( X )Active ( •') Inactive ( ) Unknown • • Site Description/TSD Activities: Facility salvages and recycles scrap metal and electrical equipment, and chops wire for recycling. An anonymous complaint reported transformer salvage was taking place at the site. • Waste Types/Quantities/Characteristics: An EPA inspection in 1982 found no evidence of recent transformer salvage, although some transformers were accepted for salvage until about 1977. Unknown if transformers contained PCEis. • • • . Physical/Social Environment: • Site is in industrial area of Renton. Groundwater is at 10 feet in alluvial sands, siits, and .clays. Soils are fine sands and silts of moderate permeability. There' are 2 parks and no schools within one mile of the site. • • Pollutant Mobilization/Pathways/Risk: No known hazardous wastes at ' site. No known pathways. • Priority Assessment/Backlog Reduction Category: None: A-1 Followup Recommendations: • No further action required. q--- POTE.I •. iL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE I . IDENTIFICATION - , 0 State 02 Site Number PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Part 1 - Site Information and Assessment WA D047462757 II . SITE NAME AND LOCATION 01 Site Name (legal, common, or descriptive name of site) 02 Street, Route No., or Specific Location Identifier Sternoff Metals Corp. 1600 SW 43rd Street -- 03 City 04 State 05 Zip Code 06 County 07County 08 Gong Code Dist Renter, WA 5805E Kinn 033 07 09 Coordinates Section/Township/Range Lattitude Longitude 472£30. Ci I 1221320. 0 NW 1/4, Sec. 36, T`3N. R4E, WM _ 10 Directions to Site (starting from nearest public road) III. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES • 01 Owner (if known) 02 Street (business, mailing, residential) Link newri 03 City 04 State 05 Zip Code 06 Telephone Number ) 07 Operator (if known and different from owner) 08 Street (business, mailing, residential) Sternoff Metals Corp. 1600 SW 43rd Street 09 City 10 State 11 Zip Code 12 Telephone Number Renter, WA 9805E ( 206) 52.18333 13 Type of Ownership (check one) ) A. Private ( ).B. Federal: ( ) C. State ( ) D. County ( ) E. Municipal ) F. Other: ( X)G. Unknown 14 Owner/Operator Notification on File (check all that apply) )A. RCRA 3001, Date Rec'd: / / ( )B. Uncontrolled Waste Site (CERCLA 103c), Date Rec'd: / I (X)C. None IV. CHARACTERIZATION .OF POTENTIAL HAZARD 01 On Site Inspection By (check all that apply): (X)Yes, Date: 7i --1 82 (X)A. EPA ( )B. EPA Contractor ( )C. State ( )D. Other Contractor )No ( )E. Local Health Official ( X)F. Other: METRO RO Contractors Name(s): 02 Site Status (check one) 03 Years of Operation ' (X)A. Active ( )B. Inactive ( )C. Unknown beginning year ending year ( )Unknown 15611 Ares 04 Description of Substances Possibly Present, Known, or Alleged Facility salvanes and recycles scrap metal and electrical equipment, and chops wire for salvaDe. An anonymous complaint reported that transformers were l=einD saivaned at site. An EPA inspection in 1982 found no evidence of recent transformer salvane, althc'uch transformers were saivaned at the facility until about 1977. Unknown if they contained PCB' s. 05 Description of Potential Hazard to Environment and/or Population \c' known hazardous wastes currently on—site; no known risks to environment pr population. V. PRIORITY ASSESSMENT 01 Priority for Inspection (check one; if high or medium is checked, complete Part 2 and Part 3) )A. High � )B. Medium ( )C. Low (inspect on time ( ,4D. None (no further action needed (inspection required promptly) (inspection required) available basis) complete current disposition form) VI. INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM - . 01 Contact' 02 Of (agency/organization) 03 Telephone Number Ned Mer'i en WDOE (200 4596352 04 Person Responsible for Assessment 05 Agency 06 Organization 07 Telephone Nu ,per 08 Date i_ein-i Star_ ini SA3G ( Sii� 74 7895 O 12/ 85 Modified (5/89) from EPA Form 2070-12 doted 7/81 • 'IAL HAZARDOUS WASTE Sri .. 1 I. IDENTIFICATION Ol State 02 Site Number PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Part 2 - Waste Information DO47482757 II . WASTE STATES, QUANTITIES, AND CHARACTERISTICS 01 Physical States 02 Waste Quantity at Site 03 Waste Characteristics'(check all that apply) (check all that apply) • (measures of waste quantities ( )A. Solid ( )E. Slurry must,be independent) ( )A, Toxic ( )E. Soluble ( )1. Highly Volatile ( )B. Powder,Fines( )F. Liquid Uh ( )13. Corrosive ( )F. Infectious ( )3. Explosive Tons: ( )C. Sludge ( )6. Gas Cubic Yards: _ , ( )C. Radioactive ( )C. Flammable ( )K. Reactive •( )D. Other: No. of Drums•. UM'', ( )D. Persistent ( )H. Ignitable ( )L. Incompatible )M. Not Applicable III . WASTE TYPE • Category • Substance Name 01 Cross Amount 02Measurro e 03 Comments SLU Sludge OLW Oily Waste SOL Solvents PSD Pesticides OCC Other Organic Chemicals Unknown N/P See below* . IOC Inorganic Chemicals ACD Acids BAS Bases • MES Heavy Metals IV. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (see Appendix for most frequently cited CAS numbers) 01 Cat. 02 Substance Name 03 CAS Number 04 Storage/Disposal Method OS Concentration 06 Measure of Concentration • • • V. FEEDSTOCKS (see Appendix for CAS numbers Category 01 Feedstock Name 't12 CAS Number Category 01 Feedstock Name 02 CAS Number FDS FDS FDS FDS FDS FDS FDS FDS • - VI . SOURCES OF INFORMATION (cite specific references, e.g. , state fires, etc.) Fa^i.Iity saIva^ed some transformers orior to 1977. Unkrjoi.n if transformers contained PCEI s. _PA/ERRIS file.; no WDOE file; ' POTENT Id,_._ HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE - i I. IDENTIFICATION ' ' 01 State 02 Site Number PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT Part 3 - Description of Hazardous Conditions S Incidents wA Du47462757 II. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS ' 01 t X A. Groundwater Contamination 02 Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected:) 04 Narrative Description None reported. Ground was oily during at least one METRO inspection. Unknown what oil was, but probably motor oil from salvage operations. Groundwater is at about 10 ft. in alluvial sands, silts & clays frOm the White 'and Green Rivers, prior, to their diversion. 01 ( X )B. Surface Water Contamination 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) • ( )Potential ( )Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected:004 Narrative Description • None reported or suspected. Nearest surface water is unnamed tributary to Black River 'which flows north thrc'udh . property. No known use of surface water within 3 miles for drinking supplies. . of ( X )C. Contamination of Air 02 ( )Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( )Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected:) 04 Narrative Description . None reported or suspected. There are 3600 residents and SC)00 transients within one mile of this site. 01.( X ) D. Fire/Explosive Conditions 02 C ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential • ( ) Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected: 04 Narrative Description . NoKnc awn certified fire/explosive cond i t i uns. • •01 t ^ ) E. Direct Contact 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( )Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected:)") 04 Narrative Description None reported or 'suspected. Site . as fenced, althouth gate was omen duri ne site drive-by. No known hazardous wastes present. . 01( X ) F. Contamination of Soil 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( X) Potential ( ) Alleged 03 Area Potentially Affected (acres)•<1 .04 Narrative Description None reprted. boils are tine sands & silts or mocerat.e permeability. Oily ground was noted during at least .one METRO •inspection. Unkncr:n what this material was, but it was probably some type of motor oil from • salvage operation. 01 ( X )G. Drinking Water Contamination 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential .l )Alleged 03 Population Potentially Affected:) 04 Narrative Description' None reported or suspected. No Known nazardcous wastes. Thirteen public . ant 32 private wells within, 3 miles serve about 300 people. Nearest ' known well (nytek, monitoring) is 1. 2 miles south of site. 01 ( X ) H. Worker Exposure/Injury 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 0 03 Workers Potentially Affected: 04 Narrative Description None reported or suspected. 01 ( X ) I. Population Exposure/Injury 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( )Potential ( ' )Alleged 03.PopulationPotentially Affected: 4 Na rative,Description 3-i;a No„i'e:..reported or su_tspected N o ).fl wri hazardous wastes:=cur,r•ent ly at this site. Transformers no longer handled (riot since S77) . POTEN . i HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE I . IDENTIFICATION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 01 State 02 Site Number ` Part 3 - Description of Hazardous Conditions & Incidents WA D047482757 II. HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS AND INCIDENTS (continued) 01 ( X ) J. Damage to Flora 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 04 Narrative Description • None reported or suspected. • 01 ( X) K. Damage to Fauna 02 ( )Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 04 Narrative Description (include name(s) of species) None reported or suspected. • 01 ( X) L. Contamination of Food Chain 02 ( ) Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( )Alleged 04 Narrative Description • None reported or suspected. • 01 ( X)M. Unstable Containment of Wastes 02 ( )'Observed (Date: ) ( X) Potential ( ) Alleged (spills/runoff/standing liyids/leaking drums) 03 Population Potentially Affected: 04 Narrative Description • None reported. Ground was oily on at least one METRO inspection; cause unknown, but probably motor oil. 01 ( X ) N. Damage to Offsite'Property 02 ( )Observed (Date: ) - ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 04 Narrative Description None reported or suspected. 01 ( X) 0. Contamination of Sewers, 02( )Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged Storm Drains, WWTPs 04 Narrative Description , None reported or suspected. Facility is connected to METRO sewer, but does not have an industrial d i scharce. • 01 ( X ) P. Illegal/Unauthorized Dumping 02( r Observed (Date: ) ( ) Potential ( ) Alleged 04 Narrative Description None reported or suspected. 05 Description of Any Other Known, Potential, or Alleged Hazards • None known. III . TOTAL POPULATION POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 0 IV. COMMENTS No known hazardous wastes on—site; no further action required. V SOVRCES.OF INFORMAT1ON..(cite.specific references ;tate4iles4 :reports, etc.) EPA/ERRIS 'fl ies; St'errioff • Metals, pers.. cor^m 6/7/"85; M. Dawda, WDOE, pers. .comm. , 7/26/85; SAIC drive-by. 7/24/85; PSCOG 1984; D. Hildebranc, METRO, pers. comm. , 7/30/8T ; U;3G8 Retbn {_i ;d', " 'S73'; WSLR *28; WDSHS Public Supply List inc, - 1985; ; ;` a r- .1 t ••1. r' r` • • e�►r CC YI/te- S " . Vim.:..8. 4.21,..'--....0311021•� -1�'d ti-r '. -2-7 7, IF__.,._. ____43,..... 42. likKfr, 4 + (21 a.. ` � s t � � t �l' j if , , , , 3 • 7t � . :•' . \ r ,/ / . , l.;, ,, : RAILROAO , l � .� � 1 \ ` `, palk j� i�- , / • 1. , �, ,, V�Al /ft . i. 1 1 :1: I — T4. , 1 I I' I `••� ,I3 Golf Course I + ;I i�l ii ■ `"' �'•r� 1 s�5td•ii. . .�t\. 1 t� /' •• t 1 li �11 ERN I `f_ ' 7.-_: 1:J l_T •"41 30� _`'I I• ll%�-` Sewage �B��1J /"000,,006��1 ` `- • •, 23 �� \ , ,i .� I ••ol T, ii j 111. .I It fie)i IJ I.• BtCsf�l �� ; ,p,.. . :I i•... ,_,.., ,,,.,—,,,-7,., • 8p4;16 •%.-.) lg.: 1 ,fr' tts:..::▪ ::, .: fir!k I 11 , T.; 1 - sk it • • • • �\!,I ,1Longacre�I-1 w'; • �`.�S II it 'Iay• `I ji-�11 , 11 • V "ii i l : . 1 Track .. a • fr. •II ' •. !Tat: -=w .i ,11B ►.1 .�_ -, 1;,__, ;---- — ,,f 2 IQ I • Ili 5 •• A li•�1 ~' Jill !'""_ I�Reservoir ta, ;. .;;,� • 10 1; �' n fg1.1 F i , 11 1 12 I; • ■ I �r !Jr . AI •▪ •• / 1 '• • I ABM tic I • ' • "AI 1' 16 VI_ 1 .� \ II 1i 2: I • 25 „"v. 30 BrH 111111 • I : 11 n I. • 1 I i I,I j� 1 - I I�f,E'1,� 1 i I; +� { %�d� 1 �� �� �• I . Act." 4 i I ..Ar I 4QPr0K. _'Ff� _I ' ---- ' jl g e ' °r ----- . / r 17, i • �' !"� • >cr.3 it :: V::` �. 1 ' 94 ▪ 3°a• Orillia. i1lIt►� .Ij • ; 1 _ -� ;, . . ) .• !i -: ", DI , , • 1 , .:- (:! .:.. -A.,. .- ,--z.---..) ,. .. . , , „ •..,. • 1---:% - .:,,‘, ....,....— r s„..... • ::,... ,,. . 1 . !! .,..,...,___ • ,.: ,-; . ., . . -...,....i.. 36 ' ''•s BBM �,,,..f... , : am! Illi. :'% , • . .. .,, ,..., 7 ;i I, 35 �2A— ••• • i,/' ,1•. •• / " ' • • I . s __ a\,I is 1 _ , l. . - 1 1 ) ."8 j �.. r II! ■ _ — I w • T3 ,--aa•:,.1,.:.a r. C \II • , 1 , . . , To ...-----• s -'1y' . Date Time i 7 WH E YOU WERE OUT I ' , . 1 , . . . . . ! 1 ! , ..-11-----ti ! _ I Phone : ! . . TF.;.7,..:•:i.]EL; !. ..ei PLEASE CALL . ,-•,--....... . • ,:) ro SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN _ WANTS TO SEE YOU >c3 RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL • . o 144N-AVA l 'Ck-a eidekCit 84 7 .ssage --------- N. , - ' d. (Ow_ . . .K.1.9361LAALL a.4 .mr,ait:c.j 1 . . , ' /)et_e4.11____ . _ 41444- - 1"--lahAal.^-lio-E ivt410Atte3 r t-P/ cres&;dt. i ,. , ! , .1 ---P .,,y .-k-b244de. 44..kc.... it.br ( Operator 10.14,_aciLiQ ;la 1 :::::1 '.0 d 414"..--11?)1'-ii---; 1' i • ' ' I 11/4144 Sat4 +61‘16°C\A" i ----i""-c-ic- , 1 11 i. . ! , 1 -..