The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREPORT 01PARTIES OF RECORD PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION Jennifer & Heath Knickerbocker 318 Garden Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 260-3079 eml: jenknick@comcast.net (party of record) Attn: Rich Zwicker North Renton Nieghborhood Association PO Box 326 Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 931-6358 eml: northrenton@msn.com (party of record) Sheree Dreewes 339 Meadow Avenue Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Mike & Susan Wade 405 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) LUA06-139, ECF Angela Laulainen 314 Garden Avenue Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 227-7905 (party of record) David Binnitt N PACCAR, Inc. 777 106th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 468-7410 (owner / applicant) Ed & Lori Caldeira 316 Meadow Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Lee & Pamela Chicoine N 406 Burnett Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Roger & Kimberly Marsh 225 Factory Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Brad & Kristi Hartman 206 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Walcoff 123 Factory Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Tiffany Copertino 310 Graden Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Rich Zwicker 446 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 277-1262 eml: richardzwicker@msn.com (party of record) Paul & Melinda Webb 541 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Mike O'Donin 423 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 228-3956 (party of record) Updated: 11/22/06 (Page 1 of 1) W C O Z W a W Z i I a IsH� M "I'l �® CITY OF + RENTON �'�• CF vi748='�imn P.E.�AOm�nis�nlor Z� PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE N0. REV ON BY GATE ARnR IN M _ + 11 I �� • S ... 5 I 1 ' : 1II ji� i ......................... \ \I I ! / I n � I I iA I I { I \ a \> co I > i I moo` _ --- �s 4' yI� +^ + ° I� 8 ' p + + 1 + 44 ,,. a I ---------- I y + a .— ...........pi ..............'' 1,-..... .................vi 9� _ I �.. ..N.._..._ ... ......... _.. --- ...._...._:.._...... ^ ^' 1 t d' 1............_. a 4 4 4 of + R.r rise% 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH f KENr, WA 98032 (12, 2s1-8222 (12s) 2s1-B782 FAX �- 0.. �_ e.e ,pM g 9 YY g. 8 7br4 tANDHO APANC ECTS PdMs Orive• 0 WC WA 9M(425) Tri TOAPM Y � R..+ 827-2100 PACCAR PAM WAFEHOUM zin -AW.7-.V- CITY OF RENTON I — I= u"q P.E. PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE .D. Rcvrsar. w wiE A R ti X. ................ : ........................ • . ------- ........ 'i ,III - a I • 1 -4* cn LJ ........... . .............. . ..... ........... ........... ....................... . ....... . .. . ............... . ................ 4, 940, .......... ......... . ........... T! . .. ...... ............ 12587 f8217A 2AVENUE SOUTH M (.25' ) 25� -'7a2 FanT1w AM HO ARCHITECTS ME Points Drive SL*9 30C PF*RJMNARY WATER AND SEWER PLAN KMftkr4 WA 1.h%+ro:..wo 9AIExM MOMMM SUWM Raw IA (425) W-2100 I PACCAR PARTS WAMMUSE m m sCs+Meu L® CITY OF u RENTON —••�• �i wn F E�� Mm'�nb✓�'o!w PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE H0. REV15pN a. wrE MPR -�„ I. j I o __ — — — / ................ I • yl I.4 i , • •9 • I I ------------- F Ili v , I' Lp I� I ;I I I I r I , ---------------- •.. yP i y +. +' •.'.�.... 5 a4yP 8 8 a¢ �; ,. aC e e + +a ____________ +__�'_ ±_\ II I -,. L'• , I a..... ..........+ � . ............. ... .-p fit... r w.r • % —GMA 18215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH 1P •' • KENf, 1YA 95032 (428) 251 -8222 (42S) 251 -8782 fA% �-' fl M fl 8 7 �' EIHST AND NE POtlt! DrW, SUN* Kftk 4 WA 9903 �� (3RADM PLAN 1 1 a+a wsmsa ova R.1MIC. 4'n:,.•• swans vAwa.cuTa somas o.. ,vr WA * ,' (425) W-2100 PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE CITY OF RENTON i� DAIUN �� •� Pbnni Buiai� Pu01a wrote Devl. w.y9'immx RE, Aami W,— PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE wo. RE ON ar wh MPR Is l _— _--- Yi i ........................ �13 r\ I• • • • • ie '�il• U I III I ' • 4 �PPq 'J • I _ III I / I - - I � � � F 'I.�I � � � --- I f pe!kill CF > tl� • , I � f I � I j :j I I I I I pl 9 I { I Lj quo I�--_ y I y C I I111I1, /I y�PpR +d +� +� ;..�. yy + + :YaP I 8 y d + eJ � fib +' + +d + +d •- d a d + I : I , + j Ike • , I _ .a —_—_— I .o ............ ._-tea. - - y y:•+=• - ... '"... ■.u•. 'a wee •1 W HACK 18215 MIND AVENUE SOUTH Mr.� e • • KENf, WA 980J2 —6222 -aTe2 FAX oa.� e..s wrw •i� ° j, F- BT AND H O ARCHITECTS NE. Pok. Or)V!, �0 Kftkwd WA 99M Tr P A�i DRAINAGE PLAN • � �' a 1 1 , cex Dwwlmsla wo PININNG• °�•:..�•• suno w ama.onK wA+ccs , (425) 827-2100 PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR M L K J H G F __ E D C +�. ........w. B A NEW RENTON PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER RENTON, WA rr. n�sn..ns +wise.= .i rraesr ees. �iu�� r�s�wswae.ww � •'" NORTH ELEVATION im, Arm ---------------------- EAST ELEVATION ew w.w mil- __________________________________________________________ _________________________ ___________ i _____________ i°wirs � ______________________ SOUTH ELEVATION - N. 4TH STREET 11 10 I I 9 8 7 I I I 6 I 5 � 4 I 3 2 I Q 1 I wem,,or F ----- ---- -- --- --------- ---- -- - - - ----------------- wsww� �awswew WEST ELEVATION - GARDEN AVE. N. wwa w.ro esr A4.0 z O a� ZZ O_ ZU) 3 30��W I F I M mg, W 4c WZQmZ o Z w a V w ■ Ca oil Mill I I I I I TT T.Tl 1 I I I I I I I I MYR AM MWC I I I _ I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y I LJT LJ Li L� LJ LJ �J Li Li I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I J 1 I I I I I I I I I J J 1 J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I $ J I I I I J 8 I II I II I I II II I I I I I II I I II II ^^p' V 8 I I I I I I I I II 1 II II 1 II II I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 9 z a O' LL 010- DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CITY OF AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Renton ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) - MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Paccar Parts Distribution Building as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA06-139) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: January 30, 2017 Date of Original SEPA Threshold Determination: December 18, 2006 Proponent: PACCAR Inc. Project Numbers: LUA06-139,ECF; LUA36-000620,SA-H,SP Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Paccar Parts Distribution Buildings was issued on December 18, 2006. The original application included a proposal for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center with 5,000 square feet of office space. The Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, project description and the application materials did not explicitly disclose the site's regrading of the retained 139,000 cubic yards of pre -load surcharge soils. The intended purpose of this SEPA Addendum is to disclose the proposed regrade of the site's existing surcharge soils from the current 2:1 slope along the Garden Ave N. frontage to a 4:1 slope with new tree and erosion control planting. New trees are also proposed along the N. 41h St. frontage. The proposed regrading of the slope will require approximately 2,700 cubic yards of soil to be cut from the slope and relocated to an interior location on the existing graded pad. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 18, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Paccar Parts Distribution Building. The DNS-M included five mitigation measures related to geotechnical recommendations, drainage and erosion control, truck traffic and mitigation fees. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 18, 2006 and ended on January 5, 2007. An appeal was received on January 5, 2007 from the project proponents, requesting amending the mitigation measure that limited the hours of operation for truck traffic. The decision of the ERC was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner on March 19, 2007, resulting in no changes to the Addendum to Environmental (SEPA) Review Page 2 of 3 January 30, 2017 original DNS-M. As such, truck traffic would remain limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. An Addendum to the original SEPA determination was issued on August 26, 2013 to clarify that an existing 28,500 square foot building was to be demolished as part of the project as part of site development for the distribution center. A second Addendum to the SEPA determination was issued June 15, 2015, to disclose the intended relocation and retention of 139,000 cubic yards of pre -load surcharge fill to the western portion of the site. It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4) c, the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The regrading of the site's retained pre -load surcharge materials and new landscaping would not change the analysis or impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-625. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. Location: 1400 N 4th Street Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated January 30, 2017 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Exhibits Exhibit 1 DNS-M Addendum Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map (Civil Cover Sheet) Exhibit 3 TESC Plan Exhibit 4 Site Sections Exhibit 5 Landscape Plan Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report Update, dated November 29, 2016 and prepared by Hart Crowser Addendum to Environmental (SEPH) Review Page 3 of 3 January 30, 2017 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: Gregg Zimmerman, Administrator Public Works Department Kelly Beymer, Adri inistrat6r Community Services Department i Rick (ilf. Marshall, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Department Date Date Date C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administrator Date Department of Community & Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY City of, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) - MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Paccar Parts Distribution Building; as Addended by the City of Renton (LUA06-139) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: June 15, 2015 Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: December 18, 2006 Proponent: PACCAR Inc. Project Numbers: LUA06-139, ECF Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Paccar Parts Distribution Buildings was issued on December 18, 2006. The original application included a proposal for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which included 5,000 square feet of office space. The Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, project description and the application materials did not explicitly disclose the site pre -load amount and distribution of the 139,000 cubic yards of pre -load surcharge soils. The intended purpose of the subject SEPA Addendum is to disclose the intended retention and grading of 139,000 cubic yards of fill on the site. Based on the information submitted by the applicant on June 8, 2015; the location of the distribution building pre -load surcharge soils would be relocated from the new building vicinity in the southeast corner of the Paccar complex to the western portion of the site. The graded soils would be hydro seeded. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 18, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Paccar Parts Distribution Building. The DNS-M included five mitigation measures related to geotechnical recommendations, drainage and erosion control, truck traffic and mitigation fees. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 18, 2006 and ended on January 5, 2007. An appeal was received on January 5, 2007 from the project proponents, requesting amending the mitigation measure that limited the hours of operation for truck traffic. The decision of the ERC was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner on March 19, 2007, resulting in no changes to the Addendum to Environmental ( A) Review Page 2 of 3 June 12, 2015 original DNS-M. As such, truck traffic would remain limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. An Addendum to the original SEPA determination was issued on August 26, 2013 to clarify that an existing 28,500 square foot building was to be demolished as part of the project as part of site development for the distribution center. It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4) c, the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The retention of the pre -load surcharge materials for the distribution facility to the western area of the site, along with proposed mitigation, would not change the analysis or impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. Location: 1400 N 4th Street Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Kris Sorensen, Associate Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-6593. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated June 15, 2015 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Addendum to Environmental (__. A) Review Page 3 of 3 June 12, 2015 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: — �Is ACM 21�1 MAM n4glin (//,5)) K- Gregg Zimmerma , A mini or Date Public Works Dep rt ent; Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Date Community Services Department 41 n- Mark Petersoh, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Department 4 C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Administr or Department of Community & Economic Development S� Date DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY ). . Ciry of r AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT _[ i r- r j ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS-M) - MITIGATED Pursuant to WAC 197-11-600(4)(c) and WAC 197-11-625 Addendum to the Paccar Parts Distribution Building as Addended bV the City of Renton (LUA06-139) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Date of Addendum: August 26, 2013 Date of Original Issuance of SEPA Threshold Determination: December 18, 2006 Proponent: PACCAR Inc. Project Numbers: LUA06-139, ECF Project Names: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Proposal / Purpose of Addendum: The original SEPA threshold determination for the Paccar Parts Distribution Buildings was issued on December 18, 2006. The original application included a propsoal for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which included 5,000 square feet of office space. The Environmental Review Committee Staff Report, project description and the application materials did not explicitly disclose the demolition of the existing buildings at the project site. However, in order for the proposed development to be constructed such demolition would be required. As such, the demolition of the existing buildings was inferred in the development proposal, despite not clearly being included in the staff report and/or project narrative. The intended purpose of the subject SEPA Addendum is to disclose the intended demolition of the existing buildings on the site. Based on the information submitted by the applicant on August 15, 2013; a 28,500 square foot building would be demolished in accordance with the Consent Decree with Ecology. The applicant has indicated that following demolition the site would be hydro seeded to restore it to its natural park -like state. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on December 18, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Paccar Parts Distribution Building. The DNS-M included five mitigation measures related to geotechnical recommendations, drainage and erosion control, truck traffic and mitigation fees. A 14-day appeal period commenced on December 18, 2006 and ended on January 5, 2007. An appeal Addendum to Environmental (: Review Page 2 of 3 August 22, 2013 was received on January 5, 2007 from the project proponents, requesting amending the mitigation measure that limited the hours of operation for truck traffic. The decision of the ERC was affirmed by the Hearing Examiner on March 19, 2007, resulting in no changes to the original DNS-M. As such, truck traffic would remain limited to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. It has been determined that the environmental impacts of the proposal were adequately addressed under the analysis of significant impacts contained within the previously adopted DNS-M. Based on WAC 197-11-600(4) c, the addendum process may be used if analysis or information is added that does not substantially change the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing environmental document. The demolition of the existing 28,500 square foot building, along with proposed mitigation, would not change the analysis or impacts in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Review. The City of Renton is hereby issuing a SEPA Addendum pursuant to WAC 197-11-600. This Addendum is appropriate because it contains only minor information not included in the original Determination and there are no environmental impacts related to inclusion of the new information. Location: 1400 N 4th Street Lead Agency: City of Renton, Department of Community & Economic Development Review Process: Addendum to previously issued Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M) Additional Information: If you would like additional information, please contact Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner, City of Renton Planning Division, Department of Community & Economic Development at (425) 430-7314. There is no comment period for this Addendum, dated August 26, 2013 issued by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. Addendum to Environmental (5 Review Page 3 of 3 August 22, 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SIGNATURES: 1 Gregg Zimm¢r an�dministrator Date Public Works eta'artment Community Services Department Mark Peterson, Administrator Fire & Emergency Services Department C.E."Chip" Vincent, -"Administrator Department of Community & Economic Development /p4/,-; Date Z�11 13 Date ��2gI 26i3 City of Ranfon PACCAR Inc August 16, 2013 fib' J 7 'L�`� City of Renton, Planning Dept Attn: Ms. VanessaDolbee UJ 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Renton Site, Building 1, 1400 North 4`I' Avenue, Renton 98057 Dear Ms. Dolbee, As discussed earlier this week, we are providing this letter as an Addendum to our 2006 SEPA 4LUA06-139 which was initially submitted in conjunction with a larger proposed project to construct a new Parts Distribution Center on the south 30 acres ofthe Renton Campus site. As you pointed out, for any future work to be performed at this location, PACCAR will need to remove the old structures, foundations and slabs in accordance with the site's Consent Decree with Ecology. Building I is the last building on the site, and it has been vacant for over 15 years. During this period, the building has been damaged by earthquakes, weather and time creating an attractive nuisance and liability to PACCAR and the City. Ewen though the original project was delayed, PACCAR management has approved funding to demolish the building this summer, and we would like to accomplish this work before finding is lost. Demolition ofthe 28,500 square foot structure will provide several benefits to the City and local community including: • Removal of an attractive nuisance with no new impacts to the property • Improved neighborhood appearance • Preparation ofthe site for future development by PACCAR PACCAR has identified and contracted with a qualified contractor to remove the building including slab, blend the surface into the existing grade, and hydro seed to restore the site to its natural, park -like state. Attached you will find a completed Demo permit, a Google earth map and street view of the location indicating the building to be removed. Also attached is approval from Ecology per the Consent Decree. Demolition is tentatively scheduled for September 3 through September 13, 2013, and the 41h & Factory gate will be utilized by the crew for access and egress. Please let me know how I can assist you in completing the review of tliis worthwhile project. Best Regards, J. R. Bauman Corporate Facilities Manager PACCAR Inc 777 106'h Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 0 DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION Development',ervices Division 1055 South Grady Way, 'F2enton !fVA 98057 Phone: (425)430-7200 www.rentomba.gov ALL ENQUIRED ITEi�trta t�tiJST BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION YOU MUST COMPLETE A14 ASBESTOS SURVEY PRIOR TO DEMOLITION {SEE #7 ON REVERSE) 1. Properly Address: 1400 North 4th Street - Renton, WA. 98057 (Bldg. 1) YOU riUST OBTAIM :A SIDESEWER CAPPING PERMIT AOD lfdA➢�EkL<'ERVICE DISCOMNECT Pi@ OR TO OBTAINING DEM1367IC) H PERMIT 2. Type of sa-ucture to be demolished: ❑ Single Family Residence B;iulti-Family Building 4 of wills _sq ft Commercial Industrial Building 28, 50o sq ft ❑ Interior Demo Other Ty e ol- Bui ding: Size of Building: 3 iSi?tg Couniy':?ax Assessor iVumbe fc; Property: 722300-0010 4. PACCAR, Inc. Pi one: 425-468-7932 Siraet Adafess: 777 106th Avenue NE _ CitylState: Bellevue, WA. Zip: 9ao04 5. T enalat Name (if applicable): Suiie/Roorn #: 6. ContaCt PerSon: Jason Roosa (Rhine Demolition) Phone: 253-606-1613 7. CoiliraCCor: Rhine Demolition Phone: 253-606-1613 Sheet Adeiress: 1124 112th street Ease City/State: Tacoma,_WA. Zip: 98445 8. State of Washington Contractor's License # (Raqui red): RHINEDL893BE 9. Contractor's City of Renton Bus4ness License # (Required): 033450 I certify that the information on this application furnished by me is true and correct and that the applicable requirements of the City of Renton will be met. I understand that this application is valid for thirty (30) days ;turn the application date. If a permit is not issued during this time period, the application will become void. This application does not constitute a permit to work. Work is not to commence until the building permit is posted on premises where work is to be performed. Certification is hereby rendered that no work is to be done except as described, and that all work shall conform to the applicable codes. Work in public rights -of -way and/or utility easements is not authorized under this application. SF EV RSE a DE FOP ADDITIONAL INFORMATION App!icant Signature: 5yn _ Date: August 14, 2013 fI.ICED\DztalForins-Telnplat= ISelf-I IclU/ CIoutstHuiIOIQ C—App dec Rev '11/10 � • � � Q s+cra • 0 uo 600 14M 34DO I W W AS —BUILT — AREA Gz SCALE: KEY PLAN xoscu[ 4��II a.� F piannin9 4205 i49MAva N.E. SMe2W En9inoann9 6sll76U (425)8 7 H6CgT SurueYi: J (IPS)H85]BT/ [f2SJ H&`�)9W Fer ___E 925001 /945024 ,o I CITY OP RENTON I GRADING PLAN AREA G I-03-3e 1 k"£= 31123 Vicki ZumBrunnen From: South, David (ECY) <DSOU461@ECY.WA.GOV> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:26 AM To: Corporate Renton Subject: RE: Renton Site, Building 1 Thank you. Sounds like a good plan. It is always good to have these attractive nuisances removed D LS From: Corporate Renton [mailto:Corporate.RentonC PACCAR.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:21 AM To: South, David (ECY) Subject: RE: Renton Site, Building 1 Hi Dave, To update you on this project, this week we started abating and will be properly disposing of the asbestos in Building 1 We are working with the City of Renton to obtain a demolition permit and have a tentative date of September P to begin the actual demolish of the building. As you know, the building has been damaged by earthquakes, weather, time and vandalism creating a liability for PACCAR and the City. The City is as excited as we are to have this attractive nuisance removed. As explained, we will be removing the building slab only and do not expect to incur any environmental issues. The plan is to blend the footprint to the existing flat grade then hydro seed it. With no new construction scheduled for that area, the southwest corner will be maintained along with the rest of the cap in a park -like setting. I hope this project meets with your approval, and please let me know if you have questions. Vicki ZumBrunnen, Environmental Project Supervisor I PACCAR Inc I office 425.468.7055 From: South, David (ECY) [mailto:DSOU461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 11:15 AM To: Vicki ZumBrunnen Subject: RE: Renton Site, Building 1 No concerns at this time. DLS From: Vicki ZumBrunnen[ma iIto •Vicki.ZumBrun nen@PACCAR.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 11:43 AM To: South, David (ECY) Subject: Renton Site, Building i Hi David We have approval to demolish Building 1 in the southwest corner of the Renton Site at 1400 North 4th Street, Renton, WA 98055. 1 am sure you remember walking through Building 1 and standing on top of the building during one of our periodic reviews. We have met with the contractor and Hart Crowser regarding various building demo requirements. As you know, we do have asbestos in the building so the asbestos abatement will be completed first. After the ACM material is properly removed and disposed of, we will move on to taking the building down. The building slab only will also be removed, but not the concrete road or asphalt surrounding the building and other areas. We are still in the engineering stage, but I will keep you posted as the project progresses. As with the other projects at this site, we intend to follow our environmental requirements previously reviewed by you. Please advise if you have any concerns regarding the proposed construction. If you have any questions, please email or call me at 425.468.7055. Vicki ZumBrunnen, Environmental Project Supervisor I PACCAR Inc I Office 425.468,7055 STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Jody L. Barton, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal Advertising Representative ofthe Renton Reporter a bi-weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continuously as a bi-weekly newspaper in King County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was regularly distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a: Public Notice was published on February 24, 2007. 7 he full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of $88.20. J . Barton Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter Subscribed and sworn to me this 26i' day of February, 2007. 'z �� Diana Casad Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Auburn, Washington P. O. Number: NOTICE OF PUBLIC APPEAL HEARING RENTON HEARING EXAMINER RENTON, WASHINGTON A Public Hearing will he held by the Renton Heating Examiner in the Council Chamhers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall, 105.5 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on March 6, 2007 at 9.00 AM to consider the following peti tion„ - Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LL'A06-1S9, ECF Locution: 1400 N 4th Street Description: The applicant is appealing the ';EPA Mitigation Measure far a proposed Parts Distribution Center that states "AIL truck traffic a,,sociated within the distribution center shall be lirritied to the homy behveen 7,00 am and 10-00 pm." The applicant appeal, a change to this mitig'h 1 n �asure and to 'I.ify the n unbur of new daily trips to the facility. All intere,ted persons are invited to be present at the Public Hearing to express their opinions_ 4Jucstions should be direoo,3 to the Hearing Examiner at 4254u) 6515. Published in the Renton Reporter Feto—ry 21, 2007. 