- _-..... . a, ERICKSON & BARKSHIRE, P.S. ATTORNEYS AT LAW STANLEY E.ERICKSON 10801 MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 TELEPHONE(206)455-1414 MARY ANN BARKSHIRE BELLEVUE,WASHINGTON 98004 STEPHEN O.KENYON Cif Y rr r.. d ! O.N,1 '1, ``-' © 11 V r� July 31, 1987 ,._' . o 1b i 01 f ''u 2 E 997' Ld 1 • - Mr. Donald K. Erickson Zoning Administrator City of Renton Building and Zoning Department 200 Mill Ave. S . Renton, WA 98055 RE: Oaksdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit Files: ECF-038-87, SP-042-87, Shoreline Management SM-007-87 Dear Mr. Erickson: On behalf of my clients, Mr. Allan Sternoff and Oaksdale Associates, I am responding to your letter of July 17, 1987 . In that letter you advised Mr. Sternoff that the Environmental Review Committee has decided to take no action on the above-referenced permits "due to a number of concerns and the need for additional information. " As I understand your letter, the only concern about the project is whether other agencies, including DOE and EPA, think the current environmental testing of the site is adequate and the only additional information requested is a site plan application, I do not believe this response by the ERC to my client' s applications is appropriate for the reasons expressed below. First, I do not share your opinion that the SEPA regulations require that we submit a formal site plan application at this early stage in the development of the property. As we indicated in our environmental checklist, the project is proposed to be phased over the next five years. The SEPA regulations encourage agencies to undertake environmental review at the earliest point in the planning and decision making process. WAC 197-11-055 (2) . The regulations also specifically allow phased environmental review. 197-11-060 (5) . The SEPA regulations state "If used, phased review assists agencies and the public to focus on issues that are ready for decision and exclude from consideration issues already decided Mr. Donald K. Erickson July 31, 1987 Page Two or not yet ready. " WAC 197-11-060 (5) (b) . The issues that are ready for decision are those which relate to the filling and grading of the site and to the shoreline and other environmental impacts and mitigating measures associated with grading and filling. Decisions concerning the future construction on the site are not yet ready for review. These decisions must be made on the environmental analysis which will occur once the proposed development of the site is more clearly established. We did submit a plot plan with our permit applications. This plan was intended to give the ERC a general conceptual idea of our present thoughts about the future use of the property. Even though we have not developed a detailed proposal for construction on the property, the site plan was provided to avoid any suggestion that we were submitting information to you piecemeal. We are not trying to avoid a thorough environmental review of any stage in the development of this site. On the contrary, we have not broken this site into different parcels or phases for purposes of our grade and fill permit, and we have applied simultaneously for all permits which we understand to be necessary at this stage in the development of the property. We share your concern that as much of a proposal as is known should be reviewed for its environmental impact. We sharply disagree, however, that because future construction cannot reasonably occur without first grading and filling the property that the grade and fill permit is an "interdependent part of a larger proposal" sufficient to require that we specifically identify all future construction at this stage or withdraw the permit applications. We believe that the grading permit and the shoreline permit should be reviewed on their own merits and that the ERC is required by SEPA and the Renton City Code to make a threshold determination on these applications. A site plan application for such a long term phased project would be premature and is not required by SEPA. My second objection to your letter is that you express only vague and unsupported concern about the environmental cleanliness of the site. In addition, your "recommendation" as worded is not clear. Which agencies, if any, other than DOE and EPA are to be consulted? What is the process and timing of their review? What is the applicant' s responsibility to provide information to these agencies and to fund their review? What weight will be given to their conclusion? Mr. Donald K. Erickson July 31, 1987 Page Three When we submitted our permit applications, we included as part of an expanded checklist a soils study by Earth Consultants and a wetland study by a qualified wetlands biologist. We included this information in an effort to make full disclosure of all potential environmental considerations of which we are aware, and in anticipation of any concerns Renton might have concerning this site. These studies are clear and complete. You have not requested any additional information from us and you have not indicated that the information we provided was incorrect or inadequate. We believe the information supplied is more than sufficient to allow you to evaluate the environmental impacts of our proposal. If you disagree, please inform us immediately as to the specific additional information you are requesting so that we may provide it, or at least have a starting point to discuss with you whether the present environmental record is adequate. As you are aware, if you intend to request additional information or analysis, it must be limited to those elements on the checklist for which the ERC as lead agency has determined that information accessible to you is not reasonably sufficient to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposal. WAC 197-11-100 (2) . We do not dispute your authority under the SEPA regulations to consult with other agencies. As lead agency, however, it is your responsibility to make a threshold determination, to do so promptly, and not to abrogate this decision. We believe that you presently have enough information to make unnecessary this proposed special review by other agencies. The issuance of a mitigated DNS with circulation to all affected agencies will provide them with ample opportunity for comment. It will also provide a structure and time limitation for their review not presently contained in your recommendation. We encourage you to make such a determination right away. If there are significant comments by other agencies, we will cooperate fully with the ERC in responding to them. If not, the processing of the permit applications can go forward, with further environmental review at the appropriate stages. We would request an opportunity to meet with you in the very near future to discuss our concerns about your recommendation and any other concerns you have about the project. We have already discussed some of these issues with your city attorney, Larry Warren, and would encourage you to do so as well . Mr. Donald K. Erickson July 31, 1987 Page Four Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, ERICKSON & BARKS IRE, P.S. � r Stephen O. Kenyon SOK:pk cc: Ron Nelson Richard Houghton Larry Springer Larry Warren Rich Gilmore Allan Sternoff I� E MEMO TO: DATE: 5/'S FROM: SUBJECT: aC\Vg` ,,ra_9s. Az-j- '.l.Yarke ,�it� C,r Lam. c4'2,-b1 'emu. 1'Nr-exL?MP2Rar, rc t ry oFF v 1-D »T Leek- Ai. 'PR.b A" --me) taus(A). citm ve,ef +-ze j 1vo,2.w. P L\ * ?d-4 Ce'/4j tte-. p� tN � tn�,:�,0,.2 0 `C e-, l5s u nt,c c at. Os f' ! o j Am.ouNR- oe wWrizut_ Pe(LouNZ 'tom sum - ZNAt,s 1�c.4U��-U2 ► D �aw.� *e6t-tswe, Nov-‘ Ote- b Po,Vp Gz je ( -Cke, c�'t'1 h �.. WtiC'� T FvR-1Yrerc. -211 ' `k pt.' *A-,-sa.h-Lt mb Ct- l�b�t' c u k ►m,1- ickbS lS bucx- F-99110'PIQJ(sM 3-4 AD1 E 3as o to pa tx- ..*Lso1- '�h�s NA.c She& Net- C) too c.-espmac. 1 e�C1 .�.,c. � — MA-A-, e6 e131-1.tee,.,.' a Ati*c Za. �a l��-�f c r o� SAS, ems. �' . � o.-J It)wt. lam ^'e ta.' 99.0CC41 .4 0^ cpcJnY% ^tiVZtZCV rSt''?Mtc C �l V - �@Qc�►';'S��cvn,�,nfr+'V-� 'J M141►w1$'"S 'p-c`4-v 7'-^ Q') St �1� .J'a�t� ' 1 A"'-er)•-‘s-D z.t MEMORANDUM TO ;j9i . DATE6/:/ 4P, FROM ( G,r'-4 .f4 w 4 SUBJECT 4�w ` 1� ' f c r'`'%` � .�t' ili*Ti7 n '� ---/-: "�/" r-:;"' 9Ii lt="'"' '/4401 in' y q 09/"J- 144 0 , el (;(0,,t4i,u 2 . ,i?iiiiii6/ ‘ii IV / I /7„),6: Avmxf 0,i,,,,, A:Lzfr . ' i ,. .. ,,„„...„ /.. -biic5L., 4110#, 1::: (,.)oitoy.,, fr Nam► P ham ,= / * � CITY OF RENTON BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director July 17, 1987 Mr. Allan L. Sternoff Oakesdale Associates 13541 SE. 26th Bellevue, WA 98005 RE: Oakesdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit Files: ECF-038-87, SP-042-87, Shoreline Mgmt SM-007-87 Dear Mr., Sternoff: This letter is to inform you that the Environmental Review Committee reviewed the environmental impacts of your Fill and Grade Special Permit and Shoreline Management Permit request for property 4 located north of S.W. 43rd Street and West of Oakesdale Ave. The Committee on July. 15, 1987, decided that your project will be held due to a number of concerns and the need for additional information. SEPA regulations require that future plans for Site Plan Approval must be reviewed along with the other project related land use actions. WAC 197-11-060(3) (b) (ii) states that when interdependent parts of a larger proposal exist, they must be considered together. Clearly, building development on this site is conditioned on filling and grading occurring first. The tentative site plan submitted was viewed as information indicating future intent. In order to consider the site plan the Committee must have a formal site plan application to review. . If the project is not to the stage where a final site plan can be prepared, we suggest that this application be. withdrawn. I have included the requirements for a complete site plan application. In addition the committee discussed a number of concerns about the project and made the following recommendation: 1. That the city ask other agencies such as DOE and EPA to review the materials already prepared and determine if additional testing is required to insure that the site is environmentally clean prior to allowing any new fill material to be added: 200 Mill Avenue.South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 Mr. Allan L. Sternoff Oakesdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit July 17, 1987 Page 2 This review could include additional testing of existing soil conditions for toxicity, the generation of methane gas, and the potential for leaching of harmful materials . into the drainage system. Once we have this information, we will make an environmental determination on the whole project. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call our office at 235-2540 and ask for myself or Jeanette Samek-McKague. •µ th- nviro + tal Rev''- ommittee, • • Dona '. K. Erickson, AICP Zoning Administrator DKE:BG "� "• • • • Staff Report/Dsk ERC BUILDING AND ZONING4DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT JULY 15, 1987 t A. BACKGROUND: APPLICANT: Oakesdale Associates PROJECT: Oakesdale and Associates Fill and Grade Permit ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: EFC-038-87 APPLICATION NO(S) SP-042-87, SM-007-87 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Application for a Special Permit to allow filling and grading on 43.87 acres with 198,700 cubic yards of material and Substantial Shorelines Development Permit to allow said fill within 200 feet of Springbrook Creek. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: Located North of S.W. 43rd Street and West of Oakesdale Avenue S.W. B. ISSUES: Whether sufficient information has been provided with respect to haul routes; Discussion: 1 The applicant provided specific haul routes for the fill project. Proposed route from Downtown: I-5 to 405, exit on West Valley Road, then left on 43rd St. to the site. Proposed route from Mercer Island: I-90 to 405, exit on SR 167 to the 43rd St exit and then right on 43rd ST to the site. Whether sufficient information has been provided on the type of fill material to be placed on the site and measures to ensure it is not. contaminated; Discussion: The applicant discloses two potential sources of fill- embankment from downtown Seattle and/or I-90. The applicant did not discuss the quality of the fill to be placed on the site. • Whether the hours of operation are reasonable; Discussion: The applicant proposes the following work schedule: Monday thru Friday - 7 `EUILDING AND ZONING E:-IRTMENT } ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW :IMITTEE STAFF REPORT _ DULY 15, 1987 OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES PAGE 2 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m. The proposed, Saturday schedule is 7 a.m. to 2:30 a. .m. In another fill and grade permit for a valley project, the hours approved were as follows: Monday thfu Friday: 6a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. and Saturdays: 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Given the fact that there are still single family residences which are occupied, the applicant's suggested hours should be modified. Whether sufficient measures have been provided with respect to mud and dust control; Discussion: The applicant proposes controlling dust by watering the site down by truck. With respect to controlling mud and dirt on the roadways, the applicant proposes that the construction entrances be constructed with a 50' by 20' by 8" quarry spall pad. The applicant does state that the streets will be kept clean as needed. Whether the applicant has disclosed sufficient information on the future development and use of the site following the fill and grade operation; Discussion: The applicant noted that the site is being prepared for a sixteen building office/warehouse park. A proposed site plan was included in the application package. This development is proposed to be phased over a four year period. As stipulated in Section 4-2303 (2) (C) . Site plans are not specifically required to be submitted with the fill and grade application. Whether applicant has provided sufficient information on providing compensating flood storage; Discussion: The southeast corner of the property together with the area on either side of Springbrook Creek fall within the flood plain. The City has adopted the following policy with respect to providing compensating flood storage: "Compensating flood storage capacity should be provided before filling, unless the filling party can prove to the permitting authority that delay of , provisions of the compensating flood storage capacity until after filling • will result in demonstrated benefit to the general public; and further, that such compensating flood storage capacity be provided no later than the next construction season following the filling, jroviding the adjacent property .. BUILDING AND ZONING r' -\RTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW .4MITTEE STAFF REPORT JULY 15, 1987 OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES PAGE 3 owners are not adversely impacted by such fill. " Whether sufficient information has been provided with respect to the potential harmful impacts of the existing solid waste fill located on site,; The applicantprovided pp a preliminary soils report which noted that shredded non-metallic automotive debris(plastic, rubber, glass, etc. ) and shredded telephone cable. A field check by City staff also noted the presence of shredded automobile tires. The report states further that use of the waste material for structural fill will result in subsidence of soils and should not be used without further testing with respect to load bearing capacity. In addition, testing revealed that there is biological activity and heat generated by the waste which raises a question of whether methane gas is being generated. The soils engineer recommended further testing and a gas monitoring program. Finally, the presence of this material does raise a question of contamination of Springbrook Creek and the wetland along the west property line. C: RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Significance.