4862W6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. County of King ) Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 19"' day of March 2007, affiant deposited via the United States Mail a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. / f Signature: L4 vow-kt-� 2 � SUBSCRIBED SWORN to before me this tw—Aday of (( LIB , 2007. otary Public i and f, the State of Washington Residing at therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LUA 06-139 ECF The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. March 19 2007 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: David D. Bennitt 777 106" Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellant's written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the March 6, 2007 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 9:35 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original appeal letter and site information. Exhibit No. 2: The Land Use Yellow file with LUA 06-139. Exhibit No. 3: Low scale site plan Exhibit No. 4: Mr. Bennitt's e-mail and responses from local residents. Parties Present: David D. Bennitt, 777 106`h Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 Ann Nielsen, Assistant City Attorney, City of Renton Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services Department Ms. Nielsen stated that she would like Mr. Bennitt to clarify, before the hearing, exactly what is the basis of his appeal. The Examiner stated that the appeal came in with two issues, one is the limitation that the ERC imposed on hours of operation, and secondly a clarification of the traffic count which is used to predict the traffic mitigation fee. It sounds like they are asking for an offset or an indicator of the traffic that existed on some prior use of the project site and the proposed or potential traffic counts. Mr. Bennitt stated that was correct. They have stated how many trucks would be entering and exiting the site and the amount that the City had assigned is quite high. Ms. Nielsen wished to clarify that he is appealing the ERC decision mitigation numbers 4 and 5. Paccar Parts Distribution Bui—mg Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 2 Mr. Bennitt stated that the Parts Distribution Center currently exists on vacated Houser Way, which is Paccar property, it operates from 5:30 am until 6:30 pm. They receive one truck in the morning between the hours of 6 and 7:00 am and that is inbound freight that is unloaded and distributed within the center itself. Most of the truck traffic would be between the hours of 7:00 am and 6:30 pm. They anticipate this center will have approximately 20 truck trips per day, they are not a large operation, just a lot of volume. The proposed Parts Distribution Center (PDC) would be located on the comer of N 41h Street and Garden Avenue N, the building is situated so that any noise to the neighborhood will be reflected away from the neighborhood in both directions. The two loading docks are on the north side, where receiving is done, and on the east side, which is the shipping area. The office is located in the southeast comer of the building. Truck traffic will be coming in off of Logan over to 0, will enter the property at the intersection of O and Garden, and will then come down their own property and enter the facility. Along Garden there are some large mature trees, which they are going to maintain. There are more large trees in the southwest corner ofthe property. Vehicular traffic and employees, will come in off of 4 h, at the stoplight at 4" and 3`d The site is industrial and is connected to the Renton Kenworth truck plant, which operates from 5:30 am until 11:30 pm. The design of this building was to reflect any noise away from the neighborhood in both directions. The property next to them is where the Renton School District parks its busses, all those busses have back-up alarms, not all of their trucks have back-up alarms. Upon questioning by Ms. Nielsen, Mr. Bennitt stated that there had never been a problem in this area previously, so they felt it was not necessary to perform any studies into the number of traffic trips. They relied on good engineering practices. By placing the building where they did, they knew that any noise would be reflected away from the neighborhood. There is a residential area (he pointed to an area on the map), to the left of the distribution center where the school district parks their busses. From their site there will be no trucks coming down Garden Avenue, they do not permit trucks down Garden Avenue south of 6", they do not permit trucks to enter 4"' and go up Garden Avenue. The delivery trucks come in off a prescribed truck route off of 6" onto this property. The only time the truck backs up with his alarm is to get to the loading dock at which time the noise is being directed away from the neighborhood. There is a 32-foot high wall that will deflect noise away from the neighborhood. There is a canopy over the top of the loading docks, both east and north. These are dock shelters, where the trailer comes in contact with the building, which seals off the trailer from the building. Any noise inside cannot be transmitted outside. The Examiner stated that the ERC issued a condition that the DPC would be limited to 7:00 am starting time and Paccar would like it to be 6:00 am. Is the hour that critical to your operation? Mr. Bennitt stated that they prefer that hour because they have a commitment to their customers, if they order a part, it will be shipped that same day, a lot of parts come in on a daily basis. The Examiner clarified that the transportation mitigation, the estimated number of traffic trips, sounds like an appeal could be filed if, with the building permit the trips are higher than Paccar thinks they should be and it would not be untimely. It appears that the City is using an estimate today. Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 3 The total number is unknown at this point in time. It is merely an estimate of what is believed to be the approximate number of vehicles that will be going in and out of Paccar. Mr. Bennitt stated that Paccar has no problem with the 575.00, however, when they apply for the building permit they will work out the number of truck units. Ms. Kittrick, Development Services Division stated that is only an estimate at this point, it is always based on the final plans, the final distribution, all information that comes in with the building permits and is paid just before the building permit is issued. The Examiner stated that it sounds like at this point an appeal of the estimated traffic trips of 1,775 is probably premature. He will not dismiss that aspect of the appeal with any prejudice, that way if Paccar is not satisfied with the ultimate numbers that are generated by the size of the building versus the size of the building being vacated they can appeal that number at that point. The $75.00 per base trip is not subject to appeal at this point. Ms. Nielsen made a closing statement that the area is unfortunately a mix of industrial and residential, people are asleep at that hour. Whether it's one truck, or ten trucks people will still be dealing with that beeping. She did not believe that the appellant has shown anything to mitigate a reversal of the decision. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:00 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The appellant, David D. Bennitt for PACCAR, filed an appeal of a decision by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). The appeal was filed in a timely manner. 2. The City reviewed a proposed 255,000 square foot building that would serve as a parts distribution center for the PACCAR company. The building would contain a 5,000 square foot office within the center. 3. The building would be located on the northeast comer of the intersection of North 4th Street and Garden Avenue North. 4. The complex is proposed to operate between the hours of 5:30 am and 6:30 pm weekdays. It would receive deliveries by heavy trucking at approximately 6:00 am weekdays. Materials would then be unloaded, inventoried and redistributed to outbound trucks that same day or the materials would be used internally for PACCAR projects. 5. The applicant noted that the trucks would follow City of Renton haul routes and enter the subject site from its northwest corner near Garden Avenue North and North 6th Street. Employee routes would be individualized. The loading bays for the building are located along the north and east sides of the building. A canopy would be over the loading dock area. Seals surround the cargo area of the trucks. State regulations require backup beepers for the safety of those working around the trucks. Paccar Parts Distribution Bunuing Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 4 The City estimated new daily trips (traffic counts) for the proposal to be 1,775 net new daily trips. At the hearing the City noted that the traffic numbers were based on estimates. The City indicated that it could be modified based on more realistic numbers when the building permit is submitted and the City can calculate the offset from the existing use versus the current use. The parties agreed that an appeal of the fee could be appropriately submitted again at that time. The subject site is zoned III (Heavy Industry). There is IL (Light Industry) zoning immediately west of the subject site across Garden Avenue North. South of the subject site across North 4th Street are a series of single family and multiple family uses zoned R-10 (Residential; Multiply Family). Similarly, diagonally to the southwest, across the GardenAth intersection, are R-10 zoned properties used for residential uses. The ERC imposed two conditions that the appellant has challenged. The ERC imposed a limitation on the hours of operation of the Parts Center. The City imposed a Traffic Mitigation fee based on estimated daily trips. The specific conditions are quoted here: "All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm." "The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1774.8 net new daily trips X $75 = 133,110.00)." 9. The appellant objected to the limitation on hours of operation regarding truck traffic. The applicant noted that its service policy is to ship parts for its customers the day the order is received and, therefore, that it needs to begin receiving trucks at 6:00 am. It seeks to have the limitation on truck traffic altered to align with its need of a 6:00 am start time. 10. The appellant noted that the new facility is replacing an existing facility located elsewhere in the vicinity of the subject site on other property owned by PACCAR. Therefore, it suggests that there would be limited new truck or employee traffic generated by the proposed complex since the other facility will be closed. The applicant has met with the City and while they have reached an oral agreement that traffic mitigation fees will be based on actual traffic counts, they seek to make sure that the conditions actually reflects this agreement. 11. No noise studies were prepared or presented at the public hearing. The appellant argues that the building will buffer and, therefore, contain or reduce the noises generated by the arriving trucks, unloading and loading cargo. The appellant also noted that the school buses are parked west of the subject site and they, too, have backup beepers. The appellant also noted that their backup beepers may not be employed. 12. The appeal of the Traffic Mitigation fee will be dismissed without prejudice at this time. It appears that the City will recalculate the fee when the building permit is submitted and determine traffic counts and offsets against existing uses that would be supplanted by this new facility. Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 5 CONCLUSIONS: The decision of the governmental agency acting as the responsible official is entitled to substantial weight. Therefore, the determination of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the city's responsible official, is entitled to be maintained unless the appellant clearly demonstrates that the determination was in error. The Determination of Non -Significance in this case is entitled to substantial weight and will not be reversed or modified unless it can be found that the decision is "clearly erroneous." (Hayden v. Port Townsend, 93 Wn 2nd 870, 880; 1980). The court in citing Norway Hill Preservation and Protection Association v. King County Council, 87 Wn 2d 267, 274; 1976, stated: "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Therefore, the determination of the ERC will not be modified or reversed if it can meet the above test. For reasons enumerated below, the decision of the ERC is affirmed. The clearly erroneous test has generally been applied when an action results in a DNS since the test is less demanding on the appellant. The reason is that SEPA requires a thorough examination of the environmental consequences of an action. The courts have, therefore, made it easier to reverse a DNS. A second test, the "arbitrary and capricious" test is generally applied when a determination of significance (DS) is issued. In this second test an appellant would have to show that the decision clearly flies in the face of reason since a DS is more protective of the environment since it results in the preparation of a full disclosure document, an Environmental Impact Statement. An action is determined to have a significant adverse impact on the quality of the environment if more than a moderate impact on the quality of the environment is a reasonable probability. (Norway, at 278). Since the Court spoke in Norway, WAC 197-11-794 has been adopted, it defines "significant" as follows: Significant. (1) "Significant" as used in SEPA means a reasonable likelihood of more than a moderate adverse impact on environmental quality. (2) Significance involves context and intensity ...Intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of an impact.... The severity of the impact should be weighed along with the likelihood of its occurrence. An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred. Also redefined since the Norway decision was the term "probable." Probable. "Probable" means likely or reasonably likely to occur, ... Probable is used to distinguish likely impacts from those that merely have a possibility of occurring, but are remote or speculative. (WAC 197-11-782). Impacts also include reasonably related and foreseeable direct and indirect impacts including short-term and long-term effects. (WAC 197-1 I-060(4)(c)). Impacts include those effects resulting from growth caused by a proposal, as well as the likelihood that the present proposal will serve as precedent for future actions. (WAC 197-11-060(4)(d)). Paccar Parts Distribution Bui.mng Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 6 Environmental impact is also related to the location. A development whether an office building or a single-family development may or may not create impact depending on the existing surroundings. In the current matter, the building and more importantly the deliveries by large trucks occur across the street from property not only zoned for residential purposes but also used for residential purposes. So while the City has created a land use mine field by placing industrial zoning adjacent to residential zoning, that does not mean that the industrial uses can impose their noise in any manner and at any time. The appellant company can develop industrial uses on its property but those uses cannot impose on the adjacent residential uses. The City may impose conditions that reasonably restrict certain uses to avoid creating untenable situations. In the current case, there were no noise studies prepared that show that appellant's building would provide sufficient noise attenuation so that the engine sounds of large delivery trucks would not echo through the neighborhood and that the piercing sound of backup beepers would not awaken nearby residents at 6:00 am in the morning. In the absence of any proof that the noises would be contained, the ERC decision must be sustained. The applicant has not provided any meaningful proof that its use would not create noise or noises that are irritating or more than irritating and interrupt sleep for nearby residents. The reviewing body should not substitute its judgment for that of the original body with expertise in the matter, unless the reviewing body has the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. This office was not left with a firm conviction that the ERC made a mistake. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating the City's condition was erroneous the appellant has failed in meeting that burden. 10. The appealing party has a burden that was not met in the instant case. The decision of the ERC must be affirmed. As noted above, the Traffic Mitigation Fee will be recalculated when the appellant applies for the building permit. If the City's decision at that time is not acceptable to the appellant, they may refile the appeal at that time. DECISION: The decision of the ERC is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 19fh day of March 2007. FRED J. KAUF19AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 19" day of March 2007 to the parties of record: Ann Nielsen David D. Bennitt Jill Ding Assistant City Attorney 777 106" Ave NE Development Services City of Renton Bellevue, WA 98004 City of Renton Kayren Kittrick Development Services City of Renton Paccar Parts Distribution Building Appeal LUA-06-139, ECF March 19, 2007 Page 7 TRANSMITTED THIS 19t' day of March 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Larry Rude, Fire Marshal Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services King County Journal Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 2, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., April 2, 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. CITY JF RENTON Hearing Examiner Kathy Keotker, Mayor Fred J. Kaufman 9, 2007 David D. Bennitt PACCAR Project Manager PO Box 1518 Bellevue, WA 98009 Re: Appeal of the Environmental Determination, Hours of Operation Dear Mr. Bennitt: The appeal hearing in the above matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, / I GI � Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Jennifer Henning, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 - (425) 430-6515 ® Th, paper contains 50%recycled material, 30% post mnsumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE CC—E CITY OF RENTON lnc January 4, 2007 �' JAN 0 5 2007 Cityof Renton RECEiVEo CITY CLERKS OF�ICE Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Jill K. Ding Ref: Construction of a new PACCAR Parts Distribution Center on the corner of N 41h Street and Garden Avenue North. Subject: Appeal of Environmental Determination, Hours of Operation The Environmental Review Committee issued a Staff Report; dated December 18, 2006, for the New Renton Parts Distribution Center Project, file number LUA-06-139, ECF. In section C. Mitigation Measures, paragraph 4. stated that: "All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm". This same mitigation measure was restated in section D. Environmental Impacts, 4.0 Noise. PACCAR appeals for a change to this mitigation measure and to clarify the number of new daily trips to the facility. The proposed Parts Distribution Center will operate M-F from 5:30 am to 6:30 pm to meet the needs of our customers. Inbound trucks are scheduled to arrive starting at approximately 6:00 am. Inbound trucks are unloaded, inventory recorded, and redistributed to designated outbound trailers or in-house inventory the same day. PACCAR has a commitment to our customers to ship parts the same day the order is placed. The requested hours of operation are required to meet this business objective. The stated concern behind the mitigation measure to limit the hours of operation is noise. The layout of the building on the site is designed to minimize noise impacts to the neighborhood. All truck traffic will follow the City of Renton approved truck routes and enter the site at the existing N 6th Street and Garden Ave N entrance to the PACCAR campus. This is the same route and entrance used for Kenworth Truck Plant truck traffic that operates from 5:30 am to 11:30 pm M-F. The loading docks are strategically placed on the north and east sides of the building to direct noise away from the residential neighborhood. The anticipated 20 trucks per day are not expected to impose an adverse noise impact to the neighborhood with these design considerations. The Transportation section of the Environmental Review Committee Staff Report requires mitigation for an anticipated 1,775 net new daily trips. Because this Parts Distribution Center will replace the existing PDC currently located on the PACCAR campus on Vacated Houser Way N, no new additional truck or employee daily trips are anticipated. PACCAR has discussed this subject with the City of Renton and was assured that actual trip counts will be used to calculate the Traffic Mitigation Fees associated with this project. PACCAR requests that the truck traffic hours of operation for the Renton PDC be changed to: 6:00 am to 10:00 pm and that the daily trips be based on actual counts for transportation mitigation fees. PACCAR appreciates the consideration of the appeals board on this matter. ncerely; CC Z�� J �L c�; David D. Bennitt PACCAR Project Manager �.O_ Box I E18 3e Ic ue. 'JVasn 9to MM d Tc'.c-:p�w re (4 �) 4C8-7400 FACCF R Ruil_7mg -7-1-Mt Averae NL Le;levUc, r `as`i rotor 98004 Cc: R.E. Bangert II — PACCAR Inc D.N. Lewis—PACCAR Inc D. Siver— PACCAR Parts CITY F RENTON I+ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 20. 2006 David D. Bennitt PACCAR Inc. 777 106th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT Paccar Parts Distribution Building LUA06-139, ECF Dear Mr. Bennitt: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are govemed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. .Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding J Senior Planner I\// cc: Jennifer & Heath Knickerbocker, Angela Laulainen, North Renton Nieghborhood Association, Ed & Lori Caldeira, Tiffany Copertino, Sheree Dreewes, Lee & Pamela Chicoine, Mike & Susan Wade, Rich Zwicker, Brad & Kristi Hartman, Paul & Melinda Webb, Roger & Kimberly Marsh, Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Walcoff, Mike O'Donin i Party(ies) of Record Enclosure 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 Al RENTON AH-1) Or TI1L CURVE STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE December 18, 2006 Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Applicant. David Bennitt, Paccar, Inc., 777 106" Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA-06-139, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a height of 36 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. (Project Description continued on next page). Project Location: 1400 N 41h Street (parcel no. 7223000010) Exist. Bldg. Area gsf. NIA Proposed New Bldg. Area: 255,000 square feet Site Area.• 653,400 sf (15-acres) Total Building Area gsf. 255,000 square feet RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M). Project Location Map ercrpt Paccar City of Renton PIBIPW Departme mmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIO ILDING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 1 E, 200E Page 2 of 7 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed building will be located on a 15-acre site at the northeast corner of Garden Avenue N and N 4th Street. The project site is located within the Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning designation. The topography of the site slopes from the north to the south at an approximate grade of 2 percent. An existing vacant office building will be removed as apart of the proposed project. The project site is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site that has been capped with clean soils. The design requirements and specifications associated with the work proposed on the site will be handled by Paccar as a part of their Environmental Design. All excavations would be monitored and performed by certified environmental contractors. Any off -site transport of contaminated debris will occur in accordance with state and federal regulations. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE XX NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 4. All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new square foot of building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600.00). ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envi. entat Reviev✓ Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION BUL-ING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 1 t 2006 Page 3 of 7 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth The topography of the site slopes from the north to the south at an approximate grade of 2 percent and the site is vegetated primarily with emergent vegetation and a few trees. With the project application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Hart Crowser, Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated October 5, 2006. The report indicated that two shallow and two deep geotechnical explorations were completed. The explorations encountered alluvial soils to depths approaching 80 to 95 feet below grade. These soils consisted of highly variable and interlayered silt, clay, gravel, and sand. Below the alluvial soils, glacial soils were encountered that represent the lower boundary of compressible soils that would control foundation design. Layers of organic peat soils were found interlayered within the sand and silt layers, which is of interest because peat will exhibit a large consolidation settlement that will continue over long periods of time. The peat encountered was typically found to accumulate in 4-inch thick lenses. It is estimated that an accumulated thickness of 2 feet of peat is located in the upper 50 feet of soil across the project site. The report also indicated that groundwater was encountered at a depth of 17 feet below the ground surface on the northern portion of the site and at a depth of 14 feet on the southern portion of the site. Previous borings and data gathered from monitoring wells indicate that the groundwater table fluctuates based on seasonal conditions. The groundwater observed in the borings conducted for this proposal appears to be representative of a low groundwater table, which is associated with a dry season. The report recommends that a groundwater level at elevation 22 feet in the southwest corner of the property, and 26 feet in the northeast corner of the property be used for preliminary planning and design purposes. The report provides recommendations for foundation considerations, a settlement monitoring program, and seismic considerations. Due to the potential for impacts that could occur during construction, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that construction of the project be required to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006 that was submitted with the project application. To ensure proper compaction across the site, the applicant has indicated that the site will be preloaded. To ensure that peat soils are property consolidated, a surcharge will be placed above the preload. The height of the preload is estimated at 4'/ feet and the height of the additional surcharge is estimated at 4'/ feet. The height of the preload and surcharge results in a total height of fill of about 9 feet measured from the finished floor elevation. Due to existing grade changes across the site, the southern portion of the site is lower and would require an additional 4 feet of fill to reach the finished floor elevation. Therefore, along the southern portion of the site a total height of 13 feet of fill will be required. The fill would extend 5 feet outward from the edge of the building footprint. Due to the potential for erosion to occur from the subject site, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to comply with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/8/PW Departme nmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIOR _DING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 1006 Page 4 of 7 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water — Stormwater A Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 17, 2006 was submitted with the application materials. According to the report the existing stormwater runoff sheet flows across the site and leaves the site in two areas. The first area is to the east in Garden Avenue N and then west in N 5th Street and the second area is to the north through the Paccar main warehouse site. The proposed method of drainage control as indicated by the storm drainage report would be the installation of two wetponds on the northwestern and northeastern portion of the project site. The City's Plan Review Section has reviewed the submitted drainage report. Due to downstream drainage problems that could arise as a result of the proposed development, staff recommends a mitigation measure that would require the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The report and design submitted with the application appear to have complied with the 2005 design requirements. Mitigation: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Surface Water Design Manual Environmental Health The site is currently a remediated "Superfund" site. The applicant has indicated that all excavations will be monitored and performed by certified environmental contractors. All work on -site would be done in accordance with the construction specific health and safety plans that will be prepared. Any off -site transport of contaminated debris will occur in accordance with state and federal regulations. Mitigation: No further mitigation is recommended. Nexus: N/A 4. Noise Noise impacts would primarily result from the construction of the proposed facility. The applicant indicates that construction noise and truck traffic would occur between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm unless otherwise restricted by the City's noise regulations. The City's noise regulations limit haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays Delivery routes would not be on local streets through the residential neighborhood to the south of the proposal. All truck traffic would stay north of N 4`h Street and use Garden Avenue N or Logan Avenue N at 1-405 for the direct route to and from the site. Noise impacts anticipated from the operation of the distribution center, particularly from the trucks visiting the center would occur from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Due to concerns raised by neighbors in the residential neighborhood to the south regarding the noise impacts of trucks visiting the distribution center, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that all truck traffic associated within the distribution center be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Mitigation: All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/8/PW Department Env ental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION BU.—ING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT Or December 18, 2006 Page b of 7 5. Transportation Access to the project would be provided through the main west gate at N 6" Street and Garden Avenue N. Truck routes will be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6" Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8" Street and 1-405. A secondary access for employees would be provided off of N 4" Street at the intersection of Factory Avenue N. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). Mitigation: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Emergency Services The proposal will potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600). Mitigation: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new square foot of building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600.00). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Advisory Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office at (425) 430-6510. Advisory Notes to Applicant. The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight ercrpt pa tear City of Renton P/B/PW Departme PACCARPARTS DISTRIBUTIOi._D;�:�? REPORT OF December 18, 2006 nmental Review Committee Staff Report _ LUA06-139, ECF Page 6 of 7 o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shal be permitted on Sundays. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work wili occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31 st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. Fire 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4,500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and foul additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on -site. 5. A site plan for pre -fire planning is required to be submitted to the Fire Department for your project. Plan Review— Surface Water 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) based on a rate of $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time to utility permit is issued. Plan Review — Water 1. A Surface Water System Development Charge based on a rate of $0.273 per square foot of the gross site area. Credit will be given for the existing water service. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. A water main extension is required. The applicant has shown a looped 8-inch main around the building, however it will need to be upsized at civil review. 3. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required." DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, the applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if a backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 4. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 5. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. Plan Review — Sanitary Sewer 1. A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) fee based on a rate of $0.142 per gross square feet of ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/B/PW Department Envi ?nta( Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTP.IBUTION BULL-ING LUA06.139, ECF REPORT OF December 1E 2006 Page 7 of 7 site area is required. A redevelopment credit based on the existing sewer service this site will be applied. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor will be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 3. A sewer main extension is not required. Plan Review — Transportation 1. Half street improvements including cit standard 5-foot sidewalk, curb cuts, curb, gutter, paving, storm drainage, and street lights are required to be installed if not already fronting the site. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Plan Review — General 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit 3 copies of the drawings, 2 copies of the drainage report, permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the 6" floor. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Plan Review — Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter and any backflow devices will be required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit. Proper drainage measures are required. ercrp[_paccar �b s "1199 ! Or 4 oNEWs ® a M RENTON I I I � II I III i � I III PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER i I -n gu NORTH ELEVATION I it I I I , I LEE Mir-, i I EAST ELEVATION t� IT (� ,�'.. c� (� QI II i I l i ELEVATION - N. 4TH STREET 4 o (SOUTH � I I j I I I WEST ELEVATION -GARDEN AVE. N, ' o NEW RENTON PARTS STRIBUTI( CENTER SITE PLAN ply CITI NP--� _ L REt`TON PACCAR ?ARI`, WAFEHOUSE 1� I ----------------------- e I I' 12587 p GH4� 'vrs.. �a�eo�wmc wm� a� y� £ �• RHhHf AND HO AROCECM HE Pdnta OfIYa RJEe TM TOPOOMPHC 9-*"E Y frzsl z •�"', }��Rr Ktklend WA BB0.7� I � amr.c ....,. ww.e.onw mnm w (425) 827-2q0 PACCAR PARTS WAR9iOlE i - c[rx OF RENTON o. - ' � �N° `�"""�' ° - •°"'""'" PACCAR PARiS WAR`_HOUSE a E 4 IM,.., — A6 ` n I V Is r A _r w 12WPpHA(� iezis rzrn .wvvuz swm „ n" PREMKI WARY ORADM PLAN 12587 d F _ �` . P W NF ANo f10 ARCHIEC 0C �yr- s, (izs7 iii9uzi NE PoY.ro GNe, &TE KkkMr4 WA 98= 1 1 ,q .... �••,. > ,�, (475) 817-2q0 PACCAR PARTS WAF@KK1BE D4 E W 1/2 ` 5 TZ-X K5_` � � ,;-I(P) R-e \ IH 00 UC—N2 Vie. / , A R 0 n G I N1 UC-N1 UC N W 6 a UC—N1 •P Cp W z z N 8th St. N F z UC—Nl M N W (o z i � N u_ UL-N N 6th St. -1 m m 2 �- NH E_NJ r > > m-m m m m m I CA m J -1 -R-10 0� 0L a- U R-lo 0 0 o o- o o CA CA C R-10 oc P. F4 11 T23N R5E W 1/2 �= oo �� ZONING ---- R"awn ca my .eo OM6106 C"' "� 8 T23N R5E W 1/2 O7J16/06 zY CITY OF RENTON U City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way ��N Renton, WA 98055 r 425-430-6510 ❑ Cash c� ❑ Copy Fee Check No. ! y.5 Y3 u Appeal Fee Description: Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip Receipt N 0723 Date �hjt,7 ❑ Notary Service Amount cry uJ�"�ig rr��- SLY CI' OF RENTON °} } ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Kcolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator January 23, 2007 David Bennitt PACCAR 777 106" Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: PACCAR Parts Distribution Center Environmental Determination Reconsideration Request (LUA06-139 ECF) Dear Mr. Bennitt: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in response to your request for reconsideration, dated January 4, 2007, of the SEPA Determiniation of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M) issued December 18, 2006. You asked for reconsideration of the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC on the DNS-M, in particular Mitigation Measure #4, which limited truck traffic to the distribution center to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. The basis of your request was that "the loading docks are strategically placed on the north and east sides of the building to direct noise away from the residential neighborhood. The anticipated 20 truck per day are not expected to impose an adverse noise impact to the neighborhood with these design considerations." The ERC have completed their review of the reconsideration request and the previous SEPA determination stands, therefore the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner scheduled for March 6, 2007 will move forward. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner cc: Hearing Examiner Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 = [>'F]This oacerrnnta,ns 50%recycled matcr •;,,;!lo.;.nn<I ronsi,mer RENTON DT r� CITY OF RENTON r„ is + Planning/Building/Public Works Department _tt Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 19, 2006 Jennifer & Heath Knickerbocker 318 Garden Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 RE: PACCAR Parts Distribution Center Neighbor Concerns and Questions (File No. LUA06-139) Dear Mr. and Mrs. Knickerbocker: Thank you for your comment letter dated November 20, 2006 regarding the proposed PACCAR Parts Distribution Center. In your letter you raise four major issues regarding the proposal including aesthetics, noise, environmental, and transportation. Your letter was forwarded on to PACCAR for a response. PACCAR provided a response to your concerns in an attached letter dated December 7, 2006. In addition, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has reviewed the proposal in the context of your concerns. Yesterday (December 18`h), the ERC took action on the proposed project and has issued a Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated (DNS-M) with 6 mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are as follows: 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume 11 of the Stonnwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 4. All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7`D0 am and 10:00 pm. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of S 133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x S75 = $133,110.00). 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 Ack RENTON - THF. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new square foot of building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600.00). You will receive a copy of the DNS-M and have an opportunity to appeal the determination issued by the ERC, if you feel that the above mitigation measures will not mitigate the impacts of the proposed development to your neighborhood. If you have any additional questions or concerns feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, P �(( at Jill K. Ding Senior Planner Enclosure cc Angela Laulainen, North Renton Nieghborhood Association, Ed & Lori Caldeira, Tiffany Cupertino, Sheree Dreewes, Lee & Pamela Chicoine, Mike & Susan Wade, Rich Zwicker, Brad & Kristi Hartman, Paul & Melinda Webb, Roger & Kimberly Marsh, Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Walcoff, Mike O'Donin / Party(ies) of Record December 7, 2006 PA=R Inc City of Renton OEM i7 Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, Washington 98055 Attn: Jill K. Ding Ref: Construction of a new PACCAR Parts Distribution Center on the corner of N 4lh Street and Garden Avenue North. Subject: Concerns and Questions on Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF The following is in response to concerns and questions presented by the North Renton Neighborhood Association about the Proposed Land Use for PACCAR property located at the corner of N 41h Street and Garden Avenue. The concerns are listed are Aesthetics, Noise, Environmental/ Critical Areas and Transportation. The proposed building will house the PACCAR Parts Distribution Center that current is located on vacated Houser Way. Aesthetics: The appearance of the proposed building will match that of the Kenworth Truck Plant and the recently completed Kenworth R&D Center. The height of the building is necessary to meet PACCAR's business needs for the distribution of parts. The plan is to retain the existing perimeter landscaping which consists of mature trees as a buffer to the neighborhood. Additional landscaping will be added to enhance the site. Noise: The layout of the building on the site was designed to minimize the noise impacts to the neighborhood. The incoming truck traffic will follow the City of Renton approved truck route and enter the site at the existing N 6lh and Garden Ave N entrance (the same entrance used by the Kenworth Truck Plant). The loading docks are strategically placed on the north and east sides of the building in an effort to direct any associated delivery truck noise away from the residential neighborhood. Environmental/ Critical Areas: The building has been engineered to comply with the City of Renton Building Codes and Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) requirements for this site. This building is designed to not impact the City of Renton Aquifer in any way. Transportation: The local vehicle traffic associated with this facility will be for employee vehicles which will enter the site at the existing 4ch and Factory intersection. PACCAR has provided ample parking for its employees and visitors. This facility will not increase the number of employees currently working on the Renton Campus. All delivery truck traffic will follow the City of Renton approved truck route. Questions: Will the fact that the site is being build on both Aquifer and on a hazard site affect drainage for our area or cause other environmental impacts? PACCAR's Response: The construction of the facility will not impact the Renton Aquifer. PACCAR will utilize an environmental engineering firm to oversee all construction as a safeguard to the community, this is a requirement of the WSDOE. Will there be greenery added or removed from the site? What is the plan for making it an attractive building? Do they realize that some neighbors will be looking out their windows at this new structure permanently? How will this site impact the property values of our neighborhood? PACCAR's Response: The plan is to P.O. Box 1518 Cie levuc. Wasninglor 08009 le eproric (425) 468-7400 PACCAR Bui'.ding 777-1GCtF Averue N.E. Bellevice. Wasr rgton 98004 retain the existing perime— landscaping which consists of mature tree- — a buffer to the neighborhood. Additional landscaping will be added to enhance the site. • Will there be adequate parking for the size of the structure that will keep overflow off of our streets? . PACCAR's Response: PACCAR has provided ample parking for its employees and visitors. This facility will not increase the number of employees currently working on the Renton Campus. • Can Kenworth place this building in another location on site that would eliminate these impacts from the neighborhood? For example, at the corner of North 6'h and Garden? Have other locations been considered? PACCAR's Response: PACCAR has given considerable thought as to the location of this facility. This site was chosen based on sound business decisions by PACCAR management. • How will this building be used? How many people will be working there? What types of noise will be generated by the activities? Will trucks be loading and unloading at night? PACCAR's Response: The proposed facility will house our PACCAR Parts distribution center which is currently located on Vacated Houser Way. From this facility, PACCAR ships parts to our dealers in the northwest. The current distribution center employs approximately 30 people who will be moved to the new facility. The activities associated with a distribution center consists of placing and retrieving of parts stored in racks, boxing of parts and the loading and unloading of trailers. The distribution center is open from 6:00 am to 5:30 pm M-F. All truck traffic associated with the distribution center will be from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. • Is there a rendering of what the proposed building will look like? Has the city seen something from PACCAR that they could share neighbors? Will it look like a Boeing building or like a warehouse? How tall? Will it look like our community feels or will it be a stark contrast? PACCAR's Response: In the submittal to the City of Renton, several elevation views of the proposed facility were presented. The proposed building will match the appearance of the Kenworth Truck Plant and the recently completed Kenworth R&D Center. The height of the building, approximately 36 ft, is necessary to meet PACCAR's business needs for the storage of parts. PACCAR has always provided the Renton community with a high quality environment in which to work and live. PACCAR's commitment is to provide high quality trucks and services to our customers while supporting the future growth of the surrounding communities. §ipcerely; David D. Bennitt PACCAR Project Manager Cc: R.E. Bangert II - PACCAR Inc D.N. Lewis - PACCAR Inc D. Siver - PACCAR Parts STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING } AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC NOTICE Daniele M Ledvina, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL Advertising Representative ofthe DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGPON King Count' .Journal The Emdronmental Review Com- mittee has issued a Deteivnination of Non -Significance -Mitigated for the a daily newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of general following project under the authority circulation and is now and has been for more than six mouths prior to the date ofthe Renttm Municipal Code. of publication hereinafter referred to, published in the English language P P g language Paccar Parts Distribution Building LUAOG 139, F,GF continuously as a daily newspaper in King County, Washington. The King Location: 1400 N 4th Street.'Che County Journal has been approved as a Legal Newspaper by order of the applicant is requesting Enviroa- Superior Court ofthe State of Washington for King County. in ctal (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues of the equare foot pats distribution King County Journal (and not in supplement form) which was regularly center, which includes a 5,000 square Fart office- The distributed to its subscribers during the below stated period. The annexed proposed building would haye a height of notice, a 36 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet 115 acres) in z area and rav ed Hey . rim Industrial flWThe pary Public Notice access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street L Garc9en was published on December 22, 2006. Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the stun g g P north of N pink6th Street: Garden Avenue N, rAvenue N, N Sth of $129.13. Street, and I-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized - pnmanty by emplowes is ✓� �� 1 opotied offof N leh Streot. The Daniele M Ledvina p . t site is located within a c hazard urea. Appeals pppeapeas of the environmental Legal Advertising Representative, King County Journal determination must be filed in writing Subscribed and sworn to me this 26`h day of December, 2006- on or before s:oo PM on January 5, 2007. Appeal, must be filed in ,. writing together with the required _-� ' $7 00 application fee with living .''7—'! / - _ Exammner, City of Renton, 105.5 South B D Cantelon Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in Kent, Washington Appeals to the Examiner are governed PO Number. by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-5-110.R. Additional infor- mation regarding the appeal proeeas - ,nay be obtained frmn the Renton City Clerk's Office, 1425) 430-6510. Published in the Ring County Journal December 22. 2006. #862521 CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20th day of December, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERC Determination documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Parties of Record See Attached David Binnitt, PACCAR Inc. Owner/Applicant/Contact (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 1- Q_ -e)Z Notary (Print), My appointment expires, Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Project Number: LUA06-139, ECF and template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology ` WDFW - Stewart Reinbold * Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept, Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 3190 160" Ave SE 39015 — 172ntl Avenue SE OI m ia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office ` Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program ` Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172ntl Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' KC Wastewater Treatment Division ` Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation' Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72ntl Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities State Department of Ecology Real Estate Services - NW Regional Office Title Examiner 3190 160'" Avenue SE 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 Bellevue, WA 98008-5452 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMT's, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template - affidavit of service by mailing PARTIES OF RECORD PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION LLA06-139, ECF Jennifer & Heath Knickerbocker Angela Laulainen David Binnitt 318 Garden Avenue N 314 Garden Avenue N PACCAR, Inc. Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 777 106th Avenue NE tel: (425) 260-3079 tel: (425) 227-7905 Bellevue, WA 98004 eml: jenknick@comcast.net (party of record) tel: (425) 468-7410 (party of record) (owner / applicant) Attn: Rich Zwicker Ed & Lori Caldeira Tiffany Copertino North Renton Nieghborhood 316 Meadow Avenue N 310 Graden Avenue N Association Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 PO Box 326 (party of record) (party of record) Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 931-6358 eml: northrenton@msn.com (party of record) Sheree Dreewes Lee & Pamela Chicoine Rich Zwicker 339 Meadow Avenue N 406 Burnett Avenue N 446 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) tel: (425) 277-1262 eml: richardzwicker@msn.com (party of record) Mike & Susan Wade Brad & Kristi Hartman Paul & Melinda Webb 405 Pelly Avenue N 206 Wells Avenue N 541 Wells Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Roger & Kimberly Marsh Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Walcoff Mike O'Donin 225 Factory Avenue N 123 Factory Avenue N 423 Pelly Avenue N Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) tel: (425) 228-3956 (party of record) Updated: 12/20/06 (Page 1 of 1) NOTCE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: ut1-B.IN1.9 PROJECTNUMBER: LOCATION: 1—N- BE eat OESCRIPTION: The appl- le requeellnB E-ilo—I.I.l ISEPAI Ravlaw ror the conatrud- of a now 0 a ..loot parts diatrihutlan center, --Includes a 5,000 egpere loot olnce. Th. proposed EPIIHI 9 Id nave a height. M..I.T aphlectaIt. torah-,400 equarefeet (15..real In arse entl le xo—Heavy wtH I IIHI. Th. Ed— acceaa W the —would Oe provltled thmugh th. main wear gab 0 N 5th 9 0 A Gamen nue AveN. Prte P1ft M.- boated h.dh of N Vh SI—v O Avenue N, Park Ave ueN, NMM1 Strex, entl 1� 1. A tlary atteee to tlw.1, w M utilized EH—Ily by _Plpyeas 1. Pmpoeetl oM of N4tn 91rrot. TM1e prolect.H. la 10cebd wltM1ln a salemk M1azartl ana. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ApP I. o1 the envimnmanbl dNarm1-1- m he 1- In wrlting on or netora 5:00 PM on 5, $COT. App.ala mua[ I» I— In —.g togatMr with that1 q 11hd $T5.00 applicatlen bs with: Hearing Examl eq OHY of R.M.n, t055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 90055. App.eh to Ina Examiner era Bov d by CHy of Ranbn C.d. Sactbn 4-e-110.B. A .I IntOrm.— reg_hh. the appal proce.. may G P_Inad from lh. ..,-PChy Ch.— Onlce, (425) 4304510IOe IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SETAND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. .: oTH ST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Pleas. I_1I tlw profIht NUMBER when calling— proper — CERTIFICATION I, SrTN Cam_ is! r- , hereby certify that S copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places or nearby the described property on DATE: !2 Ob ATTEST: Subscribed and swom before me, a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing on the 1� day of • ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Paccar Parts Distribution Building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-139, ECF LOCATION: 1400 N 4th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a height of 36 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N Bth Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the stte to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13. Additional infomration regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6610. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SET AND ALL PARTIES NOTIFIED. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION CIT- " OF RENTON es ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department .0 r Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 20, 2006 David D. Bennitt PACCAR Inc. 777 106th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT Paccar Parts Distribution Building LUA06-139, ECF Dear Mr. Bennitt: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non - Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Section C for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, a public hearing date will be set and all parties notified. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, n UK. Ding Senior Planner cc: Jennifer & Heath Knickerbocker, Angela Laulainen, North Renton Nieghborhood Association, Ed & Lori Caldeira, Tiffany Copertino, Sheree Dreewes, Lee & Pamela Chicoine, Mike & Susan Wade, Rich Zwicker, Brad & Kristi Hartman, Paul & Melinda Webb, Roger & Kimberly Marsh, Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Walcoff, Mike O'Donln / Party(ies) of Record Enclosure 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 ®This,.-, onlains Irl recyc1d materiei. mlpost consumer RENTON AHEAD OF THE ( RVE CIT- OF RENTON ao } ♦ Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department .0 Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 20, 2006 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on December 18, 2006: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Paccar Parts Distribution Building PROJECT NUMBER: LUA06-139, ECF LOCATION: 1400 N 4th Street DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a height of 36 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division WDFW, Stewart Reinbold David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources WSDOT, Northwest Region Duwamish Tribal Office Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Stephanie Kramer, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Enclosure R 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, Washington 98057 E N T O N Or THE CCRvE p 30 5 ® TAHEAD his paper contains l) % recyGetl material, % ost consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-139, ECF APPLICANT: David Bennitt, Paccar, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Paccar Parts Distribution Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 36 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 N 4th Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. 3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. 4. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. Fire 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4,500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2 Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on -site. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 3 5. A site plan for pre -fire planning is required to be submitted to the Fire Department for your project. Plan Review — Surface Water 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) based on a rate of $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time to utility permit is issued. Plan Review — Water 1. A Surface Water System Development Charge based on a rate of $0.273 per square foot of the gross site area. Credit will be given for the existing water service. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. A water main extension is required. The applicant has shown a looped 8-inch main around the building, however it will need to be upsized at civil review. 3. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required." DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, the applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if a backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 4. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 5. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. Plan Review — Sanitary Sewer 1. A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) fee based on a rate of $0.142 per gross square feet of site area is required. A redevelopment credit based on the existing sewer service this site will be applied. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor will be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 3. A sewer main extension is not required. Plan Review —Transportation 1. Half street improvements including cit standard 5-foot sidewalk, curb cuts, curb, gutter, paving, storm drainage, and street lights are required to be installed if not already fronting the site. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Plan Review — General 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit 3 copies of the drawings, 2 copies of the drainage report; permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the 61" floor. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3 3 The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3 % of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Plan Review — Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter and any backflow devices will be required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit. Proper drainage measures are required. ERC Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3 CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA06-139, ECF APPLICANT: David Bennitt, Paccar, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Paccar Parts Distribution Building DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 5th Street: Garden Avenue IN, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 N 4th Street LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM on January 5, 2007, Appeals must be fled in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: December 22, 2006 DATE OF DECISION: December 18, 2006 SIGNATURES: MW4"004 Z l L i,V & L GreaaZurie7ma�.'A imst a or Date' I. David Daniels. Fire Chief Date Planning/Building/Public Works Fire Department ,��, �'"D r _ Terry Higashiyama, Aaministrator Date �Ie&.ts.h. A nistrator Dat Community Services EDNSP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE December 18, 2006 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, December 18, 2006 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. PACCAR Parts Distribution (Dina) LUA06-139, ECF The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention & J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney STAFF City of Renton REPORT Department of Planning / Building / Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. BACKGROUND ERC MEETING DATE December 18, 2006 Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Building Applicant: David Bennitt, Paccar, Inc., 777 106"' Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 File Number: LUA-06-139, ECF Project Manager: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner Project Description: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a height of 36 feet. The subject site totals 653.400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. A secondary access to the site to be utilized primarily by employees is proposed off of N 4th Street. The project site is located within a seismic hazard area. (Project Description continued on next page). Project Location: 1400 N 41h Street (parcel no. 7223000010) Exist. Bldg. Area gsf N/A Proposed New Bldg. Area: 255,000 square feet Site Area: 653,400 sf (15-acres) Total Building Area gsf. 255,000 square feet RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M). na= Project Location Map ercrpt Paccar City of Renton PIBIPW Departme vironmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIO 1ILDING LUA06439, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 2006 Page 2 of 7 A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION (CONT.) The proposed building will be located on a 15-acre site at the northeast corner of Garden Avenue N and N 41h Street. The project site is located within the Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning designation. The topography of the site slopes from the north to the south at an approximate grade of 2 percent. An existing vacant office building will be removed as apart of the proposed project. The project site is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund site that has been capped with clean soils. The design requirements and specifications associated with the work proposed on the site will be handled by Paccar as a part of their Environmental Design. All excavations would be monitored and performed by certified environmental contractors. Any off -site transport of contaminated debris will occur in accordance with state and federal regulations. B. RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE XX NON- SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 15 day Comment Issue DNS-M with 15 day Comment Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period with Concurrent 14 day Appeal Period. Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. 3. The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 4. All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new square foot of building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600.00). ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/8/PW Departme vironmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIO 11LDING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 2006 Page 3 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In compliance with RCW 43.21 C. 240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. 1. Earth The topography of the site slopes from the north to the south at an approximate grade of 2 percent and the site is vegetated primarily with emergent vegetation and a few trees. With the project application, the applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Hart Crowser, Earth Solutions NW, LLC, dated October 5, 2006. The report indicated that two shallow and two deep geotechnical explorations were completed. The explorations encountered alluvial soils to depths approaching 80 to 95 feet below grade. These soils consisted of highly variable and interlayered silt, clay, gravel, and sand. Below the alluvial soils, glacial soils were encountered that represent the lower boundary of compressible soils that would control foundation design. Layers of organic peat soils were found interlayered within the sand and silt layers, which is of interest because peat will exhibit a large consolidation settlement that will continue over long periods of time. The peat encountered was typically found to accumulate in 4-inch thick lenses. It is estimated that an accumulated thickness of 2 feet of peat is located in the upper 50 feet of soil across the project site. The report also indicated that groundwater was encountered at a depth of 17 feet below the ground surface on the northern portion of the site and at a depth of 14 feet on the southern portion of the site. Previous borings and data gathered from monitoring wells indicate that the groundwater table fluctuates based on seasonal conditions. The groundwater observed in the borings conducted for this proposal appears to be representative of a low groundwater table, which is associated with a dry season. The report recommends that a groundwater level at elevation 22 feet in the southwest corner of the property, and 26 feet in the northeast corner of the property be used for preliminary planning and design purposes. The report provides recommendations for foundation considerations, a settlement monitoring program, and seismic considerations. Due to the potential for impacts that could occur during construction, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that construction of the project be required to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006 that was submitted with the project application. To ensure proper compaction across the site, the applicant has indicated that the site will be preloaded. To ensure that peat soils are property consolidated, a surcharge will be placed above the preload. The height of the preload is estimated at 4'/s feet and the height of the additional surcharge is estimated at 4'% feet. The height of the preload and surcharge results in a total height of fill of about 9 feet measured from the finished floor elevation. Due to existing grade changes across the site, the southern portion of the site is lower and would require an additional 4 feet of fill to reach the finished floor elevation. Therefore, along the southern portion of the site a total height of 13 feet of fill will be required. The fill would extend 5 feet outward from the edge of the building footprint. Due to the potential for erosion to occur from the subject site, staff recommends a mitigation measure that requires the applicant to comply with the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements as outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. Mitigation Measures. 1. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Hart Crowser, dated October 5, 2006. 2. The applicant shall be required to provide a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (TESCP) designed pursuant to the Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements outlined in Volume II of the Stormwater Management Manual. This condition shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division. ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/B/PW Departmr vironmentat Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIO 1ILDING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water — Stormwater A Preliminary Technical Information Report prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated October 17, 2006 was submitted with the application materials. According to the report the existing stormwater runoff sheet flows across the site and leaves the site in two areas. The first area is to the east in Garden Avenue N and then west in N 5th Street and the second area is to the north through the Paccar main warehouse site. The proposed method of drainage control as indicated by the storm drainage report would be the installation of two wetponds on the northwestern and northeastern portion of the project site. The City's Plan Review Section has reviewed the submitted drainage report. Due to downstream drainage problems that could arise as a result of the proposed development, staff recommends a mitigation measure that would require the project to comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. The report and design submitted with the application appear to have complied with the 2005 design requirements. Mitigation: The detention system for this project shall be required to comply with the requirements found in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control — a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations, King County Surface Water Design Manual 3. Environmental Health The site is currently a remediated "Superfund" site. The applicant has indicated that all excavations will be monitored and performed by certified environmental contractors. All work on -site would be done in accordance with the construction specific health and safety plans that will be prepared. Any off -site transport of contaminated debris will occur in accordance with state and federal regulations. Mitigation: No further mitigation is recommended Nexus: N/A 4. Noise Noise impacts would primarily result from the construction of the proposed facility. The applicant indicates that construction noise and truck traffic would occur between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm unless otherwise restricted by the City's noise regulations. The City's noise regulations limit haul hours between 8.30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays Delivery routes would not be on local streets through the residential neighborhood to the south of the proposal. All truck traffic would stay north of N 41h Street and use Garden Avenue N or Logan Avenue N at 1-405 for the direct route to and from the site. Noise impacts anticipated from the operation of the distribution center, particularly from the trucks visiting the center would occur from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. Due to concerns raised by neighbors in the residential neighborhood to the south regarding the noise impacts of trucks visiting the distribution center, staff recommends as a mitigation measure that all truck traffic associated within the distribution center be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Mitigation: All truck traffic associated within the distribution center shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations ercrpt Paccar City of Renton P/8/PW Departme vironmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIC IILDING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 2006 Page 5 of 7 5. Transportation Access to the project would be provided through the main west gate at N 61h Street and Garden Avenue N. Truck routes will be limited to arterial streets located north of N 61h Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 81h Street and 1-405. A secondary access for employees would be provided off of N 4" Street at the intersection of Factory Avenue N. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system. Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). Mitigation: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75 for each new net daily trip prior to the issuance of the building permit. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in the payment of $133,110.00 (1,774.8 net new daily trips x $75 = $133,110.00). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Emergency Services The proposal will potentially impact the City's Police and Fire Emergency Services. Staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, based on $0.52 per square foot of new building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600). Mitigation: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new square foot of building area prior to the issuance of the building permit. The fee is estimated at $132,600.00 ($0.52 x 255,000 square feet = $132,600.00). Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations E. COMMENTS OF REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS The proposal has been circulated to City Departmental / Divisional Reviewers for their review. Where applicable, these comments have been incorporated into the text of this report as Mitigation Measures and/or Advisory Notes to Applicant. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. January 5, 2007. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee to: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office at (425) 430-6510. Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. 2. Commercial, multi -family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the hours between seven o'clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o'clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock (9:00) a.m. and eight ercrpt_paccar City of Renton PIBIPW Departm, vironmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIC 111-D1NG LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 16, 2006 Page 6 of 7 o'clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch, sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit. A detailed landscape plan complying with the requirements set forth under RMC 4-8-120D shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Development Services Division Project Manager. Fire 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4,500 gpm, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire Department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exteriors. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on -site. 5. A site plan for pre -fire planning is required to be submitted to the Fire Department for your project. Plan Review — Surface Water 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge (SDC) based on a rate of $0.265 per new square foot of impervious surface. This fee is payable at the time to utility permit is issued. Plan Review —Water 1. A Surface Water System Development Charge based on a rate of $0.273 per square foot of the gross site area. Credit will be given for the existing water service. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. A water main extension is required. The applicant has shown a looped 8-inch main around the building, however it will need to be upsized at civil review. 3. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required." DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards, For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, the applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if a backflow, device is to be installed inside the building. 4. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 5. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. Plan Review —Sanitary Sewer 1. A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) fee based on a rate of $0.142 per gross square feet of ercrpt_paccar City of Renton P/B/PW Departme vironmental Review Committee Staff Report PACCAR PARTS DISTRIBUTIO IILDING LUA06-139, ECF REPORT OF December 18, 2006 Page 7 of 7 site area is required. A redevelopment credit based on the existing sewer service this site will be applied. This fee is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor will be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 3. A sewer main extension is not required. Plan Review —Transportation 1. Half street improvements including cit standard 5-foot sidewalk, curb cuts, curb, gutter, paving, storm drainage, and street lights are required to be installed if not already fronting the site. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. Plan Review — General 1. All required utility, drainage, and street improvements will require separate plan submittals prepared according to City of Renton drafting standards by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit 3 copies of the drawings, 2 copies of the drainage report; permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the 61h floor. It is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half of the fee must be paid upon application for building and construction permits, and the remainder when the permits are issued. There may be additional fees for water service related expenses. Plan Review — Miscellaneous 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter and any backflow devices will be required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary easements for utilities. 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will require a separate building permit. Proper drainage measures are required. ercrpt_paccar PRELIMINARY DRAWINGS FOR M L K J H QG QF �� 4E QD qC QB A4 NEW Iw`.�'. :••m•, I RENTON PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER RENTOK WA r'wiw: wwnarww� ems- _ _ _ _ — _ — — — _ _ _ _ _ — — _ — — — — wrs�www�am� — . . Asa naew�ww� �wwew• _ wrs• _ rrasis �www' maw NORTH ELEVATION w.. w•ro ixo EAST ELEVATION ------ - FF _________________________________ ----------- ______________________ ________________ w Ml•Y 11wMwwV� wti NY HY�! SOUTH ELEVATION - N. 4TH STREET wAG w•b IEOBIMIAI w1! iwrl ow WEST ELEVATION - GARDEN AVE. N. ��, A4.0 Z !R,3 C N ZZ� i a 0 w 3F�m� 0 w Z Z Vl 1 _ mill F CITY OF RENTON PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE - — -- — ----- - ------------- -- - ------- - -------- ................ ........................ - — — — — — — — — — F" 77 n /L II CD "Z 4' �lp 4' 4 4' 4'8 4� 0, 4' 4' - - - - - - - - - - - .......... o, ..... ....... 7 --T .......... .......... -p� ........... ..... . . . .............. . ........ . ...... -------- T cr 12W 215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH WA 88032 ii 112" 25 1�2 (. �:U 2S) 2 °Vi For FRISFUr AM HO ARCHITECTS OM NE Polrft Drive StAe WC Too TOPOCIRAPM SLFNEY ooml,—� uaor.(425) Kftlanct WA 98M 827-2100 SW*Yd4 DNWNMD� %amIan PACCAR PARTS WAF934OLSE CITY OF —I� RENTON 1m� lMlU11 Pbnni lWigi,q/ o,k W"t• thDt. ND. REVSDN ar w,E .PR � —•�• �"'�'�'""""" P.L. AOinin""°t°' PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE ------------- ... ................. I � I .e III• i n _ _ ----"_-- I I 0p -• --- it l I ;------------- ----�------- F-_� - }- � �' it IJ i i � I i • �'.�--___I'r____ -�\.1� •i !`1' ii , . T • v I v LF Li y ", P F P 8 i 8 i } 1p , i li• t i • CC •°� a I,6�' I I N____________- } w� I •. A -0 , i III}I�II� " r'� PpNA(•_ 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH s Fan P AN AW ORADM PL 12567 't4 KEENT. WA MOM � a� AND HO APICHnECTB (42s) 251-s222 NE. Pons OMm BuMs WC zs1-e7e2 iAX rn. �4� KkkWr4 WA 98M ras Dntmr4 uwo nwrG �� 4iA ' •! (4M 8%-2M s 1 1 "• +• 6 o*yw. DM1'oax sDNDs PACCAR PARTS WAREHOUSE D4 5 T23N R5E W 1/2 C,.. R-1(P) R-8 UC-N2 r ..- IH 00 'UC—N2 R o G, Gn I H ?4 2 UC_N1 UC—N1 N z T W UC N1 W N 8th St. z U. UC—N1 0 U LU L—N N 6th St.� Z °' L o UC—N o , z 2 uC-rt� co CD o I T co w le 00 o J -1 R-i0 a s a• U Q' CA CA R-10 F4 17 T23N R5E W 1/2 ZONING °®° ---- "°awn city"m"^ E4 per" "°"` SMVICW 8 T23N ME W 1/2 ZO. I NG MAP BOOK 74W 92 93 455 456 459 A61 B1 B2 B3 ,B B } J 96 _ 7 26 T24N R4E 25 T24N R4E 36 T24N R5E �9 T24N 26S24N R5E. �erTN 2]T24N R5E'.- 460 26 T2aN PSE ' 81 94W 455W 45 i 458 464 Cl C2 C3 C4 ��, C6 _C7 35 T24N R4E 36 T24N R4E 31 T24N RSE 32T24N R5E 2 4N TF41T "j 3514N R5E 306 307 ��¢ -, e,308 309 3 8 801 D1 D- 2 D3 `',;D4 D D7 2, T23N 114E 1 ZE1d R4E" 6.T23N R5E T23N RSE 4 T23N RSE 3 T23N R5 'r 2 T23N RSE 16 31 3J 319 359 1 E2 3 E4 E5 R4E 12 T23N R4E, l3 T23N R5E g T23N R5E 4T23N R5E MS 328 370 2a�\ 326 27 F1�f- F' 3 F41 F5 i T23N R4E 13 T23N NE; 16 T23N RSE 17 T 3N RSE 16 T23N RbE,- T23N R5E 14 T23N RSE 1 334 `.�35 336337 371 816 E G1 G2 G3 ,G4,, Al. T23N R4E 24 T23 NE 19 T23N Rsr 20 T23N iESE 24 T2..22 T23N R5E 23 T23N RSE 2. 44 4 _, 600 601 602 .824 821 E 1 I � i 2 H3 H7 T23N R 2,5' f2 l � 30 T23N R5E 29 23N A5E 26 T2� 5� 27. T� 5��26 T23N R56, 25 50 51i 603 , -�4 605 825 826 8 _ _ 12 ��r. 3 ". " 36 T23N 114E 31 T23 R5E 32-T23N R5E '- • 33 T23N R4 "- ' 4 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36 6Q7- 609' 609 61 q "- - 832; , 833 8 1 J2 Jj:J4� �6L6 J u1T21 .11 22N R4E 7'T22N R4E 6T22N R5E,'; 5T22N RSE aT22N T15E :�; R5E 2T22N R5E 0 rzr�gnn fteeource Cvneeneti<¢ O Ree:dmtiel RO9 Reefdevtiel 4 du/er AOa Reeide¢Uel B du/ec OReetde¢Ual Yevufectured Hamea o R<eiaen-1D do/e< O Reeld<— 14 dv/ec O Reeidential Yulti-Pamfly O Reeidential YuIU-Family Tradltioval OReefdenYel Yn1[f-Family Urban Center R Cevter Val— O Ivduatrial - Neavy 0 Urhen Center - North I O Ivduatrial - Y<dinm Ur6en Center - North 2 0 Induelrfal - light OCevter Dawvtown• O Commerefel/Oltiee/Reeidevtlal (G) R¢Ellcly owved --- Renton City Limits CpYYERCLIL Commercial Art<rlel•--Adjaeevt City Limits c<mm<rn;a mne< �Raae F.ge. m¢ndary 0 cvmmm<iat nefgnbvrhvva ou PAGE • Yey dude Overle, Die,,,I, See APPevdiz PAGE# INDEX Por dditionel latia¢e in Overlay Dialrlcte, aleeee see RYC 4-3. N—ey N.'A—S-11- .City of-1- CITY OF RENTON MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 2006 TO: Jill Ding FROM: Jan Illian x7216 SUBJECT: PACCAR Inc. LUA 06-139 1400 — North 4`F' Street I have reviewed the application for Paccar located at 1400 N. 4" Street and have the following comments: EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER There is an existing 12-inch water main in Garden Ave North. Pressure in the vicinity is approximately 70 psi. The proposed project is located in the 320 Pressure Zone and is not inside an Aquifer Protection Zone. Derated fire flow available in the vicinity is 4,500 gpm. SEWER There is a 10-inch sewer main in Garden Ave N. and a 24- inch sewer main in N. 4"' Street. STORM There is existing storm facilities in Garden Ave N STREETS There is sidewalk, curb, and gutter fronting the property in Garden Ave North and N. 4°i Street. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER 1. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $ is owed on this site. The rate is based on square feet x $0.273. A redevelopment credit will be applied for existing water meters that serve this site.This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. A water main extension is required. Applicant has shown a looped 8-inch main around the building, however it will need to be upsized at civil review. 3. Preliminary fire flow determined by the fire department is 4,500 gpm. One hydrant must be within 150 feet from the structure and four additional hydrants will be required within 300 feet of the structure. Applicant has shown hydrants to be installed along the new water main. 4. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of all double detector check valve assemblies for fire sprinkler systems. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backllow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. A separate utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for the fire sprinkler system, if backflow device is to be installed inside the building. 5. If the building exceeds 30 feet in height, a backflow device will be required to be installed on the domestic water meter. 6. Landscape irrigation systems will require a separate permit for the irrigation meter and approved backflow device is required to be installed. A plumbing permit will be required. SANITARY SEWER 1 A Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $ is owed on this site. The rate is based on square feet x $0.142. A redevelopment credit will be applied for existing water meters that serve this site.This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 2. If food preparation facilities are proposed, a grease trap or grease interceptor will be required. A separate plumbing permit will be required for installations inside the building. 3. A sewer main extension is not required. SURFACE WATER 1. Surface Water System Development Charges of S are owed on this site 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report is required with the site plan application. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the report. If preliminary calculations show detention will be required under the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend a condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control - a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. 3. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for proposed vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Half street improvements including city standard 5-foot sidewalk, curb cuts, curb, gutter, paving, storm drainage and streetlights are required to be installed if not already fronting the site. 2. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Undergrounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All construction utility permits for utilities, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report; permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated b\ the permit ,vstem The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than S200,000, and 3% of anything over $ 200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter and any backflow devices will be required. 2. Applicant shall be responsible for securing all necessary casements for utilities_ 3. All new rockeries or retaining walls to be constructed that are greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit. Proper drainage measures are required. 4. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS I. The traffic mitigation fees will be assessed at $133.110.00. See attached Mitigation Fee Report 2. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to design and comply with Department of Ecology's Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume II of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual. 3. Staff recommends a SEPA condition requiring this project to design and comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control - a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. CC: Kayren Kitlrick City o...enton Department of Planning / Building / Pu_., Norks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: - COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF Crry Oi RENrON DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 6, 2006VFn APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution NOV 1 2 PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): 255,000 square f@MILDING DIVISION LOCATION: 1400 N 41h Street WORK ORDER NO: 77673 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistonclCulturel Preservation Airport Enmionrnent 10,coo Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed t party assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Repr to ve Dat, s#pomp 7�7 Project Name: PA[LCk2 ?A-TS blsT L &)Two Project Address: 1000 N. L4"I STrz&:T Contact Person: pp uAa- IiN(- Permit Number: LUA O1D-13`I Project Description: ZSS,0-6-b pgvuS p�ST�tY3u�u� cc nsn 7L c,F c7GFICc7 Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: ❑ Residential 9- ITE Trip Generation Manual, 70 Edition ❑ Retail ❑ Traffic Study Non -retail ❑ Other GaldulatNii: 7t;"D = 133� 110. q, EC)u Transportation .Mitigation fee:0-0 Calculated by: K A Date: 1- -i>ate-af-Payment:— -- - F ----- City o, ,.enton Department of Planning / Building / Pub. forks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006 GfTV OF HEN tore APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Ding NOV 0,6 PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet I( BUILDING AREA (gross): 255,000 square feet LOCATION: 1400 N 4" Street WORK ORDER NO: 77673 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Intormwion Necessary Earth Air Wafer Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ NW,u i Resources TµV_- 5Nt2'T �Y 7a7 _iQ 3 It/8/3� B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts Mare Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Glare Recreation Utilities Tr - .ration Public Services HistoricJCultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, Got? Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inlormafior�$eded to passess this proposal. 7/";,I A Signature of Director or Authori eoresentative Date �N Y O� FIRE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 14, 2006 TO: Jill Ding, Associate Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT: Paccar Warehouse, 1400 N 4`h St. MITIGATION ITEMS: 1. A fire mitigation fee of S132,600.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. Credit will be given for the square footage of the demolished building. FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4500 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. A looped fire main is also required by ordinance. 2. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 3. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 4. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on site. 5. A site plan for Pre -Fire planning is required to be submitted for your project. This shall be submitted prior to occupancy, in one of the attached formats. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions i:Apaccarwarehouseerc.doc PRE -FIRE PLANNING RENTON FIRE. DEPARTMENT In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy. ABC Flowcharter.af3 ABC Flowcharter.af2 Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawing.dwg AutoCad Drawing.dgn Computer Graphics Metafile.cgm Corel Clipart Format.cmx Corel DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr Corel Flow.efl Encapsulated Postscript File.e s Enhanced Metalile.emf IGES Drawing File Format.igs Graphics Interchange Format. if Macintosh PICT Format. et Micrografx Designer Ver 3. l.drw Micrografx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf Microstation Drawing.dgn Portable Network Graphics Format. of Postscript File.ps Tag Image File Format.tif Text.txt 'I'ext.csv VISIO.vsd Windows Bitmap.bmp Windows Bitmap.dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma ex City of Renton Department of Planning / Building / Pubi.0 ., orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: - COMMENTS DUE: NOVM13EF�2O,.2Q_O6 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVLM� 0 Y APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. PROJECT MANAGER: Jill ©iri, l PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illiari ` NOV SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): 1255,ObD square feet `J I LOCATION: 1400 IN4to Street WORK ORDER NO: 77873 '?ryOf uctiT-,. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction --of . new-2-- - 0 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed offof N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Wafer Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS I Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Hcusin Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Trans onafion Public Services Hisfoac/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet o � 5 6j ��',, Y ,��wpacl1/(Jd C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed t is application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have 'denfified areas of probable impact or areas where a ditior al information i eeded to properly assess this proposal. e 1 �� i Signature of Dire for or Authorized Repre ntative Date CITI �)F RENTON � Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator December 6, 2006 David D. Bennitt PACCAR, Inc. 777 106"' Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 RE: PACCAR Parts Distribution Center (File No. LUA06-139, ECF) Dear Mr. Bennitt: The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) met on November 27th to consider your proposal. Based on concerns outlined in a citizen comment letter from neighbors in the North Renton Neighborhood, which was received by the City November 201h, the ERC tabled the Parts Distribution Center proposal pending a response from PACCAR. It is my understanding, based on a phone conversation that you had with Neil Watts, that a response letter from PACCAR is anticipated to be submitted to the City sometime next week (Dec. 1 1-15). In anticipation of the receipt of this letter I have reschedule the PACCAR Parts Distribution Center for a second review by the ERC on Monday December 18"i. If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, �. Ding Senior Planner cc Yellow file Parties of Record 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98057 RENTON .4HI: AD Or THE CURVE City of -enton Department of Planning / Building / Pub /orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): 255,000 square feet LOCATION: 1400 N 41" Street WORK ORDER NO: 77673 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element fthe Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housin Aesthetics Li htlGlam Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Histcri"21tural Preservation Airport Environment 70,000 Feel 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to property assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date Re: Concerns & Questions about the Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF for 41h & Garden: The Paccar/Kenworth site. The neighbors of the North Kenton neighborhood respectfully request further information and discussion regarding the proposed development plans located at 4s' & Garden on the PaccartKenworth property. The following is a compilation from our neighbors. Concerns: 41 Aesthetics: Bulk, mass, height, blockage of public views. Our concern is that the proposed building will be a stark contrast to our neighborhood because of its height, warehouse, and industrial nature. We have been excited to create (with the development of The Landing) a "Pedestrian Park" upscale area. if warehouses are built in such close proximity to our homes, it will be sure to decrease the property values of the closest neighbors, which in turn will decrease the comparative values in our whole neighborhood. #2 Noise: Short and long terra neighborhood noise impact. The height and size of the proposed building will be reflective to the traffic noise on 4"' Ave and in a proposed parking lot in the direction of the neighborhood because of the placement of the structure. Additionally, trucks using the building to load or unload also make a beeping noise which will be heard by surrounding neighbors. 43 Environmental/ Critical Areas: Geological, Wetlands, Aquifer protected area, hazard area. Building ON the Aquifer raises major concerns... even if it is only partially. Also, it is not clear what the impact or the legalities of building on a Seismic hazard area or near protected wetlands. #4 Transportation: Impacts on existing streets, increased truck traffic, and new trips per day. Because there will be a 5000 sq ft. office built with only some parking, traffic is sure to increase and possibly, overflow parking will end up on our streets. Truck traffic (vehicles over 26k in GW) even if designated to established truck routes, will be heard by our neighborhood coming and going and backing -up to load and/or unload. We are also concerned that there will be some trucks that do not stay on designated truck routes and will end up on the streets of our tiny neighborhood. This is already a problem and may increase to an unmanageable amount. Other Questions: Will the fact that the site is being build on both Aquifer and on a hazard site affect drainage for our area or cause other environmental impacts? Will there be greenery added or removed from the site? What is the plan for making it an attractive building? Do they realize that some neighbors will be looking out their windows at this new structure permanently? How will this site impact the property values of our neighborhood? Will there be adequate parking for the size of the structure that will keep overflow off of our streets? Can Kenworth place this building in another location on site that would eliminate these impacts from the neighborhood? For example, at the corner of North 61h and Garden? Have other locations been considered? How will this building be used? How many people will be working there? What types of noise will be generated by the activities? Will trucks be loading & unloading at night? DeVLLTY OF PENTOpLA�NING NOV 2 0 V06 ll /20l2006 RF- EINJED Is there a rendering of t the proposed building will look li , Has the city seen something from Paccar that they could share with neighbors? Will it look like the Boeing buildings or like a warehouse? How tall? Will it look like our community feels or will it be in stark contrast? Signed The following is a list of neighbors who would like to be included as a party of record. Due to our lack of time in compiling this letter and distributing it, there are many others who have commented and contributed yet didn't have a chance to be included here. Je fifer &Heath Knickerbocker 318 Garden Ave N Renton, WA 98057 jenknick@n comcast.net 425-260-3079 North Renton Neighborhood Association Attn: Rich Zwicker Post Office Box 326 Renton, Washington 98057 206-931-6358 Northrenton@man.com Angela & Frans Laulainen 314 Garden Ave N Renton, WA 98057 Ed & Lori Caldeira 316 Meadow AVE N. Renton, WA 98057 Tiffany Copertino 310 Garden AVE N. Renton, WA 98057 Sheree Dreewes 339 Meadow AVE N. Renton, WA 98057 Lee & Pamela Chicoine 406 Burnett Ave N Renton WA 98057 2 11 /20/2006 Rich Zwicker 446 Pelly Avenue North Renton, Washington 98057 425-277-1262 Richardzwicker@msn.com Mike & Susan Wade 405 Pelly Ave North Renton WA 98057 Brad & Kristi Hartman 206 Wells Ave N Renton WA 98057 Paul & Melinda Webb 541 Wells Ave N Renton WA 98057 Roger & Kimberly Marsh 225 Factory Ave N Renton WA 98057 Forest & Jennifer Stevens-Waicoff 123 Factory Ave N Renton, WA 98057 11 /20/2006 Jill Ding - RE: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Page 1 From: Jill Ding To: ALaulainen@lwsd.org; Jennifer; Zimmerman, Gregg Date: 11/15/2006 10:41:25 AM Subject: RE: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Dear Ms. Knickerbocker, Thank you for your comments regarding the proposed PACCAR Parts Distribution building. First I would like to clarify that the access off of N 4th Street that was listed in the Notice of Application would not serve as primary access to the structure. I appologize that this was not made clear in the Notice of Application. The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and 1-405. This complies with the previous requirements that were set forth for PACCAR regarding traffic. I have also looked into the height requirements for the proposed structure and the noise impacts that were identified in the SEPA Checklist that was submitted with the project application. The project site is currently zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). There is not a maximum height limit specified in the IH zone, so the'proposed maximum height of 76 feet complies with the City's height requirements. i The SEPA Checklist identifies the noise impacts of the proposed structure being limited to construction equipment and truck traffic and would only occur during the hours of 7 am to 5 pm. The City's noise ordinance limits construction noise to the following hours: Construction hours are from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm Monday through Friday and 9:00 am to 8:00 pm on Saturday and no work is allowed on Sundays. The proposal will be required to comply with the City's regulations regarding noise. Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions. I will also add you to the Party of Record list for this project, which means that you will receive any decisions on the proposed project. You can also come down to City Hall to look through the project file. Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us Ph: (425) 430-7219: Fx: (425) 430-7300 >>> "Jennifer' <jenknick@comcast.net> 11/14/2006 11:41 AM >>> Dear Ms. Ding and Mr. Zimmerman, As a neighbor in the North Renton Neighborhood, I want to make sure to let you know that my family (as well as several others) are utterly opposed to this facility being built. There are over 13+ children on our street (Garden Ave.) as well as a school. We do NOT want a 6 or 7 story distribution center that services "24 hours a day, 7 days a week" (from www.kenworth.com) to be built across the street from us! The environmental impact is too great..,. not only from a traffic standpoint, but also the noise pollution. There is also the ordinance violation issue which Ms. Laulainen mentioned to consider. I am in need of some help from you: I would like to let our viewpoint be heard but have no clue how to do this. I would really appreciate some help. Thank you, -- - -- - - --- J—ill Ding-- RE: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Page 2 Jennifer Knickerbocker AVP, MOMS Club of Renton ienknick(a)comcast. net 425-260-3079 www.momsclubofrenton.org cc Heath Knickerbocker, husband Melinda Webb, neighbor Susan Wade, neighbor Kristi Hartman, neighbor -----Original Message ----- From. Jill Dingfmailto:JDinc(a)ci.renton.wa.usl Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:39 AM To: ALaulainen a( ))lwsd.org Cc: Gregg Zimmerman; lenknick(a)comcast.net Subject: Re: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Ms. Laulainen, Thank you for your comments. I will look into this issue for you and will try and get back to you before the end of the week. Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 iding(a)ci.renton.wa.us Ph: (425) 430-7219 Fx: (425) 430-7300 >>> "Laulainen, Angela" <ALaulainen(d),lwsd.org> 11/13/2006 1:57 PM >>> Ms. Ding, I read a notice that was posted at the corner of N. 4th and Garden AVE regarding a Proposed Land Use of the existing Paccar Property. The number of the notice was LUA06-139 ECF and it was for Paccar Parts Distribution. I read on the notice a proposal to use N- 4th Street as the access point to this new facility. North Fourth Street is actually on the neighborhood side of the property (a residential street) so according to existing City Code, all trucks over 26,000 pounds are required to enter and leave Paccar on the entrances which are already truck routes, like the entrance at N. 5th. Kenworth/Paccar has been very responsive to neighbors concerns and have made efforts already to have trucks enter at the correct entrances of which neighbors are very appreciative. My concern is that on the notice I didn't see any access road to be put in within the property from the entrance at N. 6th (truck route entrance) to this new proposed facility. Do you know if this facility going to be used mostly for offices or for things more along the lines of shipping and receiving type of activity with big trucks? The notice stated that City Code would be followed so I think that an access road Jill Ding• RE: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Page 3 within the property should be included in the plans if they plan to use it for large trucks. Please let me know if this is being considered. Thank you! Sincerely, Angela Laulainen 314 Garden AVE N Renton, WA 98057 (425) 227-7905 Cc Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator City of Renton Jennifer Knickerbocker, Neighbor CC: Knickerbocker', 'Heath; splash nw@aol.com, suse.wade@yahoo.com; Webb', 'Paul and Melinda ;fill Ding - Re: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Page 1 From: Jill Ding To: Laulainen, Angela Date: 11/15/2006 10:18:54 AM Subject: Re: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECF Ms. Laulainen, I went back and reviewed the proposal that was submitted and it appears that the access off of N 4th Street would only be a secondary access to the proposed building. I realize this was not clarified in the Notice of Application that you received and I appologize. The primary access to the site would be provided through the main west gate at N 6th Street & Garden Avenue N. Truck routes would be limited to arterial streets located north of N 6th Street: Garden Avenue N, Park Avenue N, N 8th Street, and I- 405. Please let me know if you have additional questions. The file is available here at City Hall for you to look at if you wish to. Sincerely, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner City of Renton 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 jding@ci.renton.wa.us Ph: (425) 430-7219 Fx: (425) 430-7300 >>> "Laulainen, Angela" <ALaulainen@lwsd.org> 11/13/2006 1:57 PM >>> Ms. Ding, I read a notice that was posted at the corner of N. 4th and Garden AVE regarding a Proposed Land Use of the existing Paccar Property. The number of the notice was LUA06-139 ECF and it was for Paccar Parts Distribution. I read on the notice a proposal to use N. 4th Street as the access point to this new facility. North Fourth Street is actually on the neighborhood side of the property (a residential street) so according to existing City Code, all trucks over 26,000 pounds are required to enter and leave Paccar on the entrances which are already truck routes, like the entrance at N. 6th. Kenworth/Paccar has been very responsive to neighbors concerns and have made efforts already to have trucks enter at the correct entrances of which neighbors are very appreciative. My concern is that on the notice I didn't see any access road to be put in within the property from the entrance at N. 6th (truck route entrance) to this new proposed facility. Do you know if this facility going to be used mostly for offices or for things more along the lines of shipping and receiving type of activity with big trucks? The notice stated that City Code would be followed so I think that an access road within the property should be included in the plans if they plan to use it for large trucks. Please let me know if this is being considered. Thank you! LAH Ding - Re: Proposed Land Use LUA06-139 ECIF Page 2 Sincerely, Angela Laulainen 314 Garden AVE N Renton, WA 98057 (425)227-7905 Cc Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator City of Renton Jennifer Knickerbocker, Neighbor CC: jenknick@comcast.net; Zimmerman, Gregg City or r,enton Department of Planning / Building / Pub)— ,Vorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: - COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2UU6 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. I PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan ][lien SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross): 265,000 square feet LOCATION: 1400 N 4" Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77673 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandrShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilifies Trens ortation Public services HisfonalCultural Pres.- --Airport Environment 10.000 Feet 14, 000 Feet B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS y nU� X?-) C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS �,% We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addihonal information 'zAteeded to propedy assess this proposal. ` Ud_'L, 1111cl0c, Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Dates City of r(enton Department of Planning / Building / Publ, Jorks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: _ , COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOVEMBER 6, 2006 APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. CITY OF REN(oi, PROJECT MANAGER: Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet NOY US BUILDING AREA (gross): 255,000 square feet �� LOCATION: 1400 N 4" Street WORK ORDER NO: 77673 BUILDING DIVISI( SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed offof N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Lard/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS A Element or the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Histono'Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet C. CODE E--RELA TEDCCO�MMENN,TS Z{GIG We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or ZZa ditional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. 111741 ignatur of Dir or or Authorized Represen five Date A �NrrO NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: November S. 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA08-139. ECF PROJECT NAME: Pacer Pens Distrlbulion PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The epplicanl ie requesting Environmental (SEPA?Review Wr Ne consiruclion of 355 000 square foot parts diatdbution center, which includes a 5,000 Ppuare foot o ,ce The plbb—d building hA Heald Ina IPP, (INJ,u AcregssMt I TB fee proposBaaoE N N14M F—I ahee. FillpmPlecl III 15 ceeso)caltrd ,Alnda se c haaam area. o Me Sde Is T PROJECT LOCATION: 1400 N 4° Stret OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIDATED (ON6-MI: As the Leatl Agency, the City of Renton as datermined Met aignlfimnt envinnmenbl impacts are unlikely lbresult from the proposed project Therefore, a M sfk under Me RC Commenllpedotls brytha p�pen andsing the pp5onal ONM arer In ease 1 0911e nmice testa DNS IN be nq comment period lolbvnn Proposed DNS- gels, Into a single comment MRigdaWd (0N6-M) 1 144ay appeal g issuance of the Thnshok Determinatlo� of NonSgnllrance- penod will follow Te issuance of Ne DNSM PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October Jt, 20W NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November E, 2008 APPLICANTIPROJECT CONTACT PERSON: David Bennlll, Paccar lee.: Tel:(425) 46e 41C; Eml: dbennldMpatta ,, Permgel-1—Requeebd: Envlronmantal(SEPA) Review, Olher Parmlb, which may be required: Utility Coetructlan, Fin, and Building Permlla Requaated LDoe creatvioienwwedNS:aun lepsplicadon may PlennoinngD, lSeBoIUntlelM1lcM1IFnn9oiIcoPeIl —andtWoDnrpaCriMnitay gDNeaapRlale, rtp1 0o5rt5s S Deh Gliidyant Services Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: NIA CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zaning—d Use: The Iubject site is di,1,1 1Employment Area- Induatrial)EA-I) on[he Cary of RI,Mn DOmplehenslVe Land Use Map and Heavy Intlualrlal tHl) on the City e Zoning Map. taI Doo iPt the, EveluatetM1e Pr —I Vrnlecb Envuonmental (SEPA) Ch—fiI, elppmant Regulation. Uead Far Project MHlgetlon: Th,,project will ba sublect to the ClIII SEPA ordinan Pnppeed MRlgadon Mevurea: T'na toilonng Mlligelbn Measures will likely ba Imppmd m Me pnpoaed pmlecl. These recommended M'M1igation Measure ab,11— proect Impetta IKK covered by existing mbe and regubtbna as rteb above. • Te applirent will bengpited lop ay the appnPriale Tnnsporta Mn Mlbgatlop Fep; • TTre epplicanl will De npuiredropey Ills appropriate Fin Mitipatbn Fee; Constrvciion will be required b —1, .11 the Department of Ecology Manuel for erosion and sedimanfa5on Sbrmwater manegeman! canMN shall fb required ro comply wRd ma npuiremenh oufl/ned in the 3005 King ..amry Surlece Water Oesgn Manual. Comments on the above apPliwtion must be aubmitled , wuting W Jill Dmg, Sen1- Planne', 13—lb meet .,.I DivHion. 