( More information is required with respect to the testing of existing soil conditions for the generation of methane gas and leaching of harmful materials into the drainage system. D. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS: Various City departments have reviewed and commented upon the project. These comments are as follows: Police Department: Traffic Concerns: 1. Haul route to be approved by City 2. Haul hours to be limited to light traffic hours (heavy emphasis on , this) . 3. Haul road must be constructed on site to prevent dirt/mud tracking. d , Fire Prevention Bureau: Probable minor impacts noted for public services with no further comment. Design Engineering: Traffic Engineering: .f U • ' BUILDING AND ZONING I kRTMENT : ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW _ 'IMITTEE STAFF REPORT :JULY 15, 1987 OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES PAGE 4 Utility Engineering: Probable minor impacts noted for Public Services and Utilities with the following comments: 1. No detention ponds/silt ponds over the sanitary or water lines. 2. Raise San M H 2! above rough grade. Parks and Recreation: Probable major impact noted for recreation with the following comment: 1. The addition ofJ1,500 people to the daytime population of this area will be a major recreational impact both on and off the site. Building Division: More information requested for earth and water with probable minor impacts noted for Houssig, with the following comments: 1. Need calcs to show amount of fill within 100 year flood storage area and plans for the digging out of the P-1 needed. Zoning Division: More information requested for Plants. Probable major impacts for Earth, with the following comments: A 404 permit may be required before filling can occur. 2. A considerable volume of industrial debris& is concentrated in the northwest corner of the property (shredded non-metallic automotive debris-plastic,rubber, glass, etc. ) and a considerable volume of telephone cable stockpiled. Should all known waste be removed off the site b?fore filling? 3. A paved recreation trail (.12 ' wide) should be provided along the eastern side of Springbrook Creek to eventually connect with that done by O.W Properties. Benches and tables should be included with the future development. Should a trail of some sort also be provided along the west side of the creek? 4. All major trees along/near Springbrook Creek should be saved and incorporated into the future development plans. In addition, the prominent roll of poplar trees along the west property line should be saved. Policy Development: More information requested for Earth, Water, Environmental Health, and Recreation. Probable major impacts noted for Earth, Plants, Aesthetics, Recreation, and Transportation. Probable minor impacts noted for all other environmental elements with the following comments: BUILDING AND ZONING L kRTMENT - gNVIRONMENTAL REVIEW :.-AMITTEE . ,STAFF REPORT JULY 15, 1987 OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES PAGE 5 " 1. Is there a wetland in the southeast corner of the site? d Staff Comment: No, but Orilia Pond, identified in the 1982 Renton Wetlands Study extends about 30 feet over the west property line of the site. Filling of this area may not conform to t. the policies outlined in the Valley Comp Plan, land development section: a) Development should occur in a logical systematic manner to minimize the occurrence of scattered blocks of vacant filled land. b) The City should encourage development of vacant lands currently filled. . .before allowing significant additional landfill in the valley. There may be areasdin the Valley which have been filled and are still undeveloped which may be suitable for this type of development. If so, these areas should, according to the Comp. Plan policies, be developed prior to allowing additional fill. Staff Comment: Policy Development should supply a pap of and report on such areas so that this can be evaluated. 2. A site plan of the eventual development of the site should be submitted prior to allowing fill. Staff Comment: Allowing .fill without knowledge of the potential development constitutes a piecemeal review. 3. The applicant should be required to contribute to the eventual development of a trail system along Springbrook Creek, including specific linkages between the site and the Creek. 1 1 '; :TO :FROM. I , City of Renton . ' Ri rd A. Gilmore,. z Building and Zoning- Department - - 13541 S.E. 26th Street . . Attention: Donald Erickson Bellevue, Wa. 98005' i.2 SUBJECT - ...=._..._ . ". _._.........__.___._...__ ..___«..:DATE:_...._ 0aksdale Renton Center • : - 7 / 7 / 87 i'' ;.MESSAGE ' ' - , = ' . • , - is • ; I Dear Donald., - . Enclosed 'please find •6 copies of a recent. "wetlands study" _ e.whave just completed i,f _ _.. relative to .the above named project. . This report should be incorporated. inour , ' E 1� submittal for: our substantial grade and fill permit':- . Hopefully this. information `.s - , 9 - can be disseminated to the•different' -departments prior to our ERC'meeting on July 15, 1987.` Thanks for your help •on this matter.. .` G If := g Fes;•? . °y� 3''; - ,tea} JUL 9_ 19 ® 1p a ? sa 'i Ff 91Ftiri4 PrPT • t , .__.._._.. - __.,...__ ...._SIGNED Richard A. Gilmore. / i,N/LA4-,-..0--,--e . REDTFORM® 4S 468 '.X NO REPLY NECESSARY REPLY-REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE . POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P468 ' • TO FROM • DATE . REPLY. . s-_. : . /• / . • r, • SIGNED _ CITY F REN �iai.C'N t - 1887 WETLAND STUDY JUL 1! STERNCO 'RENTON CENTER• �r PROJECT SITE 131111.Dia IZONING DEPT. How the wetland study_ was undertaken On 1 July 1987, the site was visited by a wetlands biologist. All areas were inspected on foot, and the wetland known to exist at the northwest corner of the property was inventoried for plant species presence and abundance. Any other potential areas where wetlands might have been expected to occur were investigated. Surficial soils, high soil moisture, and vegetation types were used as indicators of the potential presence of wetlands. In addition to vegetation, bird and small mammal sitings were recorded. Description of the site • Springbrook Creek enters the property through an arched culvert under SW 43rd St. , near the southwest corner of the parcel . The creek exits the property about 300' south of the northeast corner, through four culverts under Oakesdale Avenue SW. To the south of the creek, vegetation on the site is composed primarily of weedy species and ornamentals. Much of the area is comprised of the grounds of abandoned residences. Several residences, some occupied, remain along SW 43rd St. Himalayan blackberry, tansy, thistles, nettles, and several grass species dominate the vegetation, and there are pockets of ornamental species remaining. Adjacent to Oakesdale Ave. SW is a buffer, 50 to 100 feet wide, of cottonwood and alder trees. Water appears to stand in this area during the rainy season, and there are some facultative wetland species under the trees. The soils are not hydric, however, vetetation is predominantly non-wetland, and the area was quite dry at the time of the survey, so does not qualify under USFWS guidelines as a wetland. Along the north and south banks of Springbrook Creek, vegetation is comprised of early successional and weedy, herbaceous species. The creek appears to have been channelized fairly recently, and the banks were evidently graded and stripped of vegetation at the time. Vegetation is characterized by grasses, tansy, nettles, Scot's broom, chamomile, fireweed, and sweet-clover. North of the creek channel , much of the parcel is developed and currently under industrial or commercial use. A triangular-shaped plot between the creek and the entrance _ road to the Sternoff recycling facility appears, however, to be an abandoned pasture. It supports an abundant growth of grasses, including reed canarygrass, and contains a few • • patches of soft rush. The soil is not hydric, however, nor was any water present at the time of the survey. This area is not wetland. About the north one half of the total Sternco project is in the industrial or commercial uses mentioned, and is either heavily disturbed, paved, developed, or used for the storage of equipment or recycled materials. To the west of the Sternco property is fallow land and the north-south rail line with two main lines and a spur. A spur with sidings delineates the north property boundary. Across Oakesdale Avenue SW to the east is industrial and commercial development. To the south across SW 43rd St. is retail and wholesale commercial development. Results of survey One wetland occurs in conjunction with this property. It is for the most part off the property, and occurs along the north one-third of the west property line of the Sternco . Renton Center project site. The wetland, which occurs in the depression which runs perhaps 150' to the railroad embankment to the west, extends into the property about 30' . • and extends for a north-south distance of about 400' along the property boundary. Off-property, the entire wetland is perhaps 600' long. Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designations (Cowardin et al . 1979) , it contains open water (palustrine open water: POW) , emergent vegetation (palustrine emergent: PEM) , scrub-shrub (palustrine scrub- shrub: PSS) , and forested (palustrine forested: PFO) zones. It is not included in the King County Wetlands Inventory, but is mentioned in the 1982 City of Renton Wetlands Study (personal communication, Nancy Lazwell-Morris, City of Renton) . In this study, and locally, the wetland has been called Orilia Pond. The 1982 study assessed its value as intermediate in relation to other Renton wetlands, ranking it high for isolation, moderate for waterfowl , low for wildlife diversity, low for aesthetics, low for areal extent, low for hydraulics, and moderate for uniqueness. The open water and emergent zones contain a great number of tall , but not large diameter, snags. There may have been a population of cottonwood or alder here which was flooded when the spur which leads to the east was constructed. The emergent zone vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, with few other species. Emergent and open water zones are rimmed by a scrub-shrub zone, primarily shrubby willows, which reaches its greatest development at the north and south ends of the marsh. On the property, stored recycled material extends almost to the edge .of the open water, so the scrub-shrub zone is narrow. The forested zone, primarily a few cottonwoods, appears to be a continuation of woody species which are found in the drainage channel along the entrance road to the Sternoff 3 facility. On the property, the wetland is primarily POW, with a fringe of PEM and PSS. At the time of the survey, water in the wetland was quite turbid, but the area was being used by 'a number of waterfowl and songbirds. Wildlife seen during the survey included one varying or snowshoe hare, and a number of birds. The waterfowl included American coot, American bittern, and mallard duck. Songbirds included barn swallow, starling, red-winged blackbird, robin, house wren, and common crow. A red-tailed hawk was seen hunting over the property. Soil types on the site The King County Soil Survey (Snyder et al . 1973) shows three soil types on the property: Py (Puyallup fine -sandy loam) along Springbrook Creek, Wo (Woodinville silt loam) adjacent to that, and Pu (Puget silty clay loam) in the area of the wetland and extending under the Sternoff recycling facility. Puyallup fine sandy loam is a nearly level , well- drained soil on natural levees in valley bottoms . Woodinville silt loam is found on undulating, poorly drained soils, under grasses, in alluvium, on stream bottoms. In undrained soils, there is a seasonal high water table. Puget silty clay loams are poorly drained soils formed in alluvium under sedges and grasses in small depressions of river valleys. There is a seasonal high water table in undrained soils. • This soils analysis was verified on site by Earth Consultants, Inc. , in a report transmitted on 6 May 1987. This report found that "the site is typically underlain by thirty-five (35) to forty (40) feet of interfingering and poorly stratified silty sands and sandy or clayey silts. " Peat beds were found in some areas at a depth of ten to fifteen feet under the site. Potential impacts of prpposed activities on the site Potential impacts on the wetland appear to be limited. Current industrial activity and storage of recycled • materials have had a greater effect on the wetland than the proposed activity will have. No intrusion into the wetland is proposed. Current drainage into the wetland primarily enters from the south along the railroad and entrance road rights-of-way and leaves to the north through a 36" CMP culvert under the railroad spur which enters the Sternoff site. If the proposed P-1 drain segment is constructed through the wetland, any impact from development of this site will be insignificant in comparison to the disturbance caused by that project. Development of the currently fallow pasture and residential grounds in the south half of the property will 4 result in loss of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat. Flood storage potential will be decreased by limited filling of the narrow flood plain terrace along Springbrook Creek for certain building pads, but an off-site overflow reservoir will be constructed to accomodate storage lost. Runoff will be increased by removal of existing vegetation and construction of buildings, roads and parking areas which increase impermeable area. LITERATURE CITED 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 FWS/OBS-79/31 . Snyder, D.E. , P.S Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil survey of King County area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. • Composition and Abundance of Wetland Vegetation Species Common Cover Value Wetland Name (Octave) Class Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass 9 PEM Juncus effusus soft rush 2 PEM Typha_.latifolia cattail 2 PEM E�uisetum arvense horsetail 1 PEM Salix_spp, willow 9 PSS Alnus__rubra red alder 1 PSS Spiraea doualasii. hardhack 1 PSS Rosa nutkana rose 1 PSS Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood 1 PSS Populus trichocarpa black cottonwood 1 PFO Salix_spp; willow 1 PFO Alnus rubra red alder 1 PFO • 6 OCTAVE COVER SCALE • Percent cover Octave value 0 0 0 to less than 0.5% 1 0.5 to less than 1% 2 1 to less than 2% 3 2 to less than 4% 4 4 to less than 8% 5 8 tp less than 16% . 6 16 to less than 32 7 32 to less than 64% 8 64 to 100% 9 This report was prepared by: Kern Ewing Wetland Biologist 3907B NE 140th St. Seattle, Washington 98125 (206) 365-9251 • eige orr$iitch2d einba .t eist ..... ..•wi 1,1 L44Z..:11 icy. -- CAST IRON PIPE -.N.\\N"EittA) MARGIN LINE ' V. TELEPHONE VAULT CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ,c.+� PROPERTY T.S. TELEPHONESENTRY OONCRETE PIPE -1.CCNCREIE T.E. TOP ELEVATION SURF pg5 UTILITY AC7C SS PEM P55 STEPS OR SURFACE MANHOLE CONCRETE WALK ( ) NUTTER MAIN /ow 44/f- J CONCRETE WALL g WATER METER EUCTILE IRON P INV.:1 5.4 if FO • WATER VALVE �6. C 1 .Fkca, P�f INVc15 "' CORNER OR COURSE-CHANGE ) �'� n S5 n POINTS"NOT SET", TYPICAL r \(� PO by �^ • 07' \ 20 � ,• = EDGE OF MARSH I t. j l —ry A�22�� 1 20• � o-r—c \ \ \ . p/cpeej /;1>✓ Z4 - - - .® MANHOLE '► �� 1� (1(1\ ti° ti1. I r _______________ EDGE OF SPOILS AREA I `9. N 1 6n �o 77-----.--.'Ns\'‘ '� 2(Y� 0 +n I ry \\ 3 (i A ro \ IA \ 1 \ ti \ 1/�.K 0/ / \ r.. \ / Mj / If toBROKEN BRICK wro ��,49\,so11//i/ / �'p ((//\ . \I ‘ \\, (\.(\-:;14.1. ryi ca w Z e0 .1/ ryCf f^ ....../, / F s W \ \ __:::::::::> ♦A• W \, / O /Cp• / } H / ° i I IA �h /I / 0 ` I f • CITY p^� WETLAND STUDY i ��+_ 1987 f U STERNCO RENTON CENTER PROJECT SITE 'P1 .5 ,. { / 70NIINC VD�. How the wetland study was undertaken On 1 July 1987, the site was visited by a wetlands biologist. All areas were inspected on foot, and the wetland known to exist at the northwest corner of the . property was inventoried for plant species presence and • abundance. Any other potential areas where wetlands might have. been expected to occur were investigated. Surficial soils, high soil moisture, and vegetation types were used as indicators of the potential presence of wetlands. In addition to vegetation, bird and small mammal sitings were recorded. • Description of the site Springbrook Creek enters the property through an arched culvert under SW 43rd St. , near the southwest corner of the parcel . The creek exits the property about 300' south of . the northeast corner, through four culverts under Oakesdale • Avenue SW. To the south of the creek, vegetation on the site is composed primarily of weedy species and ornamentals. Much of the area is comprised of the grounds of abandoned ° residences. Several residences, some occupied, remain along SW 43rd St. Himalayan blackberry, tansy, thistles, nettles, and several grass species dominate the vegetation, and there are pockets of ornamental species remaining. Adjacent to Oakesdale Ave. SW is .a buffer, 50 to 100 feet wide, of cottonwood and alder trees. Water appears to stand in this area during the rainy season, and there are some facultative wetland species under the trees. The soils are not hydric, however, vetetation is predominantly non-wetland, and the area was quite dry at the time Of the survey, so does not qualify under USFWS guidelines as a wetland. Along the north and south banks of Springbrook Creek, vegetation is comprised of early successional and .weedy, herbaceous species. The creek appears to have been • channelized fairly recently, and the banks were evidently graded and stripped of vegetation at the time. Vegetation is characterized by grasses, tansy, nettles, Scot's broom, • chamomile, fireweed, and sweet-clover. North of the creek channel , much of the parcel is developed and currently under industrial or commercial use. A triangular-shaped plot between the creek and the entrance road to the Sternoff recycling facility appears, however, to be an abandoned pasture. It supports an abundant growth of grasses, including reed canarygrass, and contains a few 2 patches of soft rush. The soil is not hydric, however, nor was any water present at the time of the survey. This area is not wetland. About the north one half of the total Sternco project is in the industrial or commercial uses mentioned, and is either heavily disturbed, paved, developed, or used for the storage of equipment or recycled materials. To the west of the Sternco property is fallow land and the north-south rail line with two main lines and a spur. A spur with sidings delineates the north property boundary. Across Oakesdale Avenue SW to the east is industrial and commercial development. To the south across SW 43rd St. is retail and wholesale commercial development. Results of survey • One wetland occurs in conjunction with this property. It is for the most part off the property, and occurs along the north one-third of the west property line of the Sternco Renton Center project site. The wetland, which occurs in the depression which runs perhaps 150' to the railroad embankment to the west, extends into the property about 30' and extends for a north-south distance of about 400'. along the property boundary. Off-property, the entire wetland is perhaps 600' long. Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designations (Cowardin et al . 1979) , it contains open water (palustrine open water: POW) , emergent vegetation (palustrine emergent: PEM) , scrub-shrub (palustrine scrub- shrub: PSS) , and forested (palustrine forested: PFO) zones. It is not included in the King County Wetlands Inventory, but is mentioned in the 1982 City of Renton Wetlands Study i (personal communication, Nancy Lazwell-Morris, City of Renton) . In this study, and locally, the wetland has been called Orilia Pond. The 1982 study assessed its value as intermediate in relation to other Renton wetlands, ranking it high for isolation, moderate for waterfowl , low for wildlife diversity, low for aesthetics, low for areal extent, low for hydraulics, and moderate for uniqueness. The open water and emergent zones contain .a great number of tall , but not large diameter, snags. There may have been a population of cottonwood or alder here which was flooded when the spur which leads to the east was constructed. The emergent zone vegetation is dominated by reed canarygrass, with few other species. Emergent and open water zones are rimmed by a scrub-shrub zone, primarily shrubby willows, which reaches its greatest development at the north. and south ends of the marsh. On the property, stored recycled material extends almost to the edge of the . open water, so the scrub-shrub zone is narrow. The forested zone, primarily a few cottonwoods, appears to be a continuation of woody species which are found in the drainage channel along the entrance road to the Sternoff 3 facility. On the property, the wetlandJis primarily POW, with a fringe of PEM and PSS. At the time of the survey, water in the wetland was quite turbid, but the area was being used by a number of waterfowl and songbirds. Wildlife seen during the survey included one varying or snowshoe hare, and a number of birds. The waterfowl included American coot, American bittern, and mallard duck. Songbirds included barn swallow, starling, red-winged blackbird, robin, house wren, and common crow. A red-tailed hawk was seen hunting over the property. Soil types on the site The King County Soil Survey (Snyder et al . 1973) shows three soil types on the property: Py (Puyallup fine sandy loam) along Springbrook Creek, Wo (Woodinville silt loam) • adjacent to that, and Pu (Puget silty clay loam) in the area of 'the wetland and extending under the Sternoff recycling facility. Puyallup fine sandy loam is a nearly level , well- drained soil on natural levees in valley bottoms. Woodinville silt loam is found on undulating, poorly drained soils, under grasses, in alluvium, on stream bottoms. In undrained soils, there is a seasonal high water table. Puget silty clay loams are poorly drained soils formed in alluvium under sedges and grasses in small depressions of river valleys. There is a seasonal high water table in undrained soils. siteI This soils analy sis was verified on by Earth Consultants, Inc. , in a report transmitted on 6 May 1987. This report found that "the site is typically underlain by thirty-five (35) to forty (40) feet of interfingering and poorly stratified silty sands and sandy or clayey silts. " Peat beds were found in some areas at a depth of ten to fifteen feet under the site. Potential impacts of proposed activities on the site Potential impacts on the wetland appear to be limited. Current industrial activity and storage of recycled materials have had a greater effect on the wetland than the proposed activity will have. No intrusion into the wetland is proposed. Current drainage into the wetland primarily enters from the south along the railroad and entrance road rights-of-way and leaves to the north through a 36" CMP culvert under the railroad spur which enters the Sternoff site. If the proposed P-1 drain segment is constructed through the wetland, any impact from development of this site will be insignificant in comparison to the disturbance caused by that project. Development of the currently fallow pasture and residential grounds in the .south half of the property will • result in loss of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat . Flood storage potential will be decreased by limited filling of the narrow flood plain terrace along Springbrook Creek for certain building pads, but an off-site overflow reservoir will be constructed to accomodate storage • lost. Runoff will be increased by removal of existing vegetation and construction of buildings, roads and parking areas which increase impermeable area. LITERATURE CITED 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 FWS/OSS--79/31 . Snyder, D.E. , P.S Gale, and R.F. Pringle. 1973. Soil survey of King County area, Washington. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. • 5 Composition and Abundance of Wetland Vegetation Species Common Cover Value Wetland Name (Octave) Class • Phalaris arundinacea reed canarygrass 9 PEM, Juncus effusus soft rush 2 PEM Typha latifolia cattail 2 PEM Egp setum arvense horsetail 1 PEM Salix spp. willow 9 PSS Alnusrubra red alder 1 PSS Spiraea doualasii hardhack 1 PSS Rosa nutkana rose 1 PSS Cornus stolonifera red-osier dogwood 1 PSS P.opulus trichocarpa black cottonwood 1 PFO Salix spp, willow 1 PFO Alnus rubra red alder 1 PFO • 6 • • OCTAVE COVER SCALE Percent cover Octave value 0 0 0 to less than 0.5% . .1 ' 0.5 to less than 1% 2 • 1 to less than 2% 3 2 to less than 4% 4 4 to less than 8% 5 . 8 to less than 16% 6 16 to less than 32% 7 32 to less than 64% 8 64 to 100% I 9 This report was prepared by: Kern Ewing Wetland Biologist 3907B NE 140th St. Seattle, Washington 98125, (206) 365-9251 dqe of rat/mad esiba#emeet CAST IRON PIPE V. TELEPHONE VAULT MARGIN LINE •• CORRUGATED METAL PIPE rcki, PROPERTY T.S. TELEPHONE SENTRY :1 ----\)' Y/ CONCRETE PIPE -q T.E. TOP ELEVATION CONCRETE SLAB, 955 ® UTILITY ACCESS PalPs5 STEPS OR SURFACE rckicAi MANHOLE CONCRETE WALK -W WATER MAIN(AS APPLICABLE) /9 _� f CONCRETE WALL O WATER METER INV.o15.4 CUCTILE IRON F p Q • WATER VALVE �S. A 1/pcy P� INV-15 CORNER OR COURSE-CHANGE �)" �~ �PS PO P1<�"NOT SET' TYPICAL )OccrJ \lc _-�01-- `_ ---- t. , EDGE OF MARSH i � \ _ 2.irk 1; 7„22 ----------- N 2 0 _____----;7/ ,-'" \ O \\ II P'' e f 14C7. 24 \L0 MANHOLE I� ry I ry9 I ( 1' O —� 1�•�• O �—EDGE OF SPOILS AREA -—At ,q :I a ' i \ --_________,_______ II ry7777-----. --....N\'\\\ O o vi /( 1,, 3 (4 2°_/ QI 1 n ry 40 A V ° \ . 1 \ ° )ti%.,- (a/ '‘ wO d I `\ \ �ry ` ry0 .. 