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5'IC PM on November 30, 200. If you have IU-1pna about paNy of on br mau. woman me vmiaPtmanager. n„von.wnai'eUmm�, wry �ornmama wol a mmeo�aliy ee�omadalparry orfa area will be noguea or env eecaion on IN. ptb_ CONTACT PERSON: JIII K. Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (420) 430-7219; Eml: iding@pi..btgn. Ua Gubelines and Regulations: 9E-OJC Drainage Standards and otne epplbable If yb, would It, to be made a pad of record to receive further information on thin proposed codes end regula4ons as appropnate. Y Project, complete INIe form and return to: CAy of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 90055. NameIFlle NO P.—Pads D'Istnbu6onfLUA0E 139, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRES5. TELEPHONE NO.: CERTII+ICATION I, hereby certify that S copies of the above documeg1 jNtlr - 14 were posted by me in conspicuous places or nearby the described property ais%5"�f/i/ t DATE: //! e�' i FofAt SIGNED: ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me. a Notary Public, in and for the State of Washington residing in � h /// C Q I1tteWSe• ig�. . on the day of P mb" W R NO A BLIC SIG TURF: CITY OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 61h day of November, 2006, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Ltr, NOA, Environmental Checklist, & PMT's documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached David D. Bennitt - PACCAR Inc. Owner/Contact/Applicant Surrounding Property Owners See Attached (Signature of Sender): �['�,° �((✓ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: o - -) - b(,, Notary Public in and folt4b Sate of Notary(Print): U!u1_1,)>1 ��i�crtl My appointment expires: Project Name: Paccar Parts Distribution Project Number: LUA06-139, ECF template - affidavit of service by mailing AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Stewart Reinbold Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept.' Environmental Review Section c/o Department of Ecology Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 3190 1601" Ave SE 39015 — 172"d Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Bellevue, WA 98008 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region ' Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., MS-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172ntl Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers' KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Preservation* Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin Attn: Stephanie Kramer PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 PO Box 48343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Jamey Taylor * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Mr. Micheal E. Nicholson Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 SE 72"1 Place 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liason Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6300 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01 W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Bellevue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Title Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, PMTs, and the notice of application. * Also note, do not mail Jamey Taylor any of the notices she gets hers from the web. Only send her the ERC Determination paperwork. template - affidavit of service by mailing Sla+ec�genc �� 172305911106 082305916403 756460005504 ALMONT GARRETT L BERGER H] HER BOEING COMPANY THE 333 SUNSET BLVD N R BERGER HONDA NDA 100 N RIVERSIDE M/C 5003-4027 RENTON WA 98055 410 SUNSET BLVD N CHICAGO IL 60606 RENTON WA 98055 135230052502 135230122503 135230118501 BOSWELL KAREN E BUTTNICK MORRIS CHO GYU DONG 344 MEADOW AVE N 4875 90TH PL SE 1525 N 4TH ST RENTON WA 98055 MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 RENTON WA 98055 135230130001 135230060505 135230053500 CITY OF RENTON DAVIS DILBECK LLC DEVOL MARTIN+ROBERTS MARIAN 10SS S GRADY WAY 1130 S 42ND ST 336 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98055 SPRINGFIELD OR 97478 RENTON WA 98055 756460010504 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR 129508 DREEWES SHE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR FAKHA ZADEH M HADI 339 MEADOW W AVEN 339 MEADOW AVE N 300 SW 7TH ST PO BOX PO BOX 78404 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 RENTON WA 98055 135230023503 135230058509 135230061008 FETTEROLF DAVID W FLATIRON ESTATES LLC GARDNER RONALD L 338 GARDEN AVE N 5164 150TH PL SE 337 FACTORY AVE N RENTON WA 98055 BELLEVUE WA 98006 RENTON WA 98055 135230021507 135230030003 135230022000 GOETZ MATTHEW M GREGG CHRISTOPHER GEORGE+JE HAMMILL L NICOLE 356 GARDEN AVE N 353 MEADOW AVE N 350 GARDEN AVE N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 135230024006 135230051009 135230128500 JACOBSON COLLEEN B JONES TROY H JOOS PAUL N+DESNEE M 336 GARDEN AVE N 17328 185TH PL SE 13510 SE 50TH PL RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98058 BELLEVUE WA 98006 172305909506 135230059507 135230031001 KERB MARY JO MUNSON RONALD & ELIZABETH ONOFERSON RICHARD J 22225 SE 4TH ST 623 CEDAR AVE S 10653 CORNELL AVE S SAMMAMISH WA 98073 RENTON WA 98055 SEATTLE WA 98178 135230031506 082305912907 135230052007 PIEPER EARL R & FRANCES M RIBE LLC ROLLER ROBERT L 345 MEADOW AVE N 4205 NE 203RD ST 350 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98055 LAKE FOREST PARK WA 98155 RENTON WA 98155 135230120507 082305908707 135230032009 SEATTLE OPERA ASSOCIATION TEMPLE SHAARAY TEFILA THOMAS PAMELA S C/O GREYHAWKE CAPITAL ADVI5O P O BOX 9248 340 PEMBERWICK RD #1ST FLR 341 MEADOW AVE N SEATTLE WA 98109 GREENWICH CT 06831 RENTON WA 98055 135230127502 135230029500 135230022505 TONDA LILA JEAN TRAN PHOI T VAN DYKE JERRY+KELLY 528 EDMONDS AVE NE 359 MEADOW AVE N 346 GARDEN AVE N RENTON WA 98056 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 135230124509 756460009506 135230053005 WALDENBURGER FRIEDEL WIEMEYER CHARLES A II WILSON NAOMI 345 FACTORY PL N 1220 N 5TH ST 340 MEADOW AVE N RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 RENTON WA 98055 City of ..enton Department of Planning /Building /Pu_..- Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: NOVEMBER 20, 2006 APPLICATION NO: LUA06-139, ECF DATE CIRCULATED: NOV APPLICANT: Paccar Inc. PROJECT MANAG Jill Din PROJECT TITLE: Paccar Parts Distribution PLAN REVIEW: Jan Illian � SITE AREA: 653,400 square feet BUILDING AREA (gross)! 255,000 square feet LOCATION: 1400 N 41h Street I WORK ORDER NO: 77673 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Environment Probable Minor Impacts Probable Major Impacts More Information Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services HistoricJCulturaI Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional inforl needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date CITY )F RENTON Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Kathy Keolker, Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator January 23, 2007 David Bennitt PACCAR 777 106`h Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 SUBJECT: PACCAR Parts Distribution Center Environmental Determination Reconsideration Request (LUA06-139 ECF) Dear Mr, Bennitt This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in response to your request for reconsideration, dated January 4, 2007, of the SEPA Determiniation of Non -Significance — Mitigated (DNS-M) issued December 18, 2006. You asked for reconsideration of the mitigation measures imposed by the ERC on the DNS-M, in particular Mitigation Measure #4, which limited truck traffic to the distribution center to the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm. The basis of your request was that "the loading docks are strategically placed on the north and east sides of the building to direct noise away from the residential neighborhood. The anticipated 20 truck per day are not expected to impose an adverse noise impact to the neighborhood with these design considerations." The ERC have completed their review of the reconsideration request and the previous SEPA determination stands, therefore the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner scheduled for March 6, 2007 will move forward. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Jill K. Ding / Senior Planner C cc: Hearing Examiner Parties of Record 055South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 � "This nanerrnntains:AW recycled mat: :::=�. 10^mrmfmnsumsr RENTON A11EAD or TIIL (: '_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING NOTICE January 29, 2007 To: Gregg Zimmerman, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator I. David Daniels, Fire Chief Alex Pietsch, EDNSP Administrator From: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning Meeting Date: Monday, January 29, 2007 Time: 3:00 PM Location: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 Agenda listed below. Cedar River Business Park (Ding) LUA06-172, SA-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan approval and Environmental Review for the construction of four office/retail/light industrial buildings totaling 143,307 square feet in area on a 539,272 square foot (12.4 acre) site located within the Light Industrial (IL) zoning designation and within the Employment Area - Valley overlay. Parking would be provided within 408 proposed parking stalls located around the perimeter of the buildings within a surface parking lot. Access to the project site would be provided via two commercial driveway entrances off of Lind Avenue SW. A Category 2 wetland is located along the northern property line and a Category 3 wetland is located along the southern and eastern property lines. T-Mobile Monopole Kennvdale (Ding) LUA06-173, CU-H, ECF The applicant is requesting Administrative Conditional Use Permit approval and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the installation of a 59-foot 11-inch Monopole 1 structure and associated equipment cabinets. The project site is approximately 600 square feet of WSDOT right-of-way. Access to the project site would be provided off of Meadow Avenue N. cc: K. Keolker, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, EDNSP Director O J. Gray, Fire Prevention N. Watts, P/B/PW Development Services Director O F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner L. Rude, Fire Prevention J. Medzegian, Council P. Hahn, P/B/PW Transportation Systems Director R. Lind, Economic Development L. Warren, City Attorney 011*,nV,V0___-1 NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED (DNS-M) DATE: November 6, 2006 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA06-139, ECF PROJECT NAME: Paccar Parts Distribution PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a new 255,000 square foot parts distribution center, which includes a 5,000 square foot office. The proposed building would have a maximum height of 76 feet. The subject site totals 653,400 square feet (15 acres) in area and is zoned Heavy Industrial (IH). Access to the site is proposed off of N 4th Street. The propject site is located within a seismic hazard area. PROJECT LOCATION: 1400 N 4' Street OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE, MITIGATED (DNS-M): As the Lead Agency, the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore, as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110, the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS-M process to give notice that a DNS- M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). A 14-day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: October 31, 2006 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: November 6, 2006 APPLICANT/PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: David Sennitt, Paccar Inc.; Tel: (425) 468-7410; Eni dbennitt@paccar.com Permits/Review Requested: Environmental (SEPA) Review, Other Permits which may be required: Utility Construction, Fire, and Building Permits Requested Studies: Geotechnical and Drainage Reports Location where application may be reviewed: PlanninglBuildinglPublic Works Department, Development Services Division, Sixth Floor Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: N/A CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Zoning/Land Use: The subject site is designated Employment Area - Industrial (EA-1) on the City of Renton Comprehensive Land Use Map and Heavy Industrial (HI) on the City's Zoning Map. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: Environmental (SEPA) Checklist Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The project will be subject to the City's SEPA ordinance, 4-4-030 Development Guidelines and Regulations; 4-6-030 Drainage Standards and other applicable codes and regulations as appropriate. Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. • The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Transportation Mitigation Fee; • The applicant will be required to pay the appropriate Fire Mitigation Fee; • Construction will be required to comply with the Department of Ecology Manual for erosion and sedimentation control, and • Stormwater management control shall be required to comply with the requirements outlined in the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services Division, 1065 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on November 20, 2006. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact the Project Manager. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner; Tel: (425) 430-7219; Eml: jding@ci.renton.wa.us PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION If you would like to be made a party of record to receive further information on this proposed project, complete this form and return to: City of Renton, Development Planning, 1055 So. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Name/File No.: Paccar Parts Distribution/LUA06-139, ECF NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NO.: CIT' OF RENTON Kathy Keolker, Mayor November 6. 2006 David D. Bennitt PACCAR Inc. 777 106th Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Subject: Paccar Parts Distribution LUA06-139, ECF Planning/Building/PublicWorks Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E., Administrator Dear Mr. Bennitt: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on November 27, 2006. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 if you have any questions Sincerely, Jill K. Ding Senior Planner 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%receded material. 30 % —t-n—, RENTON AHEAD UY THE (:UHVE i �o7a 139 City of Renton LAND USE PERMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: PACCAR Inc ADDRESS: 777 — 1061h Ave. N.E. CITY: Bellevue, WA ZIP: 98004 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 468-7410 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: COMPANY (if applicable): ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP: TELEPHONE NUMBER CONTACT PERSON NAME: David D. Bennitt COMPANY (if applicable): PACCAR Inc ADDRESS: 777- 106th Ave. N.E. CITY: Bellevue ZIP: 98004 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND E-MAIL ADDRESS: dbennitt@paccar.com (425) 468-7410 — Office (425) 864-1078- Cell PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: New Renton Parts Distribution Center PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 1400 N. 4tn Street KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 722300001004 EXISTING LAND USE(S): Heavy Industrial IH PROPOSED LAND USE(S): Heavy Industrial IH EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): EXISTING ZONING: H-1 PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): H-1 SITE AREA (in square feet): 653,400 SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable): NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable): Q:web/pw/devserv/fum planning/mastempp.doc 1 10/06/06 F JECT INFORMATION cont ed) NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): I PROJECT VALUE: $ 12,500.000 NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (ifapplicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 255,000 sf SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): NET FLOOR AREA OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): 255,000 sf NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): 30 IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA ONE ❑ AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS AND LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE QUARTER OF SECTION _, TOWNSHIP _, RANGE_, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. See Exhibit "A" I TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES I List all land use applications being applied for: 1. Environmental Checklist Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ I AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I I, (Print Name/s) �v i 3�) o , IR cr�r"I , T- declare that I am (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or _ D•� the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that b ov C n. ''i t "%N , � j signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the { uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Owner/Representative) OIL t = v Notary Public in and for the State of Washington + ►4 Notary (Print)%,nA, A NIL 16556L �h`sRwl►td ��Ig1111N1 My appointment expires: 17 - .ROXO Q:web/pw/devsev fomrs/planning/mastempp.doc 2 10/06/06 EXHIBIT A DODDS INC. BELT—= UE. WA 98007 PACCAR DEi .rof,ect No. 85123 Mmy S. 1986 Revised November 30. 1987 Revised June 13, 1991 All those portions of she south half of Section 8. Township 23 North. Range S East, W.K. in the C.ty of Renton. King County, Washington. and of Rcnran Farm A=age, as recorded in Voll— 12 of Flats. page 37. records of said oounry inciuding vacated streets and avenues as would ary ch by operation of law, and of Car Works Addition to the City of Rennin. as re-cord-d in Voiurr: 15 of Plats. page 47, tecmds of said county, including vacated sa— . avenues. and alleys as wouid auach by operation of law, desert ::s follows: Cotoxnencng at the cast quarter cor.rer of said Sector 8, from which point she northeast calms of said so== bears N01'02'09"E; the= N89'27'25"W, along the north line of said south half. 2647.56 feet to as existing center of section montunent: thence SOITT40"W, along the rwrth-south censer of section line of said Section 8, a distance of 60.00 feet to the southe:ly margin of North 8th Street said point being on the sotniz lire of the north 30.00 feet of Block 1 jot Remma Fa= A=agc, and the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N89'Z7'25"W, along the sotub lire of the north 30.00 feet of said Block 1 and its westerly prolongation. 986.13 feet m a point on the west line of Block 2 of said pier thence S01'05'34"W, along said west line and its south--riy prolongation. 1235.01 feet m the southwest come: of Block 5 of said plat. said point being on the easterly marpa of Garden Avenue Noah; thence SOl'05'34"W, along said easterly margin, 1099.75 feet to the northwest cer..cr of Lot 1. Block 4, of aforesaid Car Warts Addition to the City of Rennin: then S89'23'14"E. along the nosh line of said Lot 1 and its ea=zdy prolongation 119.00 feet to the northwest camcz of Lot 10 of said Block 4; dmtLce S01'05'S1"W, along the west lire of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of said Block 4, a diem= of 226.95 feet m the southerly line of said Block 4; the= S89'23'14"E, along the southerly line of said Block 4 and its easteriy ptviongation. 869.30 feet m a point on the nosh -south cerrsr of section line of said Section 8; thee= S89'23'14"H, along the south line of Block 13 and its easteriy prolongation (if any) of said plat. 248.21 feet m the westetiy margin of vacated Houser Way North (aiLa. Railroad Avenue); thence N23'50'20"E, along the westeriy margin of said vac—i Houser Way North. 414.23 feet to a point of tangency with a 789.02 foot radius circular curve to the left: thence northerly along said curve and .said westerly margin dm7ugh a central angle of 22'50'00" as arc dismrce of 314.44 feet to a point of tangency; 85123A-PARCEL - 1 Printed - 06/1311991 B:ffiIBIT A D=DS ENC-N=- LNG BELL--VUE, WA 98007 PACCAR DEI Project No. M 123 May 8, 1986 Revised Novesaer 30, 1987 Revisedlune 0, 1991 Page 2 of 2 dm= NOl'00'20"E, along said westerly margin 162158 feet to it point of u=gcacy wish a 543.69 foot radius c:L—=iar curve m the lcft: the— amzhe:y, along said curve and said westerly margin, through a central an3ie of 00'07'f4" an arc distance of 1.25 feet m a Point on dW southwesteriy mar,in of the Buriington Northsaa Railroad nght-of- way, said -pint being on a 691.78 foot radius circular curve to the left. from wnich paint the r_uter bean S39'Z718"W; thence northwest- erty, along said *curve and said margin, through a censsl angle of 08'27'46", an art: distance of 102.18 feet: :hence continuing along said onargin N59*00'08'W III= feet to a ptaat of tangency with a 757.01 foot radius c'ir a curet m the right; thence northweswrly, along said carve and said margin through a ctaasi angle of 14 46'33", an art: distance of 195.2Z feet to the south line of the north 60.00 feet of the south half of said Section 8; th—ce N89'27'25"W, along said south line, 98.96 feet to the TRUE POINT OF HEGLtININCt. Containing agrnvumaxly 3-496,945 square feet or 82.5745 acres. more or less. h � Div °yac 1Arla 85123A•PARCEL - 2 Printed - 0&17/IWI King County: Parcel Viewer map fray j Page I of I http://www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer/MapFrame.htm 9/28/2006 Candidate Results Page 1 of 1 One Parcel Found: Parcel Number Address 7223000010 1601 N 8TH ST ASearch Menu http://www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer/query process.asp?apn=7223000010 9/28/2006 Parcel 722300-0010 PACCAR 1NC Parcel Data Parcel 722300-0010 Present Use Cade 223 Name PACCARINC Zoning IN Site Address 1601 N 8TH ST 98055 Jurisdiction RENTON Geo Area 70-40 Spec Area 540-10 Property Type Code C Black I& Lot Legal Description RENTON FARM ACREAGE ADD BLOCKS 1-2-5-6 TOW VACATED STS ADJ LESS P C R"LESS ST OF RENTON FARM ACREAGE: ADD TGW BLOCKS 4-5-13 TGW VACATED STS & ALLEY OF CAR WORKS ADD TO RENTON TGW PORTION OF SE 1,4 OF SW 1/4 OF SECTION 08-23-05 LY ELY OF GARDEN AVE & NLY OF CAR WORKS ADD TO RENTON TGW VACATED STS & ALLEYS ADJ TGW PORTION OF W 1/2 OF SE 1/4 LY WLY OF PC R R/W & N OF CAR WORKS ADD TO RENTON IOW VACATED STS ADJ LESS PORTION DEEDED TO PACCAR INC: UNDER Land Data Land SgFt 2,876.266 Use Exemption Acres 66.03 Environmental No Water WATER DISTRICT Topography No Sewer/Septic PUBLIC Traffic No Views Rainier No Sound No Olympics No Lk Wash No Cascades No Lk Sam. No Territorial No LWRiv/Crk No Seattle No Other No Waterfront Location No Footage 0 Rank No Access Rights No TidelShore No Prox. Influence No Restricted No Poor Quality No Building / Improvement Gross Sq Ft 408,065 Net Sq FT 407,105 Building Nbr I) ABANDONED OFFICE (TEAR DOWN) Gross Sq Ft 28,244 Year Built 1959 Net Sq Ft 29,244 ERective Yr 1959 Construction MASONRY Page 1 of 4 Parcel 722300-0010 PACCAR INC Building / Improvement Building Nbr 2) OLD R & D CENTER Gross Sq Ft 7,440 Year Built 1972 Net Sq Ft 7,440 Effective Yr 1972 Construction PREFAB STEEL. Building Nbr 3) KENW'ORTH MAIN PLANT Year Built 1993 Effecfive Yr 1993 Building Nbr 4)DYNO BUILDING Year Built 1993 Effective Yr 19911 Building Nbr 5) WASTE HANDLING TREATMENT Year Built 1999 Effective Yr 1999 Building Nbr 6) PUMPHOUSE Year Built 1973 Effective Yr 1973 Building Nbr 7) NEW R & D BUILDING Year Built 2004 Effective Yr 2004 Gross Sq Ft 312,273 Net Sq Ft 312,273 Construction STRUCTURAL STEEL Gross Sq Ft 5,000 Net Sq Ft 5,000 Construction PREFAB STEEL Gross Sq FI 20 373 Net Sq Ft 20,373 Construction PREFAB STEEL Gross Sq Ft 100 Net Sq Ft 100 Construction MASONRY Gross Sq Ft 25,260 Net Sq Ft 24,300 Construction PREFAB STEEL Building Nbr S) NEW TRUCK DECKING (125' X 75') Gross Sq Ft 9,375 Year Built 1993 Net Sq Ft 9,375 Effective Yr 1993 Construction PREFAB STEEL Page 2 of 4 Parcel 722300-0010 PACCAR INC Tax Roll History Appraised Taxable Tax Yr Omit Ta Value Land Val Imp Val Total Land Val Imp Val Total Ye Raeeon 2007 0 28,229, 300 23, 350, 700 51, 580, 00C 28,229, 300 23, 350,700 51,560, 000 2116 0 27, 750, 30G 22, 494,200 50,294,501 27, 750, 300 22, 494,201 50,244,500 2005 0 25, 886, 300 23, 579, 000 99, 465, 300 25, 886, 300 23, 579,000 99,965, 300 MI4 0 25, 666, 30C 23, 285, 20a 99,171, 500 25, 686, 300 23, 285, 2DC 49,171, 50C 2003 0 25, 886,3DC 23, 107, 300 98, 993, 600 25, 886, 300 23, 107, 300 98, 993, 600 2032 0 2_, 571, 900 34, 375, 900 55,9-7, 600 952, 21, 571, 900 39, 375, 900 55, 997, B00 200: 0 21, 571, 900 4C, 780, 700 62, 600 2., 171, 900 40, 78C,'00 62, 352, 600 200D 0 21, 571, 500 23, 988, 600 95,060, 500 21, 571, 900 2s, 968, 600 45, 110, 500 1999 0 21, 571, 900 49, 835, 005 66, 906,905 i, 571, 900 49, 835, 005 66, 406, 905 199E C 14, 381, 30D 23, 988, 600 17,e 69, 900 1997 0 7,272, 200 23, 488, 600 30,760, a00 1996 0 7,272,2C0 23, 486, 600 30,760,800 Sales History E Number Sale Date Sale Price Instrument Sale Reason 1282695 12/1/1992 4 War -my Deed Other Review History Tax Ye Review# Review Type Appeal Val Hearing Dt Settlement Val Hearing Result Status 2006 0502W Local Appeal 53,180.500 01/01/1900 Active Number Type Value B060285 Accessory, 160000 New B040250 Other 6500 B040207 Other 34000 B030634 Remodel 32750 B030281 Remodel 10000 B03 03 08 Remodel 150000 B030189 Remodel 38057 Permit History Issue Date Jurisdiction Review Dt 5/30/2006 RENTON 07/28/2006 6/7/2004 RENTON 08/04/2004 5/6/2004 RENTON 08/20/2004 1/16/2004 RENTON 06/04/2004 6/25/2003 RENTON 06/04/2004 6/20/2003 RENTON 06/04/2004 5,/19,12003 RENTON 06/192003 Home Improvement Exemption Exempt No Bldg No Date Bee Date Comp Beg Yr Est Cost Page 3 of 4 Parcel 722300-0010 PACCAR INC Internet Resources Summary Report for your area: http://www.metrokc.gov/Assessor/AmaReports/2006/Co=ceriaV540.pdf Visit Property Tax Information System to access your tax hill: http://www.metrokc.gov/fmance/treasury/kcmxmfo/ Visit Records Office's web site to view Excise Tax Affidavits: httpJ/146.I29.54-93:8193/localtratico/menu.asp Visit GIS Parcel Viewer f rthe map of the parcel: http7/www5.metrokc.gov/parcelviewer?PIN=7223I100010 Glossary of Terms http://www.metrokc.gov/Assessor/eRealPwperty/GlossaryTerms.h=l Page 4 of 4 ParcelP.esults Page 1 of 1 1 Parcels Found: Record 1 Parcel Number Address Zipcode Taxpayer Property Report Districts Report ODES Permits 7223000010 1601 N 8TH ST 98055 PACCARINC Available Available Available vww5.metroke.gov/parcelviewer/parcels_details.asp?iDValue=7223000010 9/28/2006 SW 08 ,23-05 COU CEPARiMENT o}ASSESSMENTS ^�^'• J _ - Al x. 5e ! 1 ?C> - OQ� 4 I i i r ..n i �42 I 11 R.