7 M( ( (.2 ry ram-O 101 �/ n. On m I b ��� 11 O • \ N WGO I f1 \ -\ / /� w oP BROKEN BRI��CK �,1 ,o \ \ \\\ / a ry y / m ry wZ �/ ry0 \ \ \\ \ \ / ry/ • iTi a° /160 \ p\ \ / ( w W / ��I o I- b /y° I /// N ry� 19 1 / 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHL .i REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Lc r vN DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 0 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87 SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water n� 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 0 A 4o4 P I-r r- R RE6)01 PAD fE O Irv/ C AA) k^riAotiS) ocoutZ, e A awsi 6e.E. VOL,u r c oF K)Dus-f Rt t 5 CoNCzAirn A 0 IIU T e Ivtu .714 P1oPreinr( ( s r ooec jUOiU r\/-871\-uu,G Nut`I-on')o-rIuc ' IZ4s— .RAsisc , ^,r��� 6Cdi'Ss, e j Rti-o c;3rv.5 I D J S Vol,U rr 6 pRo N6 G� � 51"0C K pfl Cl8 P C J VI,i rO UUlsorc, 134.. R4\cuuo r s 17� 1�PJ z , IC) A Pisv6) `rma(K., 'w10t) s HOUL'b ` Pq00105,0 l\kor\X ,'I 310 cP S PRI firs * 6v6I 1U o,,T Iry c 1, w 11-i4. 1 r iborvG, \ o.t�l.� Pnoin5t-�f69„ �R1\�_ c VSo r' Paso PRov ► r\)Cc, riAt; s 1 or c 7i+ c�Z. 2, .e d Lt , T�� � S 1- OUL o. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Oe.)\-AL.)\ U\r‘r‘bk 1C117'. Signature of Di(rtor or Authorized Representative Date (3 Form 4 cLu m2 E0 lYl-1 3Tu ci v rrvv6N-ro LO-) AILL Vvl °R. t -9a O J /l 6 srDitI(}66J k c- - . 3140 U UO ItOo )kC,O rNi Ad o I Imo t(f 5c-AsteLoicori.,o\7 pcvu 1 Do l l 16N) ` Pkurn 1 R_Do.,4 c pop G 1I ti+ es--r PRopeATY LAN S NOULO 11€ 3, V RENT r I BUILDING & ZONING DEP, TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF — 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198.700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S W. 4"ird STREET ;ND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : ® PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ® ENGINEERING DIVISION LI TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION LI FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT E BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT ® POLICE DEPARTMENT ® POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ° OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P ,M, ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 7_0IOIfl. (p El APPROVED !T'. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED NO W l-00,-1 (J\Y1A l ECC')allJ 0IZ O'71 (�. t G�AcL , Cal ( I 10 oLODJAX.0 NuL, WMG1 vn -rip -j N-fiA L FOR— t fl cfl\ 1N,)A1030 .-11,r5 & rvDuv s{ i p �.. NczdrY\ d D CAR. o{nJ6 !4,c1(ut f, I C SS -Ij 5 1 iUo 2�ed P \.o c�106 D U`> t-��o c�:.E4}Jup I1ilt6s S��UU��� DATE: OL U ON TI SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1f IW �� ,L1MM&( "ic).e) REVISION 5/Form 182 1 2149N ENviNONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEEjr REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: l. +i ICI e.S DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 ' EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHOREL,INE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE, FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK. CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET ,AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ' 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services `/ 16) Utilities COMMENTS: 4, , ,-- .... dub iii i 1 %v , /I / • Q 5:01 , 1 ovos uldarAi ee r CLLca44, M g ,i,a(,_ dvate, Peso 14.0 ("AL , . Q . 26JUNU 1987 . � r We have r:vie ed this application with particular attention to those areas we have exp= tis: ` • nd have identified areas of1probable impact or areas where additional i -ormat':j. is needed to properly assess this proposal. . (,- 2 - 87 Signatd - 1 'hector or Authorized Representative Date . Form 4 ,i l RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPA 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHtRELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43-87 ACRE$ WITH 198-700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK, LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S_hL 41rd STREET /IND WEST OF OWESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO: fl PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ® ENGINEERING DIVISION ® TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : 0 UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU CITY OF RENT® N SPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT fiR C ' 0 V & ZONING DEPARTMENT JUN 28 19 flBUILDING 87 ® POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 6, 1987 . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : (}//4/Ty ,E1v&/A/�.E.R7A/G fl APPROVED•• APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS El NOT APPROVED 6-Let 0-v-1- a O,(...a' writ) Aoarrro*m. srav A00 UTILITY APP mamas- ..org mmv wow_ewkdime ROVAL SUBJECT in I LATE COMERS ARREEEIaT-wit= No LATE COMERS ACREEMEaT-M a VEs ?o M>;rWo M-9-Jo-ra 1Il.ZBper-f.-4. oP j . SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT cF�r�:'� JAJATeit yes 440• /54•FT OF PP�y.3attbtir_t-, _ u,SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Cf�� SEWEg i/Es a ..b4/& .FT. pF rPTy, 1 SPECIAL A SSMENT AREA C:T WA'�e 1� ; p SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ARE. i'- sore ie No I APPROVED WATER PLAN ao.. Y it011. � . ! COAPPROVED SEWER PLAN b� - if APPROVED FIRE HYDRANT LOCATI S il 5 O® BY FIRE DEP . WCAAI4);%./S14,f.. .. l FIRE FLOW ANALYSI' el i� '� �� . ( . DATE: ��t�� T44.41‘J SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUT ORIZED REPRESENTA IVE d (EA . 126,t6SCtifill At' Z d - A REV!' ., , 82 Form 182 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET puiVAON) REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION. FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET ,AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ---- 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 4.,,--- 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities CONVENTS: _,,.----"z„eaelP i/ td A ,J aai 601276,u/4T- ;4'7 ,., ,e d cam- . oc ® 61' ; -.1.--/ - -ze,,,-€0, • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expert se in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional nformation i eeded to properly assess this proposal. /i� Z —P? na-t'ure of Director or Authorized Representative g p Date Form 4 RENT( BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198.700 CIVIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S_W_ 41rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ® ENGINEERING DIVISION flTRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : LII UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION ® FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU El PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT n BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LI OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : L-7) . Di U. ® APPROVED ® APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS MI NOT APPROVED ,c),4e,e/ 64,,e.c2 c2,22—a-;,7 • DATE: SIGNA R 70F DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 r , 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: f'irre, bpi DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: i[ U -Y 6_,, 1987; J EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. Lk*.S L00-7--87 - PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE; FORMED BW20_ "�Y. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. rvo,- BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: . P CITY OF RENTON D JUN N 2 1987 • BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. aa, alzr-Aze- Signature of Director or Authorized Representative D Form 4 RENT- BUILDING & ZONING DEN MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198.700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES ' DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S_W_ 43rd STREET AND' WE T OF OAKESDAT,F. AVENUE s_W_ TO: El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 11:1 ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ® PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT EBUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 0 POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M, ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : E APPROVED ® APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED noECE I I ® RNV E u JUN ' 21987 BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. DATE: ,d, /9'ef7 SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 �tl a Qr RENTON 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC1CKL, IST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �I1 1� �1 r JUN 1987 DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: 444114871FPT EFC - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET ,AND WEST OF OAKESDALE ,AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth ✓ ✓ 2) Air ✓ 3) Water ✓ 4) Plants ✓ 5) Animals ✓ 6) Energy and Natural Resources ✓ 7) Environmental Health ✓ 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ Z 9) Housing ✓ 10) Aesthetics ✓ 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 1.0( . ✓ ?✓' 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation ✓ CITY IF RE TON 14) Transportation ✓ i t DEC k E D 15) Public Services ✓ JUL fD 1 87 16) Utilities BUILDING I ZOO!! G DEPT. COMMENTS: +,0 � A � Vy� 3 L°c.�— ) C Q . // (--- - ✓�.�� L• Ci,Lth eCat-rru-t-A-.. oWd44...e..1,dr — LA-Lei di-- Ver-c-o.44_4- ,k4A__e_414) Hst.e...0L4 4 We have reviewed this application with particular attention those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. J Lit 2-1 16)9)-7-- Signature of Director or Au orized Rep sentative Dat6 Form 4 ik et,9t.6 /14.A.Lat,H AAL=-`-tA&4 v ' . J-Lu. Inc COL-e.oc.a. AA.---ut.t 1l� Lat- I) IAL-4A.cAL, Mat 1,4_4. . `�r1,u%la.�.l.� tiu.O.— 44"----E1102. ate_ 1000-eotwA-- 1 lit-L `t.0 615)^trrilt- e_ le-e-e-ln,o-ut b-ie- . u.)/(14- )- " edt -t w — RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEPI rMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SKEW& JUN 2 2 1987 ECF - 038 - 87 POLICY DFVELOPMFMT OFPT APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRAD.; PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING QN 43.87 ACRE WTTU 198.700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL' AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH '200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF SAL 41rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVEITUE S.W. TO: OPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : OENGINEERING DIVISION 0 TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : El UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU ® PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 1 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT 1:1 POLICE DEPARTMENT �I�OF RB NT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT uJ in 0 OTHERS : JUL 1987 BUILDING /ZONING DEPT. COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON ' JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : 0 APPROVED El APPROVED WITH C DITIONS NOT APPROVED 4ECL9LA..t-all.41_4 7 /� -1;4-#4ic" - 8Y1 �4 A--- AA--- ' -C Vrya,(0.4- ;.) , / C-e ryLi..A...4.AAA.44., . a-- , levtAxt_fei a..2.,a-o (GLe.... ,..,Y — -- -c istrt.c..0‘..*A.25-y) ��� r� &dt--�--bla (MuLL4/ DATE; i �!_. 2 may, SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 41 REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 RECE 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET �J2 Igor REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: PQA` PARKS DEPARTMENT, DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACkES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics ' 11) Light and Glare YP \ 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: I de �GGl add'7L/-•w '/ . /, $`o d �Jeoo 7/e e. da ¢rnP a qAh a� o` 7*(.l ar- w•'ll h a i/h4.j®s `tee.- 7e/-®41cel /-114,, (-- &d 7i 'e ryiLe . COT';" Get INTON 03 JUL 8 iqg We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inform ' n is needed to properly assess this proposal. � -�-g (7;/ l 2, / Sig r o Dir ctor or Authorized Representative • Date Form 4 RENT(_,_, , BUILDING & ZONING DEPA MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES,' A' PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRE WIT 98.7(10 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH '200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S_W_ 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 1=1 ENGINEERING DIVISION El TRAFFIC ENG, DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION El FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Cea st OF RENTON • BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT • POLICE DEPARTMENT LLFrifiUnng 17 El POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING/ZONING DEPT. • OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING , PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M, ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : El APPROVED Eg, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ® NOT APPROVED /C_la/ 747-- // "yee-eir e /eod. � !d /cL i ���de 4 c% /9P Tithe 7 ,a car /v -S/ r TAGS -7l'�Cf �2/live //g, yed/-00.- r:4/lf 71,4//74-acu__J- 7�l/Ic f ran y .ko dk 40 7 ha 4,4ts f`O 1 ) 9/rr' r,4'- '- /7o,-fh - SGo 5fr?C T e s4 j��c.7L fi ire Ote,/lc474)0 C 6� if S ��� �sD� r G� LC �f c 7G s DATE: -r J GII6 2 J. .rt�7 SIGNA E OF DIRE TOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ' f •x are-- // •r dI�CJ °' ' ll G,, f`O/H 7LL j 7€ $ocf74* Gefeff Gam/ler s .1 f REVISION 5/1982 QJ f- '/4/'1 '1)7 r.raci LJ r.,ap a 1�.7./(q a1r1 r71p 7,'9„ /gwy -��o J ars 4 fr�7t9 a/ � 7 /11°*7 dye /".1! YJ'' ;0 v` yam!/ / Pi I'1 ?9,P l'/P99V-/b/ '129 / 11. stW Q /JQ-1 /f���ja /4-I/ P r7T/f� 2/P tin,)..74-?,wv of 7- �_'n-',r fi;4 a?,! �y �'/7l�?.oEha.7 "� � rOGivd/gyp agie A-W- , y 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: P1ke DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACkES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health i 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: I. / cc c. 2Oce-%C ,6_ 2y.-'-U 4--' !l' ce-/5 2. / «- hdvPs 'at 7L'w1 - -2 . , — i•-es (� is j cr u. C 1ea4d /Is ccS i 06P Goa--s 7i-rececy`-wwP 0 c s,71---, 7L0 , -evc•---- /ir7-/ dj€UZG9 7`7 G4. e eej (-Try OF 1(')_! [. I if JUG t a/ � .)) go :_ isAilLw:c; izONI:NC OPT. • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informat'on is needed to properly assess this proposal. ,......,--:-n--, G.t., 7-7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 RENT BUILDING & ZONING DEN 'MENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACMES WITH 198.700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTI1L SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S_JQI_ 41rd STREET AND WEST OF OAJESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : fl PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : [I] ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG , DIVISION ® FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 0 PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT El-POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING, PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P ,M. ON JULY 6, 1987 • REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OAPPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS ONOT APPROVED A la /44.7,„1740‘u , -e ,rto , ?-ea#4 2- et";ZzYY. ATE, G �� SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 � y 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEE a ��T',r of REN`�o�t_ --, REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: �YC.- ►Uu e JUNE 22, 1987 ri7 , �- 6 DATE CIRCULATED. N COMMENTS DU `,,JULYQ A5,�1111EFC - U38 _ 87 °suds APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGME!;:.CSMG DEFT, PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources G� 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services `' 16) Utilities COMMENTS: AL)sG„J � �n� 71- ea 0�5 .12 $4 , 4:1-k , 1,: , /P 1*-i�' t4 —5,�.,f 'Prph , 3 ® 1\46Y /h rGa-t /®�, / %&� � 70 e P v/czal/e-(L) d. / � $$,5 . 4 r--L.S We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7/-7/.g7 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 RENT4 BUILDING & ZONING DEPA®TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITI3 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S TLL 41rd STREET AND WEST OF,OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : Eil PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : 1:=1 ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : LI UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION ® FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT C%Tu O ZNTON_ Ci [1U BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT3100 POLICE DEPARTMENT `I J . ® POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C3U1V)iNG/ZONING pE_PT, LI OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M. ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : Tv a 4/ r' 11,3 LI APPROVED LI APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS NOT APPROVED 6v 6 L,p-Y e 1 r7 � Y L 1-7 iYI e L' r - t a 6 c' P-a-c9 s.% �e_ r V k_ '�^�c`7 .��..}-/ r- /�V-� of d{ ;,,e 4 • 4 71 71-1 ..e. d c 1�� v / , p/4- 7L T,-d,.s?a v_74. 7Zi„ S s e-`•=5' e / &7`asA D�. +/�/0 L-t --- S. QLLI v a-r/ 4D S & . 's Tr e f�/ps fie- d ,s- ' 9r/ DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZ ' REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form 182 2149N ErivLRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHL. . REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: h here DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 198 COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE. FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET .AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACMES BUILDING ,.REA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE PROBABLE MORE MINOR. MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants ✓ 5) Animals 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use ✓ 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics !/ 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: MY Or RENTON jtL131g87 • • We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional infor tion is needed to properly assess this proposal. 7/3 f-7 Signatu of Director o Aut orized Representative Date Form 4 RENT' 9 BUILDING & ZONING DEP 'TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRAD PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198.700 CU_BIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH '200 ° FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 41rd STREET ANT) WEST OF4OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : EIENGINEERING DIVISION 1 TRAFFIC ENG. DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : UTILITIES ENG . DIVISION ® FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU LI PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT CI or ENT®P1 BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENTa1131987 OPOLICE DEPARTMENT OPOLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ClJll.01NG/ZUNNy UE,F3 : t:ii OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING. PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : e flAPPROVED EJAPPROVED WIT CONDITIONS NOT APPROVE _ . ,„ 3) Ft S -`�`` --2 - •-P-� L1 �. /3/ 7 DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 i�. Form 182 CITY OF RENTON ;ma ; ' . BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Ronald G. Nelson, Director June 24, 1987 Mr. Allan L. Sternoff Oakesdale Associates 13541 S.E. 26th Bellevue, WA 98055 RE: Oakesdale Associates Fill and Grade Permit Dear Mr. Sternoff: Building and Zoning Department has formally accepted your environmental checklist and fill and grade permit application for the above referenced project. Your application has been routed and tentatively scheduled for the Environmental Review Committee on July 15, 1987, to consider your environmental checklist. If you have any questions regarding the scheduling of your project, please contact Betty Grimshaw of this office at 235-2540. Sincerely, 1 Donald K. Eri kson, AICP Zoning Administrator DE:BG:cb:dskl LtSternf 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 - (206) 235-2540 - Rii -•d A. Gilmore . City of Renton• ,;., •+ . Building -and Zoning Department: ' - . 13541• S.E'. 26th Street - ` Ii . Attention:. Jerry••Lind• : Bellevue, Wa. '98005 SUBJECT _ L. - ` _ __ DATE- __ _ w • 0aksdale Renton Center Fill "and•-.Grade Permit -`6 -/12 /87 MESSAGE : . .... ' . . . Dear 'Jerry, - .,' . Attached; ,.,please •find._six (6) -seta-of. .revised drawings 1 and 2 of the topographical . survey for the:Oak,sdale (Sternco) Renton Center. project. The civil engineer in- ' advertently• left:off:the vegetation and railroad tracks as they.-exist on the _site . • id .,. • a kh.4i-e. IbletnW SIGNED - . . Richard A.. Gilmore REDIFORM® 4S 468 -x. NO REPLY-NECESSARY . . ' REPLY;REQUESTED USE REVERSE SIDE POLY'PAK (50•SETS) 4P468: - TO FROM • • . . - • - - • . - . . DATE'. REPLY. - / < . /., i • • SIGNED ; FROM _•u��s 1 '', -.'City of Renton V , - . . iard A. Gilmore . • H, } I. ,.,, Building:and Zoning Department - 13541 S.E. 26th Street": . !.? / ill , Attention: Jerry Lind ,' • f.Lw a � ., ��. :s _ Bellevue, WA. 98005 w......7._, ,...._...-.._< ,,,,.,..., .. ..__� - � ice. ,!SUBJECT"._ ..wa. .... _....._:.,_ . �.....__,..,.,. .........._._:,. ...:�+I�� 1'N� DATE Oaksdale Renton: Center s S 29 87 !i 'I ..I; 1 10P7 . I Itl ., - MESSAGE ... g Dear' Jerry, • � a'.' � es� IPi I ; • Per your request;: encolsed please find the following documents for our shoreline permit application: - [ • 1. -Affidavit of Publication in the Valley Newspapers . is j Two (2:) originals riotorized .. - ;.! . . 2. Receipt of payment for the above add in the Valley Newspapers. These affidavits should complete- Our Shoreline Permit Application! . If there is any `,5 further information you require, please-contact my office at the above address or call me at 643-2200. Thank- You! ! ! _" . .,16 ryw. ;.,_.. __ .. .. Richar.d,_.A..,.Gilmore.. _ SIGNED } REDTFORM® 4S,468 • • • NO REPLY NECESSARY . - ' REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE. SIDE POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P468• . . . • . • TOo FROM:_ ; .. •, J _ _ • = • 'DATE / REPLY` ! • • • • • • : .... • r • SIGNED • • , Vithr7T 1iailyPw ; AUBURN • KENT• RENTON Allan Sternoff P.O. BOX 130 Kent, WA. 98035-0130 872-6600 51459 1987 Date Description Charges J Credits Balance 5/17 Notice of Application 40 00 40 00 5/24 R2276 #65K Revised 3,87 • • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Audrey DeJoie , being first duly sworn on oath states that SHORELINE APPLICATION he/she is the Chief Clerk of the NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT VALLEY NEWSPAPERS Notice is hereby given that Allan L. Ster- Hoff, Partner(Oaksdale Assoc.)has filed an application for a substantial development Daily News Journal, Daily Record Chronicle, Daily Globe News permit for the construction or development of a grading associated with future con- Daily newspapers published six (6) times a week.That said newspapers struction of an office-warehouse develop- ment. are legal newspapers and are now and have been for more than six Located at: the northwest quadrant of months prior to the date of publication referred to,printed and published SW 43rd and Oaksdale Avenue SW, within in the English language continually as daily newspapers in Kent, King Section(s) 36 of Township 23N, Range 4E, ty, Count Washington. ValleyNewspapers have been approved as legal W.M. in the Cityi developmentof Renton, King pCroposed Y, gPP g Washington. Said is proposed newspapers by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for to be adjacent to Springbrook Creek and/or King County. its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express his views or to be notified of the action taken on this The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the Daily News application should notify the Building and Zoning Department, Renton Municipal Journal , Daily Record Chronicle A , Daily Globe News , (and Building, 22 Mill Avenue South, Renton, not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its Washington 98055 in writing of his interest within thirty(30)days of the last publication subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice a of this notice. Publication dates of this notice are 5/17/87 and 5/24/87. Notice of i'ppiioati-nn was published Published in the Valley Daily News, May 17,24 1987.R2276. on �la5 17 and 214, 1%7 The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $ it r; ,Do . Subscribed and sworn to before me is ^ , day of is.� 19 ;� . Not Public for the State of Washington, residing at Federal Way, King County, Washington. F i•,•.. VN#87 Revised 10/84 )..:.' i ( `= !7:_' f f `\/7 L if 1 1987 1_, �1�R Ai 11,k/\ j�t}�Y nC �i J .L.3 l,� .,:',,T1 DUI; t TO . .._ • ••City of Renton...; , Rich A. ' Gilmore •Building,'and Zoning* Department - 13541 S.E. 26th Street t, _. _. .: CITY OF RENTON :' - i �.. •Attention::Jerry Lind :[--) r -0 R r r • BefLlevue, WA. 98005 (. . '.__: T G . 1,6 lug � I L-��1 _. ,1,_1.:..�_d. - _ _ - ---. v- , I SUBJECT • - _ = - w : _ , �J .DATE I i ..0aksdale*Renton Center �.,- Q : v+,� 5 1-7 /. 13 /' 87 6 1 MESSAGE I'_ '_.. :RI III DING/ZONING DEPT f' • - ,. r T)Par ,Terry, - ?; _ . ,i Per•-your 'request-, enclosed''please ,find :the following- documents for our grade/fill • permit application: - • : • = 1 : Preliminary 'Evaluation - Potential Contamination of Soil and Water 7 Sternoff 1:.' •• - - '• - Metals Property SW_43rd Street Renton, 'WA. (6 copies) = 2=.- - Preliminary Geotechnical' Engineering Study'--'Sternoff Metals.Property S.W.:' 43rd Street;Renton, WA,-(6 -copies) . g. Please note: The original substantial•_.grade/fill permit ,application, ' shoreline permit s application,' EIS, land relevant topographical drawings were turned into" , ,"the City of Renton on May 1, 1987. These 2• reports should complete .our package. SIGNED Richard A. Gilmore P-41...)jat - . 1 etFORn a o n®'45.468 ','X NO REPLY NECESSARY - • REPLY REQUESTED - USE REVERSE SIDE: pot), !AK (50 SETS) 4P468 TO FROM •-- .,_ .. ...,..� _ ..._., ... _ _. . _. . .. _ _ DATE REPLY I SIGNED ��Y �� CITY OF RENTON FILE NO(S): sp- C4a _ei a• ♦ B! o�• -_ DING & ZONING DEPARTM T Sm o 8l MASTER APPLI CATIO NOTE TO APPLICANT: Since this is a comprehensive application form, only tho IR 1 (31 NA L items related to your specific type of application(s) are to be completed. (Please print or type. Attoch odditional sheets if necessary.) APPLICANT 1 I TYPE OF APPLICATION NAME Oakesdale Associates, a partnership to FEES be formed by present owners. ED REZONE*(FROM TO ) ADDRESS 13541 SE 26th ❑ SPECIAL PERMIT* CITY ZIP ❑ TEMPORARY PERMIT* Bellevue 98005 ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT* TELEPHONE ❑ SITE PLAN APPROVAL ® SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GRADE AND FILL $1,397.50 747-5000 No. of Cubic Yards: 198.700 CONTACT PERSON Q VARIANCEection: _ . From S NAME • j * Justification Required a Allan L. Sternoff. ADDRESS SUBDIVISIONS: 13541 SE 26th ❑ SHORT PLAT CITY ZIP ❑ TENTATIVE PLAT Bellevue, WA 98005 _ PRELIMINARY PLAT TELEPHONE ❑ FINAL PLAT 747-5000 ❑ WAIVER (Justification Required) OWNER NO. OF LOTS: NAME 0akesdale Associates, a partnership PLAT NAME: to be formed by_present owners. ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: 13541 SE 26th ❑ PRELIMINARY CITY ZIP ❑ FINAL ' Bellevue, WA 98005 P.U.D. NAME: TELEPHONE 747,-5000 ❑ Residential ❑ Industrial ❑ Commercial ❑ Mixed LOCATION--' ` ' MOBILE HOME PARKS: PROPERTY ADDRESS : ` . . , ' i_a n - ° ❑ TENTATIVE NW quadrant SW A3rd Sty''& Oakesdalef Ave. SW 113 EXISTING USE ., � ;r+�,r-S� PRESENT ZONING PRELIMINARY . •. '/.;. _,e,- . =Q'u ❑ FINAL o PROPOSED USE '":en% tG*' '.,�" PARK NAME: Office Park . •• NUMBER OF SPACES: ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SQ. FT. ACRES ■� — _� AREA: 1,910,811 43.87 TOTAL FEES (' r- y+'•may° t-fil "�°be'STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING U'.�� i r):..,�','� !}end 1�!7 k • „ c' IF I 1 S DATEg 5TAMP3 i_`a A t;�l 1.y EI tr, ;i APPLICATION RECEIVED BY: �4 1 HAY oriel? il R� r� APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: . 11`� (' 1 1 .{'9 �'�� ❑ Accepted :' A ti p(1 : n ,,- ,, ' r DJ(LD1NG/ZONING DEP—T Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) DATE ROUTED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED BY: r,ry mq -31 APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE: ('� (�(� C� ❑ Accepted ❑ Incomplete Notification Sent On By: (Initials) ROUTED TO: ^❑ Building El DesignEng. El Fire ❑ Parks I 1 Police ❑ Policy Dev. ❑ Traffic Eng. ❑ Utilities REVISED 1-31-Rd r • • Legal description of property (if more space is required, attach a separate sheet). ' ; .-Pl'eas.e see attached separate sheet. • AFFIDAVIT I, ���,, , G , being duly sworn, declare that' I am [,��], authorized representative to act for the property owner;[]owner of the property involved in this application and that the foregoing statements and ,answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS sT DAY OF l'11 P} RAr �' y �1 C� .R. RU'. 199n (Q � ��� '•• 4' NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF 4. r";fi T //j. a; ", WA HINGTON, RESIDING AT r.. �+�• I v B 3* AC '74 S. ist es 44c4 C2 (Name f-121y Public) (Signature or nner) '"'.. (Address) (Address) ��eyu— Gya g�oar— OR I G I NA L (City) (State) (Zip) // / '7r U6 (Telephone) Acceptance of this application and required filing fee does not constitute a complete application. Plans and other materials required to constitute a complete application are listed in the "Application Procedure." Form #174 OAKESDALE RENTON CENTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST , W.M. , IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED "LINE A" : BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY ROAD (SOUTH 180) A DISTANCE OF 114 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIBED LINE; THENCE NORTH 674. 78 FEET; THENC NORTHERLY ON A STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT—OF—WAY TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 36 AND THE TERMINUS OF SAID "LINE A"; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF LYING WITHIN THE NORTH 330 FEET OF SAID SECTION 36 ; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36 , TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 87 °31 '36" EAST, 1340.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 01 °47 ' 23 " WEST , 330 .03 FEET ; THENCE SOUTH 87°31 ' 36 WEST, 260.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87 °31 '36" WEST, 460.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02 °28 '24" EAST, 197.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°31'36" EAST, 460.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 02°28'24" WEST, 197.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 32912 FOR DRAINAGE DITCH NO. 1 ; ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 30 FEET CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR COUNTY . ROAD; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED FOR WIDENING OF SOUTHWEST 43RD STREET BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER FILE NOS. 5895689 AND 8012180496; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONDEMNED FOR WIDENING OF SOUTHWEST 43RD STREET IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 81-2-08117-7; ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHICH BEARS EAST 784.19 FEET AND NORTH 30 FEET FORM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF H. ADAMS DONATION CLAIM IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. , (THE BEARING OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD BEING EAST AND WEST) , AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH, 409.46 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF A DITCH; THENCE SOUTH 66 ° 03 ' WEST ALONG SAID DITCH CENTERLINE, 249 .69 FEET; THENCE SOUTH, 308.10 FEET TO THE NORTH MAR OMB,E ROAD; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH MARGIN, 22 9t E�ETl. \T TO 1HE; 59 PLACE OF BEGINNING. ".�' ��° ``' La 11 1.1 at i 0 11047 a� �; LW:NG/:_C ,sG DEPT. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY OVER A STRIP OF LAND 80 FEET WIDE IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON LYING NORTH OF SOUTHWEST 43RD STREET AND SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION, THE EAST LINE OF SAID 80 FOOT STRIP BEING THE ABOVE DESCRIBED "LINE A." ALSO TOGETHER WITH THE NORTH 330 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED THREE (3) PARCELS, TO-WIT: 1 . THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH, 530.25 FEET NORTH OF AND 1000.27 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAM'S DONATION CLAIM; RUNNING THENCE NORTH 3 °49 EAST 807.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 89 °24'30" WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 252.9 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT WHICH WOULD LIE 881.37 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTH 3°40 ' WEST 923.69 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID SLOUGH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF THE SLOUGH NORTH 64°32 ' 10" EAST 184.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 73°26' EAST 70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 63 ° 10 ' EAST 30 . 52 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED BY CHAS. F. ALBIN TO JOHN WINSTON BY DEED DATED MAY 1 , 1901 , RECORDED MAY 27, 1910, UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 685634, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY. 2 . THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SPRING BROOK SLOUGH, 1000.27 FEET EAST AND 530.25 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HENRY ADAMS DONATION CLAIM; RUNNING THENCE NORTH 3 °49' EAST 807.91 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89 °24'30" EAST 628.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 0°13 ' 30" EAST 290 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SLOUGH, SOUTH 21 °34' WEST 301.2 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56 °44'30" WEST 246.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75 °38' WEST 370.3 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 3 . THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE. NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE HENRY ADAMS DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE EAST ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH 180TH STREET (;FORMERLY A COUNTY ROAD) 114 FEET; THENCE NORTH 674. 78 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE NORTHERLY ON A STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION TO A POINT THEREON WHICH IS 881.37 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 3°40'00" WEST, 730.69 FEET; THENCE . NORTH 84°34'00" WEST 649.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: STARTING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., THENCE NORTH 87°31 '36" EAST 1340.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1 °47'23" WEST 330.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87 °31 '36" WEST 260.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 87 °31 '36" WEST 460.0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2 ° 28 ' 24 " EAST 197 . 0 FEET ; THENCE NORTH 87°31 ' 36" EAST 460.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2°28'24" WEST 197.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO TOGETHER WITH THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE. WEST 1341.56 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST . QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE SOUTH 15 FEET OF THE . • EAST 196.64 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, ALL IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 87067.01 SURV. 17 OF R , ORIGINAL ECF: IE -OJ $% z City of Renton LU: sp- tea-�, SYh -0.0-1 '-a--1 z O sal o9grFD SEP1„te$' 'ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of Checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43,21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for allproposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the-environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impacts. Use of Checklist for Nonproject Proposals: (Please Type or Print Legibly) Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Oakesdale Renton Center 2. Name of applicant: Oakesdale Associates, a partnership to be formed by present owners. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Allan L. Sternoff 13541 SE 26th Bellevue, WA 98005 �, c°'p-; 11, ,� �t @@ F`; (206) 747-5000 G 4. Date checklist prepared: April 30, 1987 5. Agency requesting checklist: r �� "�GI ,Y t�G DEPT. City of Renton Planning Department "'`' 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Grade and fill to be placed prior to starting any building construction. Site •phasing_•will be as.follows: 1987-1988 15% 1988 17% 1989 25% 1990 25% 1991 18% Expect grade/fill to be completed within 1 year from start. 7. Do you have any plan' or future additions; ,expapsiQns, of rther activity related to or connected with 6j'L. proposal? ;if yes,explairl. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Soils report 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Grade & Fill Permit/Shorelines Management Substantial Development Permit/ • Flood Zone Permit/Fisheries Hydraulics Permit/ 404 Permit may be required. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Fill and grading of site for development of a 16 building office ware- ;.. house park with associated parking and utilities. • 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the'precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of • area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topography 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. Property is located in the northwest quadrant of SW 43rd St & Oakesdale Ave. SW. It extends approximately 1,575 feet along SW 43rd and 1,310 feet along Oakesdale. Property is in the NW quarter of the NE quarter of Section 36, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? At creek slope is 2: 1, remainder of site is 2%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, caly, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Brown silty sand over 3/4 of site, see soils report for detailed soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No - 2 - • e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Structural fill will be imported for streets, foundations, and slab support to a 1' depth. Another 198,700 c.+yj of embankment from downtown Seattle: or I-90 excavation is tc be placed prior to any building. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, stormwater could cause erosion of exposed soils. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Seventy to eighty percent. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Standard requirements for control acceptable to City. Such as sedimentation ponds, filter fabric fences and restoration of ground cover. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. We anticipate auto and truck emidsions, dust from grading operations. After completion we assume only auto and truck emissions. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: During construction a water truck will be used to keep dust emissions down. 3. WATER a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, Springbrook Creek which flows into the Green River. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, grading and construction of parking, buildings and associated utilties. 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 a of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None • - 3 - . 4) Will the pro;Y ,a1 require surface water withdra‘. ;: or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximately quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, FEMA has established flood plain elevation of 18.00 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No . b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and appaoximately quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animal's or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None • c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.. During construction storm flows will go through sedimentation ponds prior to release into Springbrook Creek. At full development storm water will pass through a detention system and oil/water separation prior to discharge to Springbrook Creek. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No • - 4 - r 1 + d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Final stormwater system to incorporate catch basins, oil water separation and detention facilities. During construction and grading, provide sedimentation, erosion and silt control through ponding, filter fabric fencing and ground cover restoration. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: cs deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Poplar ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® Shrubs ® grass o crop or grain ® Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other encroaching edge o water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other of pond, NW cornea other types of vegetation blackberries b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All existing grass, shrubs, blackberries and small trees outside creek to be removed. Trees to be saved as possible. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None f d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Grass to be replanted after final fill and grading. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other wrens, sparrows, waterfowl (ducks) Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other frogs and rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other minnows b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes; waterfowl prevalent throughout valley. - S - d. Proposed me les to preserve or enhance wildlife, any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. No energy requirements for fill and grading operations, for proposed buildings, electrical, natural gas and oil will be used to provide power,and heat. 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: No plan required for fill and grading procedures. Insulation per Wash. State energy code. Natural light to be used as much as possible with all lighting to meet State energy code. Heating and codling shall utilize energy efficient gas and dlectricitzy..units. 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. Existing tenants to be responsible for removal of all or any hazardous or toxic chemicals they use or store prior to start of fill and grade operations. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None - 6 - 2) What types aiiu levals 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. During grading and building phase of project construction equipment and trucks will operate7 am to 3:30 pm 6 pm to 2:30 am 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Control of hours of operation and truck routing. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Site: Lease parcel to Burlington Northern, rail car repair Lease parcel to trucking company Remaining 30+ acres is vacant. Adjacent: Manufacturing & warehousing complexes surround site. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not recently , • c. Describe any structures on the site. 2 metal buildings, 1 brick building, abandoned or vacant sheds and houses. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? All e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MP Multiple option f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MP Multiple option g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Presently no designation,' an Urban designation is proposed. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 1200-1500 will work on site. There are no Plans for residences. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Less than 20 people presently work at businesses on site. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None - 7 - 1. Proposed ME res to ensure the proposal is corn. :ible with existing and projected lana'uses and plans, if any: Applications for applicable permits. 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. Removal of four vacant low-income houses. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s). not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. Tallest building to be approximately 45' , majority to be less than 30' . Exterior materials to be glass, aluminum and 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: None 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None during grading, full development - street and parking lot lighting during hours of da1kness. 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: Luminar candle power ratings per City code. - 8 - 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Longacres, Southcenter, County biketrails. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. • No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A • 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Oakesdale Avenue SW and SW 43rd Street. Access to be provided by City approved commerical driveway. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximately distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, Metro No. 155 stops at 43rd and Oakesdale Ave. SW. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There are none to eliminate, 1,645 will be provided. 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). A new 3 lane public street to be constructed through the site. ' Paved road withccurb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights. Street to align with SW 41st on east side of project, and aligns with Longview Drive on north boundary. Also a sidewalk will be constructed along Oakesdale. - 9 - • e. Will the projo, use (or occur in the immediate vi _ty of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Rail is near west boundary of site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Per Table 1, Page 4 of Valley Transportation Improvement Program, dated Aug. ,1, 1986; 3,000 trips per day. Peak hours 7-9 am, 4-6 pm. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None at this time. At time of development traffic impacts, to be mitigated by City approved methods. 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. Site would depend upon City of Renton for fire and police protection. Other public services should not be impacted. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None required for grading and fill procedures. Developed site will require utilities listed above provided by City from nearest location. 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 o"r in the immediate vicinity which'might be needed. • None required for grade and fill operations. Developed site will require utilities listed above, most to be from City of Renton, electricity from Puget Power, gas from Washington Natural' Gas. C. SIGNATURE • I, the undersigned, state that to the best-of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration, of non-significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist ' should there be, any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part. 0efkz.d We-ea— /� $i G Proponent: i �� �-c� • Name Printed: g • ORIGINAL • - 10 - #176 11-8-84 s _ • 0398Z II _• `� ' _ CITY OF RENTON Ss: Building & Zoning Department (206) 235-2550 SHORELINE MASTER APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR: OFFICE USE ONLY: Application No. : -OO-1 -8-1 LLI SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT ECF No. : gam- O1B-8�1 • PERMIT SEC-TWP-R: RP- ZS " 4 I_I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT . Date Approved: II VARIANCE Date Denied : �r _ Publication Date:5d /'5li S-24'827 I_I EXEMPTION IMPAJoloilatiitW& pit. Comprehensive Plan: 1Mu4.1II01.b O01OM- I_I REVISION Zoning: r•p,'MAtiuF)C]TORZaiUt P1 R1I( Water Body: SQT2W(pCM600K- C4 . STAFF USE ONLY -- ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSING Date Received; . ... Application Received By: u 'f' F,_ I Application Determined To Be: o Accepted o Incomplete O, 0119 Notification Sent On: '}= By ( Initials) : Date Routed: Additional Material Received by: Application Determined To Be: o Accepted o Incomplete Notification Sent On: By ( Initials) : In addition to the information below, the applicant should include a site map and any other pertinent information which will assist in the review of this application. The Building and Zoning Department reserves the right to require additional information needed to evaluate the application. APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN ITEMS 1-10 THROUGH 14-16 BEICW: INFORMATION: 1. Applicant Owner Purchaser Name: Allan L. Sternoff - Lessee Other X Mailing Address 13541 SE 26th, Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 747-5000 2. Name of Property, Owner Oakesdale Associates, a partnership to be formed by present owners. Mailing Address 13541 SE 26th Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: 747-5000 3 . Contact/, Consultant: Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. Hugh Johnston Mailing Address 2009 Minor Avenue E, Seattle, WA 98102 Phone: 323-4144 PROJECT INFORMATION 4 . General location of proposed project (give street address if any or nearest street and intersection) Northwest quadrant .of •SW 43rd Street & Oakesdale Avenue SW. 4t 5 . Legal Description (if lengthy, attach as separate sheet) : See separate sheet • 6 . Name of adjacent water area or wetlands: Springbrook Creek ,7. „ Curr•ent ,.use of property 'and existing improvements : Some leased out to � • ? �• £url.ington Northern and some to trucking companies, parcel is 3/4 vacant or unused. 8..'✓ PROPOSED -USEOF PROPERTY and proposed improvements (be specific) : Business park with associated parking. 9 . Proposed construction costs and schedule: A. f Total construction cost and fair market value of proposed project include additional developments contemplated but not included in this application: $-16,000,000 B. Construction dates (month/year) for which permit is requested: Begin August 1987 End December, 1991 10. List any other permits for this project from state, federal, local governmental agencies or the City of Renton for which you have applied or will apply, including the name of the issuing agency, whether the permit has been applied for, and if so, the date of the application, whether the application was approved or denied and the date of same, and number of the application or permit : Grading & fill, flood zone, Fisheries hydraulic permit, Substantial Development permit. Corps of Engineers 404 permit may be required. ITEMS 11, 12, PJ1D 13 . . 0 BE COI1PL TED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL: 11. NATURE OF THE EXISTING SHORELINE. (Describe type of shoreline, such as marine, stream, lake, lagoon, marsh, bog, swamp, flood plain, floodway, delta; type of beach, such as accretion, erosion, high bank, low bank, or dike; material, such as sand, gravel, mud, clay, rock, riprap; and extent and type of bulkheading, if any) : 12. In the event t, ) any of the proposed bui] As or structures will exceed a heigh,. - Jf thirty-five (35) feet aa.„Ue the average grade level, indica:te ..the approximate location of and number of residential units, existing-and potential, that will have an obstructed view. 13 . If the application involves a conditional use or variance, set forth in full that portion of the master program which provides that the proposed use may be a conditional use, or, in the case of a variance, from which the variance is being sought. ITEMS 14, 15, AND 16 TO BE PROVIDED BY APPLICANT°: 14 . If applying for a variance or a conditional use, complete the variance or conditional use form. 15 . Project Maps : Attach to application accurate site plan and vicinity maps . Refer to application instruction handout for map 'requirements . 16 . Additional information ( If necessary, attach as 'sepa'rate sheet) : None STATE OF WASHINGTON J SS CITY OF RENTON J I , i � c? �. %� � , being duly swo -n, certify that I am t above-named applicant for a pp permit to con- struct a substantial development pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and that the foregoing statements, answe t, and information are in all respects true and correct to the best 9 4ri ..edge and belief . b* y 9� 00400 °Qo h�1 2•/' r�' S -fly Signatu e. oho a Subscribed and sworn to me this `�� ° f'a o ; 0I ;4 Pin'dC 441 p o` 0 Notaryi Pub iC-e; ,A,:a for the State of Washington. residing at .f_ • ' . • ORI6I \'AL FORM 177 • OAKESDALE RENTON CENTER PROJECT NARRATIVE The work proposed is the initial phase of the development of an multi-building office warehouse campus. The owner of the project plans to fill the existing site in preparation for future building construction. Preently, the site is mostly vacant, with a few residential • units along Southwest 43rd Street on the south. A rail car • refurbishing unit occupies the northwest corner of the site and is served by a spur track from the Burlington Northern tracks to the west. Immediately west of the site is a vacant area to be used for the P1 drainage channel. The remainder of the northerly portion of the site is occupied by an auto- wrecking facility. Diagonally, from the southwest corner to the northeast corner of the site, Springbrook Creek flows.. The creek has heavy grass growth along its entire course with the adjacent banks covered with blackberries and grass. The general use of the property adjacent to the site is either vacant land, office-warehouse or small retail businesses. • a a' 47, t.n q ;1 ff' `f ia ',� P fl,'J 11 ' 2149N ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT . DATE CIRCULATED: JUNE 22, 1987 -- COMMENTS DUE: JULY 6, 1987 EFC - 038 _ 87 APPLICATION NO(S). : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT. : SM-007-87 PROPONENT: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS. PROJECT TITLE: OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198,700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION: LOCATED NORTH OF S.W. 43rd STREET ,AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. SITE AREA: 43.87 ACRES BUILDING AREA (gross): N/A IMPACT REVIEW ON ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS PROBABLE . PROBABLE MORE MINOR. MAJOR INFORMATION IMPACT IMPACT NECESSARY 1) Earth 2) Air 3) Water 4) Plants 5) Animals_ __ . 6) Energy and Natural Resources 7) Environmental Health 8) Land and Shoreline Use 9) Housing 10) Aesthetics 11) Light and Glare 12) Recreation 13) Historic and Cultural Preservation 14) Transportation 15) Public Services 16) Utilities COMMENTS: We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas we have expertise in and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Form 4 RENT -I BUILDING & ZONING DEP ',TMENT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET ECF - 038 - 87 APPLICATION NO(S) : SPECIAL PERMIT: SP-042-87, SHORELINE MGMT: SM-007-87 PROPONENT : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES, A PARTNERSHIP TO BE FORMED BY PRESENT OWNERS PROJECT TITLE : OAKESDALE ASSOCIATES FILL AND GRADE PERMIT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW FILLING AND GRADING ON 43.87 ACRES WITH 198.700 CUBIC YARDS OF MATERIAL AND SUBSTANTIAL SHORELINES DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW SAID FILLING WITH 200 FEET OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK. LOCATION : LOCATED NORTH OF S W 43rd STREET AND WEST OF OAKESDALE AVENUE S.W. TO : El PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED ERC DATE : ENGINEERING DIVISION TRAFFIC ENG , DIVISION SCHEDULED HEARING DATE : OUTILITIES ENG , DIVISION 0 FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OPARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT fl BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OTHERS : COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN WRITING . PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT BY 5: 00 P .M, ON JULY 6, 1987 REVIEWING DEPARTMENT/DIVISION : OAPPROVED OAPPROVED WITH CONDITIONS I INOT APPROVED DATE: SIGNATURE OF DIRECTOR OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REVISION 5/1982 Form '182