— FARM AC REAGE _ OIs i _ I t rr P �h. },• {m d_ I W T? UPWOflKS AODTO EN•^L'i DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: WAIVED BY: MODIFIED BY: COMMENTS: Calculations i Colored Maps for Display, Construction Mitigation Description zANDa Deed of Right -of -Way Dedication Density Worksheet, Drainage Control Planz Drainage Report z Elevations, Architectural 3 ANDs Environmental Checklist; Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)n Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) a Flood Hazard Data Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report zANe3 Grading Plan, Conceptual z Grading Plan, Detailedz Habitat Data Report 4 Improvement Deferral z Irrigation Plano King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site Landscape Plan, Conceptual< Tps rr t ( r Landscape Plan, Detailed< Legal Description a List of Surrounding Property Owners< Mailing Labels for Property Owners a Map of Existing Site Conditions Master Application Form a Monument Cards (one per monument) , Neighborhood Detail Map a This requirement may be waived by: 1 Property Services Section 2, Public Works Plan Review Seciion 3. Building Section 4 Development Planning Section PROJECT NAME: PACCri f DG DATE , rrj DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS This requirement may be waived by: ` 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: I 1=r4 -Pooc4s Pze>o�-j PD c- 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: I,->�Z-/(,� 4. Development Planning Section October 26, 2006 RE: New Renton Parts Distribution Center Renton, Washington The project will consist of the construction of a new 255,000 sf Parts Distribution Center which includes a 5,000 sf office on approximately 15 acres in the southwest comer of the PACCAR property located in Renton, Washington. A Site Plan has been attached for your review and consideration. The facility will be fully secured with gates and fences. There will not be a separate guardhouse for this facility. The property is zone Heavy Industrial (HI). SITE • The building will sit on approximately 15 acres of relatively flat land in the northeast comer of the intersection of Garden Avenue N and N 4 th Street in Renton, Washington. The site slopes very slightly (about 2%) from the north down to the south. • The site is an old superfund site that has been capped with clean soils. We may need to remove some soils from the site during construction. The design requirements and specifications associated with this work will be handled by PACCAR as a part of their Environmental Design. • The existing vacated office building will be demolished prior to the start of any earthwork. • It is assumed that all earthworks associated with this project will be completed by a certified environmental contractor. • Other than at the front of the building and along the streets, Landscaping design will meet or exceed City of Renton minimums. • Site lighting design should be similar to that provided at the adjacent Kenworth plant and R&D Building. 50 foot poles with metal halide fixtures. • It is expected that all utilities are readily available either immediately on site or in the adjacent ROW. Distribution Center • The Parts Distribution Center (PDC) portion of the facility will be identical to the PACCAR Oklahoma facility relative to size and column/racking layout. • The underlying soils are very poor and the building will be supported per the recommendation of the structural engineer (Hart Crowser). The slab will be a'floating' structural slab. The slab will not need to be'superflat', but given the racking height it will be required to meet some sort of flatness requirements. • The above slab portion of the DC will be a pre-engineered, design/build, 'Butler Building' type structure with the actual design of the steel, the roof, and the upper portion of the exterior walls by the metal building supplier. At this time we are assuming that the General Contractor will select the metal building supplier. • The building will have two mezzanine structures. These will be design/build elements by the metal building supplier. • Distribution Center will have a 30-foot interior clear height. • The distribution center roof will be the metal building suppliers standard single ply material with insulation sandwiched between the metal roof and the exterior membrane.1 • Up to a height of 10 feet or so the exterior walls will be pre -cast concrete panels, exposed on both sides. Above this height will be the metal building supplier's standard insulated metal building panels with exposed metal on both sides. This is the same design as the Kenworth Renton plant. • The distribution center will be heated to 65 F. It will be ventilated, but specific ventilation requirements are not yet determined. • Interior lighting design will be per PACCAR Facility Standards. P 0. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone (425) 468-7400 PACCAR Building 777-106' Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 RE: New Renton Parts Dist ion Center . Con't. • The sprinkler system in the distribution center will be specified, but not designed. It will be a 'deluge' type system so that in -rack sprinklers are not required. OFFICE • The office building will be per PACCAR Facility Standards. • Only the exterior facade will require special consideration. The facade will require the re -use of the brick from the building that currently exists on the site which will be demolished as a part of this project. The demolition will be done by the general contractor. Some additional Assumptions All mechanical and electrical systems will be design/build through the General Contractor's subcontractors. Selection of the General Contractors will complete by the end of October 2006. All Contractors will be high quality, larger construction firms with offices located in either Seattle or Bellevue. Recognizing their value to the job, we will work with PACCAR to obtain the best possible Superintendent and Project Engineer. SCHEDULE Construction is to begin in May 2007 and complete by January 2008. PROJECT COST The preliminary cost estimate for the Parts Distribution Center is $12,500,000. This include site work and construction of the building. We understand that the information contained in this document and the attached drawings is preliminary in nature. Formal drawings will be submitted with the application for the building permit. P. 0. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone (425) 468-7400 PACCAR Building 777-106^ Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 iIL October 26, 2006 RE: New Renton Parts Distribution Center Renton, Washington Construction Mitigation Description The proposed construction schedule is as follows: Demolition of the existing structure January 2007 Site surcharge January 2007 to April 2007 Site grading April 2007 to May 2007 Building construction June 2007 to February 2008 Hours of construction operation Normal hours are from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday —Saturday Proposed hauling/ transportation routes All major hauling to and from the site will be from Park to Garden to N 8th to Garden to the site entrance at 5" and Garden. Contractor employee entrance will be at the corner of N. 41h and Factory, old PACCAR building entrance. Construction mitigation measures: The contractor is to follow established PACCAR Renton site mitigation measures. These include but are not limited to watering of the site to control dust, wheel wash pits to control local road contamination (required by the DOE), continuous monitoring of all site work by an outside contractor for dust, noise and other emissions and site patrols by PACCAR site management to ensure travel routes are used correctly. Special hours of operation: The current construction plan does not anticipate any deviation from the normal construction hours. Should any special work hours be required, PACCAR will notify the City of Renton prior to any work being performed. Preliminary traffic control plan: Since this project will be using locally designated truck delivery routes and no planned road closures are planned, no special traffic control plan is planned at this time. It will be the responsibility of the general contractor to monitor the truck traffic to and from the site. The general contractor will interface with the City of Renton building department and police agency should a traffic problem be detected. Use of Cranes: It will be the responsibility of the general contractor to contact the City's Airport Manager prior to the use of any cranes required for erection of the building. P, 0. Box 1518 Bellevue, Washington 98009 Telephone (425) 468-7400 PACCAR Building 777-106m Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Y O� FIRE DEPARTMENT �—T�� M E M O R A N D U M N DATE: August 29, 2006 TO: Jill Ding, Associate Planner FROM: James Gray, Assistant Fire Marsh SUBJECT: Paccar Warehouse, N 4`h & Garden Ave. N Fire Department Comments: p 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4400 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and four additi nal hydrants are equired within 300 feet of the structure. LPVTV 2. A fire mitigation fee of $132,600.00 is required based on $.52 per square foot of the building square footage. l&� 6P�T fV9- IMW IN6 gg7ti/6 yYWY of MN, 3. Separate plans and permits are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Fire department access roadways are required to within 150 feet of all portions of the building exterior. Roadways are a minimum 20 feet in width with a turning radius of 45 feet outside and 25 feet inside. 5. Provide a list of flammable, combustible liquids or hazardous chemicals that are used or stored on site. 6. A site plan for Pre -Fire planning is required to be submitted for your project. This shall be submitted prior to occupancy, in one of the attached formats. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. • '�lL�T c.�o� •��It2�i i� «N -Fill' yt', 4e S vd Gkc. tny71 �' � iApaccarwarehouse.doc PRE -FIRE PLANNING RENTON FIRE DEPARTMENT In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy. ABC Flowcharteraf3 ABC Flowcharter.af2 Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawing.dwg AutoCad Drawing.d n Computer Graphics Metafile.cgm Corel Cli art Format.emx Corel DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr Corel Flow.cfl -Encapsulated Postscript File.e s Enhanced Metafile.emf IGES Drawing File Format.i s -Graphics Interchange Format. if Macintosh PICT Format. ct Micro rafx Designer Ver 3.I.drw Micrografx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf Microstation Drawing.dgn Portable Network Graphics Format. of Postscript File. s Tag Image File Format.tif Text.txt Text.csv VISIO.vsd Windows Bitmap.bm Windows Bitma .dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma . cx CITY OF RENTON MEMO UTILITY PLAN REVIEW TO: Jill Ding FROM: Jan Illian DATE: September 13, 2006 SUBJECT: PREAPPLICATON REVIEW COMMENTS PREAPP NO.06-102 PACCAR WAREHOUSE N. 41n Street & Garden Ave N. NOTE ON PRELIMINARY REVIEW COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT: The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision makers (e.g. Hearing Examiner, Boards of Adjustment, Board of Public Works and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by the City or made by the applicant. WATER 1. There is an existing 12-inch water main in Garden, a 12-inch water main on site to the north running east and west, and a 12-inch water main along the east side of the site. Available derated fire flow in the area is approximately 4,500 gpm. Pressure available is approximately 70 psi. 2. Preliminary fire flow required is 4,400 gpm. All new construction must have fire hydrants capable of delivering a minimum of 1,000 gpm. Four hydrants wi lke required to serve this site. One hydrant is required within 150 feet from the building and additional hydrants are required to be within 300 feet of the nearest corners of the building. 3. A water main will be required to be looped around the building. Additional hydrants will be required to be installed as part of the extension of water main. 4. There are fire hydrants in the vicinity that may be counted towards the fire protection of this project, but are subject to verification for being within the required distance. 5. Existing hydrants counted as fire protection will be required to be retrofitted with a quick disconnect Storz fitting if not already in place. 6. The proposed project is located in the 320 water pressure zone and is outside an Aquifer Protection Zone. 7. p rcant proposes mg, eet m eig t, a ac ow wi Paccar Warehouse ;D" 4YCf/ Page $. A Water System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.273 per square foot of gross site area may apply if the site has not previously been assessed. Credit will be given for existing water service to the site. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 9. A fire sprinkler system is required by the fire department. A separate no -fee utility permit and separate plans will be required for the installation of the double detector check valve assembly for fire sprinkler line. All devices installed shall be per the latest Department of Health "Approved List" of Backflow Prevention Devices. Location of device shall be shown on the civil plans and shall show note: "Separate plans and utility permit for DDCVA installation for Fire Sprinkler System will be required". DDCVA installations outside the building shall be in accordance with the City of Renton Standards. For DDCVA installations proposed to be installed inside the building, applicant shall submit a copy of the mechanical plan showing the location and installation of the backflow assembly inside the mechanical room. Installation shall be in accordance with the City of Renton's requirements. DDCVA shall be installed immediately after the pipe has passed through the building floor slab. Installation of devices shall be in the horizontal position only. SANITARY SEWER 1. There is a 10-inch sewer main in Garden Ave N. and a 24- inch sewer main in N. 0 Street. 2. If finished floor elevation is below 25 feet, a "tideflex" or similar backflow device will be required to be installed. 3. A Sanitary Sewer System Development Charge (SDC) of $0.142 per square foot of gross site area may apply if the site has not previously been assessed. Credit will be given for existing water Aer service to the site. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. SURFACE WATER 1. There are existing storm drainage facilities in Garden Ave N. 2. A preliminary drainage plan and drainage report will be required with the site plan application. The report shall address detention and water quality requirements as outlined in the 1990 King County Surface Water Manual. All core and any special requirements shall be contained in the UV� report. If preliminary calculations show detention will be required under the 1990 King County�� Surface Water Manual, staff will recommend a condition that the project comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual to meet both detention (Conservation Flow control - a.k.a. Level 2) and water quality improvements. fps, 3. The Surface Water SDC is assessed based on the total new impervei us ur af�cesqsquare footage as reflected in the final design. The charge is determined by multiplying the gross square footage by $0.265. This is payable at the time the utility permit is issued. 4. Separate structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a building permit for proposed vault. Special inspection from the building department is required. Paccar Warehouse Page 3 of 3 5. Erosion control shall comply with the latest edition of Department of Ecology's Stormwater Manual. TRANSPORTATION/STREET 1. Half street improvements including, but not limited to paving, sid walks, curb & tter, st drain, street signs and streetlights are required if not already in place. N-A"Vy f P6*CV-V 2. A traffic mitigation fee of $75 per additional generated daily trip shall be assessed as determined by the ITE trip generation manual. 3. All wire utilities shall be installed underground per the City of Renton Under Grounding Ordinance. If three or more poles are required to be moved by the development design, all existing overhead utilities shall be placed underground. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. All construction utility permits for utilities, drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals. All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer. 2. When the utility plans are complete, please submit three (3) copies of the drawings, two (2) copies of the drainage report, permit application and an itemized cost of construction estimate and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor. A fee worksheet is attached for your use, but prior to preparing a check, it is recommended to call 425-430-7266 for a fee estimate as generated by the permit system. 3. The fee for review and inspection of these improvements is 5% of the first $100,000 of the estimated construction costs; 4% of anything over $100,000 but less than $200,000, and 3% of anything over $200,000. Half the fee must be paid upon application. 4. Any proposed rockeries or retaining walls greater than 4 feet in height will be require a separate building permit and will require special inspection. 5. Separate permits and fees for water meters, side sewer, landscape irrigation meters, and backflow devices are required. CC: Kay— Kittrick CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: September 14, 2006 TO: Pre -Application File No. 06-102 FROM: Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner x 7219 SUBJECT: Paccar Warehouse General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above - referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall, Development Regulations are also available for review at no charge in the office of the City Clerk on the 7" floor, at Development Services on the 6"' floor and at the Renton Library. Project Proposal: The proposal is to construct a new 250,000 square foot warehouse, which would include a 5,000 square foot office on a 15 acre site located within the Heavy Industrial (IH) zoning designation. The project site is located on the southwest corner of the Paccar property, which is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Garden Avenue N and N 4'h Street. Associate landscaping and parking improvements would also be constructed as a result of the proposed development. Access to the site would be provided via a driveway off of NE 4th Street directly across from Factory Avenue N. Zoning: The purpose of the Heavy Industrial (IH) zone is to provide areas for high -intensity industrial activities involving heavy fabrication, processing of raw materials, bulk handling and storage, construction, and heavy transportation. Uses in this zone may require large outdoor areas in which to conduct operations. Environmental impacts may be produced that affect off -site areas requiring isolation of the industrial activity from more sensitive land uses. The proposed warehouse and office use is a permitted use within the IH zone. Development Standards: The proposal's compliance with the IH zone development standards is addressed below: Lot Coverage — There are no maximum building lot coverage requirements in the IH zone. Setbacks — The minimum required front yard and side yard along a street setbacks in the IH zone are 20 feet along designated Principal Arterial and 15 feet along all other streets. N 4" Street along the project frontage is a designated Principal Arterial, therefore a 20-foot setback is required along the project site fronting on N 4t' Street. The proposal appears to comply with the required setback areas. Pm06-102 (IH Paccar Warchouse).doc Landscaping — The landscaping regulations for the I zone require that all portions of the site not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas be maintained as permeable areas and be improved with native, drought -resistant vegetation. A 20-foot minimum landscape strip is required along Principal Arterials (N 41h Street) and a 15-foot minimum landscape strip is required along all other streets (Garden Avenue N). In addition, surface parking lots with between 51-99 spaces are required to provide a minimum of 25 square feet of landscaping per parking space within the parking lot. The landscaped areas shall include street trees spaced at a rate of 1 tree for every 30 lineal foot of street frontage. Within the parking area a minimum of 1 tree shall be provided for every 6 spaces, a minimum of 5 shrubs for every 100 square feet of landscape area, and ground cover shall be provided in such quantities as to provide 90 percent coverage after 3 years. No parking space shall be more than 50 feet from any landscape area. A landscape plan and a landscape analysis prepared by a landscape architect or a certified nurseryman in compliance with RMC 4-8-120D.12 will be required to be submitted with the formal land use application. Hei ht — There are no maximum building height requirements. Screening — Screening must be provided for all surface -mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. In addition, garbage dumpsters and recyclable areas must be screened pursuant to RMC section 4-4-090.C.7. Access/Parking - Parking requirements for a proposal are based on the use occupying the project sit. Warehouse and indoor storage buildings require 1 space per 1,500 square feet of net floor area and office uses require a minimum of 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area and a maximum of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. The proposed 250,000 square foot warehouse would require 167 spaces and thUIV e 5,000 square foot office would require a minimum of 15 spaces and be permitted a maximum o]23 Otspaces. The proposed site plan indicates that 62 parking spaces would be provided, wh is less than the minimum number of parking spaces required. Ivie rnrgsF urwu Where practical difficulties exist in compliance with the parking regulations, the applicant may -1115 submit a written request for a modification to the parking requirements. The request should 6arr be addressed to the Development Services Director and should address the criteria outlined OIJ7- W- in RMC 4-9-250D. Of the proposed 62 parking spaces a minimum be required to be ADA accessible. ic isould The site plan shows 2 ADA accessible stalls, whless than the minimum required. The site plan shall be revised to show 3 ADA accessible stalls. Environmental Review: The proposed project would be subject to Environmental (SEPA) Review as the proposal would result in the construction of more than 4,000 square feet of a commercial building with more than 20 associated parking stalls and is not Categorically Exempt per WAC 197-11-800. Permit Requirements: The proposal would require Environmental (SEPA) Review, which would be reviewed in an estimated timeframe of 6 to 8 weeks. The application fee for a SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $400 full fee and project value over $100,000 is a $1,000 full fee. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Pre06-102 (IH Paccar W=hou ).doc Impact Mitigation Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. ♦ A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per new daily trip attributed to the development; ♦ A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per new commercial construction. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Employment Area — Industrial (EA-1) district is intended to provide continued opportunity for manufacturing and industrial uses that create a strong employment base in the City. Land Use Policy LU-439. The primary use in the Employment Area — Industrial designation should be industrial. Policy LU-444. When more intensive new uses are proposed for locations in close proximity to less intensive existing uses, the responsibility for mitigating any adverse impacts should be the responsibility of the new use. Policy LU-445. Off -site impacts from industrial development such as noise, odors, light and glare, surface and ground water pollution, and air quality should be controlled through setbacks, landscaping, screening and/or fencing, drainage controls, environmental mitigation, and other techniques. cc: Jennifer Henning Pre06-102 (1H Paccar W-house).doc D4 • 5 T23N R5E W 1/2 CN R-1(P) � UC--N2 R-8 IH j...-. 00 :RUC-N2 j� 0 IH N Z T 00 UC-Nl� W _- - -a N 8th x UC-Nl C W � N G co e�o ----� - - � � .a z i N 6th St. D LU- Z m. 0 UC-N �- +- - -� z 2 m _ a -- - L) 0 0 CA C mop- -oy- coR-10 a .. ZONING F4 • 17 T23N R5E W 1/2 ---- ��o c ti uma iea �� per"°" �`°`� 8 T23N R5E W 1/2 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Renton Development Services Division 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055 Phone:425-430-7200 Fax:425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21 C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: New Renton Parts Distribution Center 2. Name of applicant: PACCAR Inc 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: PACCAR Inc 777 — 106th Ave NE Bellevue, WA 98004 Attn: David D. Bennitt Project Manager 4. Date checklist prepared: September 25, 2006 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works —Development Services Division 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Demolition to start in December 2006, Soil Loading to start in February 2006, New Building Construction to start in April2007 with Project completion scheduled forJanuary 2008. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Yes. Soil conditions at the site may require additional environmental activity. Future development ofthe remainingPACCAR Renton property may occur. I:\PROJECTSTACCAR Parts DiONew Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.docl0/06/06 Cin, of Renton Environmen .hecklist Nev non Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Page 3 of 12 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. E-mail from A'DOE approving New Renton Parts Distribution Center on the site. (September 14, 2006) Stipulation to Amend Consent Decree (August 19, 1994) Determination of Non -significance, Amendment of Consent Decree for PACCAR Remedial Action (July 27, 1994) Final Cleanup Action Plan and Consent Decree (November 8, 1991) Determination of_Non-significance, PACCAR Remedial Action (June 13, 1991) Environmental Checklist (May 13, 1991) Feasibility Study (Februar', 23, 1990) Remedial Investigation and previous site studies listed therein (September 1, 1989) Design Engineering Reports, Phases I-V Cleanup Construction Plans and Specifications, Phases I-V Engineering Completion Reports, Phase I-V 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 applications are pending 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number Building, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Sign Permit from City of Renton. Storm Water discharge Construction Permit (.NPDES) from Washington Department of Ecology. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This proposal covers the construction of a PACCAR Parts Distribution Center located at the southwest corner of the south half of the PACCAR Renton site (see attached prima). This pro oral will occupy 15 acres and will consist of a 500' W x 500' L x 36' H building, 5000 sf of tee, employee parking lot and a two 10-door truck dock areas. Trucks will deliver material in enclosed tra�ers and exit the site with shipments in enclosed trailers. All truck will utilize the current N 6t Street and Garden Ave. entrance. Employee vehicular trauffc will be through the existingN 4th Street and Factory Ave. entrance. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 1400 N 4th Street, Renton, Washington. See attached legal description, site plan and vicinity map of the original 82 acre PACCAR Renton site of which this project forms apart. I:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc Cin, of Renton Environment hecldist New ton Parts Distribution Center September 1-5. 2006 Page 4 of 12 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Flat. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Ar/A C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Gravel, sand, clay, peat, and fill. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Surcharge - pit run gravel d crushed concrete. Sub -surface grade - pitrun gravel. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, but to a minimum degree because the site is flat and a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be implemented during demolition. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 13 acres will be paved with asphalt or covered by structure. As much of the south 40 acres was previously paved and drainage structures discharging to Lake Washington were enlarged on the previously paved areas, this project will not impact drainage flows. All drainage from the project will be to retention ponds prior to discharge. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See answer to B.1.f I:\PROJECTSIPACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 4 Citv of Renton Environmen hecldist Neu. iton Parts Distribution Center September_5, 2006 Page 5 of 12 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. Dust may be generated during excavation but amounts will be minimized by special construction practices in compliance with the Contractor's Health and Safety Plan. There will be some vehicle emissions from excavation equipment and trucks used for hauling. b. Are there any off -site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Sprinkle or water down site during construction to control dust 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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. There is no surface water body on the site or in the immediate vicinity. Runoff from the site flows into Johns Creek and the Cedar 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. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-ye2r flood plain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Surface runoff during construction will be controlled by the contractor. I:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 5 Cit of Renton Environmen hecldist Nev ton Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Page 6 of 12 b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description; purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the 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. Most site water is presently collected in two drainage lines and discharged to the City's storm sewer system in North 8th Street north of the site. Most of the proposed Renton Parts Distribution Center site currently drains north to Lake Washington via site storm drain and City of Renton storm drains. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Unlikelyy. Erosion control measures will be taken to prevent migration of contaminated debris by the contractor and monitored by PACCAR, Inc. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See items c.I and 2 above PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other _ shrubs _ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other _X other types of vegetation The Proposed Renton Parts Distribution Center site is a former industrial site. Trees and plantings around the old office building will be removed. Scattered trees in a landscaping strip along Garden Ave N. and N 4th Street will remain. The current landscaping strips will be retained and upgraded as part of this project. I:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc Ciro o_` Renton Environment hecklist Nev ton Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Pave 7 of 12 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Small amount ofeaisting trees and weeds. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping is designed for the road frontage along N 41h Street & Garden Ave. N. with trees and shrubs per the City of Renton codes as part of the New Renton Parts Distribution Center project. 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 - Pigeons, Geese & Ducks Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other - None. Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other - None. b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None Known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain Unknown. It is believed unlikely that the site is part of a migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if 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. The proposed New Renton Parts Distribution Center will require electricity and natural gas. The heating will utilize natural gas throughout. 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: (:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC\Swpe\Renton Environmental Ckist.doc 7 Cib of Remm� Environmen_ .hecidisi Ntm iton Parts Distribution Center September 25. 2006 Page 8 of 12 Energy -efficient equipment will be used whi re possible. Skvlights will he used to reduce the amount of electrical lighting necessam. 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. The construction of this facility will be performed on a remediated "Superfund" site. All excavations will be monitored and performed by certified environmental contractors. The contractor's health and safety plan will minimize the possibility of exposure to health hazards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Emergent medical services might be required in the event of a construction accident or accidental release of contaminated materials. This is addressed in the health and safely plan. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: All work will be done in accordance with the construction specifc health and safety plans. Any off -site transport of contaminated debris will occur in accordance with state and federal regulations. A site -specific Spill plan with emergency response and notification provisions will be prepared or accidental spills and releases. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Does not apply. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Noise from operation of construction equipment and truck traffic would occur between 700 am and 5:00 pm, except to extent curtailed by ordinance or other legal restrictions. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Delivery routes will not use local streets in residential areas. All truck traffic will stay north of North 4th Street and use Garden or Logan at I--405 for the direct route to and from the site. LAND AND SHORELINE USE What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The PACCAR Renton property is occupied by a Kenworth Truck manufacturing plant, a Kenworth Truck research and development facility, a truck decking facility operated by Active Transportation, approximately 30 acres of vacant land and a parking lot in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Houser Way. Vacated Houser Way North is a two- way private street. Adjacent properties include office and industrial uses, as well as parking. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. I: IPROJECTSIPACCAR Parts D ONew Renton PDC1ScopelRenton Environmental Cklst.doc City of Renton Environmen hecktist Nev- non Parts Distribution Cente- September 25, 2006 Page 9 of 12 Not since the earls, 1940s. C. Describe any structures on the site. A vacant PACCAR office building located on North 4th Street, the Kenworth Truck manufacturing plant located on the north end 0 the 80 acre PACCAR Renton site, a Kenwm2h Research and Development facility located on f4acated Houser Yf'a)= and a truck decking facility operated by Active Transportation on the SE corner of Garden Avenue Nand 61h Street. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? A vacant PACCAR office building located off North 4th Street will be demolished on this proposed project site. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Heavy Industrial (H-1) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Heavy Industrial. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA. 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? The Renton Parts Distribution Center employs 30 workers. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, all employs are currently working at the currentfacility on Vacated Houser Way. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Required. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None necessary. 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. I:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC1Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 9 Cin, of Renton Env_ironmen _hecklist Neu ton Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Page 10 of 12 None. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The Renton Parts Distribution Center will be 36' in height. The exterior of the building will have a 10' high concrete re -cast panel with metal siding above, similar to the existing structures on the PACCAR site. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: PACCAR will be planting large trees along the perimeter of the site to enhance the view from all surface streets. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The New Renton Parts Distribution Center will be illuminated at night by pole mounted parking lot fixtures. The illumination levels will be approximately 5fc on average at eye level. 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 known. J. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All parking lot lights will be directed inward to reduce glare. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The site is near Coulon Park and Lake Washington. Some area residents or employees may use Vacated Houser Way North and North 8th Street for jogging or bicycling. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. APROJECMPACCAR Parts Div%New Renton PDMScope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 10 City of Renton Environ_men —'hecklist Nev ton Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Page 11 of 12 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: None. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The 80 acre PACCAR Renton site is bounded by North 8th Street, Garden Avenue North, North 4th Street, and vacated Houser Way. Access to the project site will be through the main west gate at N 6tu Street & Garden Ave. N. Truck routes will be limited to arterial streets located north of North 6th Street: Garden Avenue, North Park Drive, North 8th Street, and I-405. See attached site plan. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The nearest bus stop is one block away. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The completed project will have 54 auto spaces and 20 trailer docks. Since this is a new facility none will be eliminated. The current PDC will remain on Vacated Houser Way but all the employees will work at the new,faeility. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? No. This project will make use of the existing entrances. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 19PROJECTSTACCAR Parts Div\New Renton PDC%Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 11 Cin of Renton Environmen hecldisi Nee iton Parts Distribution Center September 25, 2006 Page 12 of 12 The current truck trips are 15 per day, .split between deliveries and shipments. The New facility will have the same usage. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Limit truck routes. All trucks will enter and exit the facility from the existing N, 6th Street and Garden Ave. N. entrance. Trucks arriving and leaving will use I-405 to Park to Garden Ave. N. then onto N 8tn Street then to Garden Ave. N. This route will be modified when the Landing project is completed and Logan is extended to N. 6th Street. 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. The project would involve oversight by City of Renton personnel. Other public services would be unaffected. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Fees are paid to the City of Renton for their services. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, and storm drain system are all available. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. No new utilities are proposed for the project. 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. Proponent: PACCAR Inc by: Name Printed: David D. Bennitt Date: September 25, 2006 Attachments Exhibit A: Legal Description of PACCAR Renton Site Parcel Exhibit B: Site Location Exhibit C: New Renton Parts Distribution Center Site Plan 11PROJECTSTACCAR Parts Div%New Renton PDC1Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 12 City of Renton Environmen. _hecldist Nev ton Parts Distribution_ Center September 25, 2006 Page 13 of 12 D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEETS FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (These sheets should only be used for actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs. You do not need to fill out these sheets for project actions.) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air, production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, flood plains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 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 fL"sclosure�on my pa Proponent: �J!(�OUrIJLo Name Printed: Date: ly lZ5 lbw T ENVCHLST.DOC REVISED 6198 I:\PROJECTS\PACCAR Parts DMNew Renton PDC\Scope\Renton Environmental Cklst.doc 13 Printed: 10-31-2006 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA06-139 Payment Made: 10/31/2006 11:29 AM Receipt Number: R0605457 Total Payment: 1,000.00 Payee: PACCAR INC Current Payment Made to the Following Items: Trans Account Code Description Amount 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review 1,000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans Method Description Amount ---------- -------- --------------------------- --------------- Payment Check #390055 1,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due 3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use or Fence Review .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable) .00 5954 604.237.00.00.0000 Special Deposits .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT OCT 3t2* Paccar Parts Warehouse NEC — North 4th Street and Garden Avenue North Renton, Washington Prepared for: Freiheit & Ho Architects, Inc., P.S. 10230 N.E. Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, WA 98033 October 17, 2006 Our Job No.12567 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES ♦ OLYMPIA, WA ♦ TACOMA, WA ♦ SACRAMENTO, CA ♦ TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1 — Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet Figure 2 — Site Location Figure 3 — Drainage Basins, Subbasins, and Site Characteristics Figure 4 — Soils 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology B. Developed Site Hydrology C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 12567 001.do 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The new Paccar Parts Warehouse project is located within a portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More specifically, the site is located at the northeast comer of North 4th Street and Garden Avenue North. The site encompasses roughly 15 acres, which will be redeveloped as part of this project. Please refer to Figure 2 for a vicinity map. The existing site has one building, associated parking, and utilities. The remainder of the site is grass and relatively flat, except for a few sediment or runoff traps that drain to the existing storm system. No wetlands or sensitive areas exist on site. The site is bound on all sides by existing development. On -site soils are urban, which are modeled as till. Research indicates that this site was previously completely developed and has since been returned to a grassed area. The proposed development consists of demolishing the existing building and utilities and constructing a new 250,000-square-foot warehouse with associated parking, trailer storage, and utilities. For stormwater treatment and detention, the project proposes to construct two water quality wet ponds with detention above the static water surface. Each pond will have runoff from approximately half of the site. The wet ponds will meet the requirements of Basic Water Quality and the detention ponds are designed for Level 2 Flow Control. Stonnwater calculations herein were designed to meet the City of Renton standards and the 2005 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. 12567 001.doc FIGURE 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET I Part 7 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Project Owner Paccar, Inc. Address 777 - 106th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone (425) 468-7519 Project Engineer Jason G. Hubbell, P.E. Company Bar hausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Address/Phone 18215 — 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 / (425) 251-6222 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION ❑ Subdivision HPA ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Grading ® Commercial ❑ Other I Part2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION I Project Name Paccar Parts Warehouse Location Township 23N Range 5E Section 8 Part4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS ❑ DFW HPA ❑ Shoreline Management ❑ COE 404 ❑ Rockery ❑ DOE Dam Safety ❑ Structural Vaults ❑ FEMA FIoodplain ❑ Other_ ❑ COE Wetlands Part5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Renton Drainage Basin East Lake Washington - Renton and Lower Cedar River Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS ❑ River ❑ FIoodplain ❑ Stream ❑ Wetlands ❑ Critical Stream Reach ❑ Seeps/Springs ❑ Depressions/Swales ❑ High Groundwater Table ❑ Lake ❑ Groundwater Recharge ❑ Steep Slopes ❑ Other Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Urban l - 2 percent Urban 25 percent ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT ❑ Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION ® Sedimentation Facilities ® Stabilize Exposed Surface ® Stabilized Construction Entrance ® Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities ® Perimeter Runoff Control ® Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris ❑ Clearing and Grading Restrictions ® Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities ® Cover Practices ❑ Flag Limits of SAO and Open Space Preservation Areas ® Construction Sequence ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM ❑ Grass Lined Channel ❑ Tank ❑ Infiltration Method of Analysis ® Pipe System ❑ Vault ❑ Depression KCRTS ❑ Open Channel ® Energy Dissipater ❑ Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigation ❑ Dry Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Waiver of Eliminated Site Storage ® Wet Pond ❑ Stream ❑ Regional Detention Brief Description of System Operation Two drainage basins, each with catch basins, pipes, and a water quality and detention pond. Facility Related Site Limitations/ Reference Facility Limitation PartIll STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTSITRACTS ❑ Cast in Place Vault ❑ Drainage Easement ❑ Retaining Wall ❑ Access Easement ❑ Rockery > 4' High ❑ Native Growth Protection Easement ❑ Structural on Steep Slope ❑ Tract ❑ Other ❑ Other Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. 16Z7%aS Signed/Dated FIGURE 2 SITE LOCATION LNl�C WASHINGTON � Z I � 1 I1Q R ail 111 �11 SITE II L 6TH S ST oil I I 4TH —L L ' ST '� ' Q 3RD 1 , I L ST 405 �CIL < wl OI 0I l a o o a ¢Q �2N ST w cI I � I\ I I 900 169 900 I Job Number Scale: Horizonfof VerNcol For: PACCAR 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 Title: Sheet (+25)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX dVll EN.SEHFPoNO, tN0 RN a' E G� ANC EH/riOMEMAt SPMiMCES VICINITY MAP or DCIa ENG\NF'�p FIGURE 3 DRAINAGE BASINS, SUBBASINS, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS _ — — 7— t _ [ tr cone s rl.e 7 ;• f' SII I /n�b� •� I�. TRAP x 83 ...- .._ - _.__. -- - :.... F Q awc........_- ..- --- ( x�e� I - ---- ' I € I TRAP ea _ �'� � ( ' _ � i • f I �� L [ tr xac c moe :` I I I � ■ - m x , 'j I O x r D [+Ea[.x dry ❑� _ .. ... • I '� I Az / zm j 1 ■ 1 7. � [ IY CIIC N Iy.ly ¢ I TRAP Al _-- -� .. I�i- -.- �■ E +or noel rrx o �� TRAP &5 \ _ - I I __. -- '■ E tY I I � W � \ �-./ TRAP A2 I e z I C j'J-�. i t nC°c"a sm's ,_ ■ Z e.New� �6` L -ram vw[rs w sNeul+Y snot -. - i l — IIZ w r - I .O ,r�1--y s• sN zi.m I roc '"� - ` .n; - ` I : *Wr Try —_ �� — _so-- . - — — _y --. ■ +�- +� I -I i i u ■ +� Rill ... Clw �. t40PefoR WFLL LW145 d z _ 41-_• I � I ry 3 4 ^ 0 'IEONROR WELL 11FM(N) JpJ b wn k /A PIA k141 vauLC __.:' N GHT a -._--- ..:..........:....:....... v..-. ...........f:.{....._._... t------ .__T". _Z--�--:�.. - . NISfP 5�#tt 0 pL 5.. I b STREET#�s-- r�--�-- u. -"-_ IL xWj 1_� sl cr+n ..o r 1 _� _ \ l �� Q Z 11 vAu* yo I, w ... _ J O r -- J Q W j 2Q Q ' No- I Dote By ICkd. I App, I Rene,�n Job Number G[[A� Scale. fr1118215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Denlge°d �cu For. r�k: 12567 P 9 ✓ PACCAR, INC. CORPORATE FACILITIES EXISTING CONDITIONS m ;►►r �,t KENT, WA 98032 DraN� —@QC I,,;/,n,al m \s� sr4//SOZ r (425)251-6222 g "'. (425)251-8782 FAX Checked xFu. I'-50' ^ a 777106TH AVE. NE o Sheet n V _Pr°°°° BELLEVUE, WA 98004 a s> P6' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, NA yf. ND1 p E"00"C SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Dote 4B-Z-_QFR 1'\ (425) 468-7519 / ` VJ z y J 0 0 Z 0 Fik p'\12000s\1255/\exh'ibd\I2567-basins. dwg 0ale/7i ID/17/2006 10:06 AM Sc,I.: 0. 441675 FWOSLUM xrel , z12567-,1 dw9, z12567-ptdwg, z12567-p,l dwq, ;12567-pbdeq, ;hubbclldwg I TIWK SKft AWA NIH FC31 . . ....... . ..... . .. ... . .. . . . ............ ......... - - ----- ..... . .. .. ... ... . ........ . ............. c- -Fx--x ------- x- - --- - -- ---- -- --------- - -- �Z-�_�" ... . ....... . .... ........... .... . . .... 01 }II ........ .. . ILL. -------- - ----- --- . .. ... .......... . ......... . ... . ........... . ... . . . . ... ... . .... 74 ; i AREA Or NIH DM ASPHALT ... . . ... .. .... .. .... ... . .................. ........ .... .......... . .......... .... ... . .. .... .... .......... .... . . ........ II 1 ... . ... .... .III Ilr I . ............ ..... . ... ..... .. . ..... ----- - - ------ -------------------- --- ----- - ------ -- ------- - --------- - ------ - -------- ------- - - ........ . . - ! . J . . .... ... � 7 i i 1; !III I1 II r .I I I--------------- 3 0, Ifil 1; j';' q OEtwn o uAuTY a -ILI Li 1:i i- I. T! �o FACCAR PARTS HARE-HOU5E :1-1j . . . .. ....... .. .. ... ... . .. L r - xf 4�; 4 4� + 4� R 4y L.,j > OFFICE 42 + - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - T'I ----------------------- 4 L L - P/A -- -P-T .... . .... --- 1 --4? ......... - --------- ---------------- STREET + + -- - . - -14- ---------- - -------- ......... .. . ... ......... ..... .... ... .. --.- . ...... .. . - ...... ......... - ----- ------ '-_ ------ - o + 1A L'J. r-- > < < < No. I Dat, I By I CM. I Appr. R.,i-, J,b Nu,C , G14A& N"""" -LGHsal For. TNW- 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH 12567 r llo 0 KENT, WA 98032 RDC PACCAR, INC. CORPORATE FACILITIES DEVELOPED CONDITIONS (425)251-6222 Ch.ck.d -KE11 777106TH AVE. NE 0 m (425)251 -8782 FAX 0 49 Appr-d J9K V�jc.j BELLEVUE, WA 98004 .0-' lb� C[VIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, 40 . .,I SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES D,i. 91="I (425) 468-7519 0 m m r- 0 m 0 z 0 z cf) I'd, P\12GOOs\12567\exhib,t\12567-b.,.n,,d.g D,t,/T1,e 10/17/2006 10.05 AM Sc I,,O 441675 FWOSLUM X,,f , z 12567-p, 1 6.9. 12567 -pt d.g, z 1 2567-p,l d.g. z I 2567-pb d.q, IhI,bb,11 d.g FIGURE 4 SOILS F _ 3 { V, i S i4 YF 1 JhE`f+' i Y �t� t � _WF h !i i+'i � fir=-"' - �'i ; t�• � ��i�-----7��/ —'i , i Cirri par } J A ti PC 1� M 16 321 a n Rh Job Number Stole: For: PACCAR 'se Horizontal Verikal apt" 6HA4� 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH C�hW,.,; ll� KENT. WA 98032 Sheetke0 j (425)251-6222 Title: (425)251-8782 FAX A,P—W °z of Opia ��t rNc ExcME�P9 SURdYM. EWARON WAL SERMS SOILS MAP 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location Response: The existing site is partially developed and has two existing storm drainage systems of pipes and catch basins. Half of the site will drain west to the Cedar River and half will drain north to Lake Washington. The new detention and water quality ponds will discharge to the existing pipe systems. Core Requirement No. 2 Of Analysis. Response: A Level 1 Off -Site Analysis has been completed and is included in this report as Section 3.0. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: Flow control was designed based on Level 2 Flow Control (Conservation FC areas) using KCRTS and matching peak flows and durations for all storms between the one-half of the 2- and 50-year events. Flow control will be achieved through detention ponds with outlet control structures. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The conveyance system will be designed to meet applicable requirements when the site plan has been finalized. Core Requirement No. 5: 12005: Erosion and Sediment Control]. Response: Erosion and sedimentation control measures are included in the TESC plans that are being submitted to the City. Best Management Practices will be consistent with the City of Renton, King County, and Department of Ecology standards. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: A maintenance and operations manual describing the maintenance schedule procedures for the storm system will be included in the final draft of this report. The proposed water quality and detention ponds will be privately owned and maintained. Core Requirement No. 7 Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: The project will provide all financial guarantees and liability, in accordance with the KCWSWDM. Core Requirement No. S. Water Quality. Response: Water quality has been designed to meet the requirements of the 2005 KCWSWDM by providing wet ponds below the live storage in the detention ponds. 12567 001.duc 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements. Response: There are no critical drainage areas, master drainage plans, basin plans, lake management plans, or shared facility drainage plans for the area of the proposed project. Therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: 2005. Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: No flood hazard present at the project site; therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This project is not adjacent to a Class I or II stream; therefore, this Special Requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: Per King County requirements, source controls are required for this site. Proposed measures include covered dumpsters and covering of pervious areas with landscaping or mulch. Special Requirement No. 5. Oil Control. Response: This site is not classified as high -use; therefore, oil control is not required. 12567 OOI.doc 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 3.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS Please refer to the attached Level I Downstream Analysis. 12567 001.doc LEVEL 'I OFF -SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Proposed Paccar Parts Warehouse Northeast Corner of North 4th Street and Garden Avenue North Renton, Washington Prepared for: Freiheit & Ho Architects, Inc., P.S. 10230 N.E. Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, WA 98033 October 17, 2006 Our Job No. 12567 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES ♦ OLYMPIA, WA ♦ TACOMA, WA ♦ SACRAMENTO, CA ♦ TEMECULA, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 1 — STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Downstream Drainage Map and System Table - East Basin EXHIBIT C Downstream Drainage Map and System Table - North Basin TASK 2 — RESOURCE REVIEW EXHIBIT D FEMA Map EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Folios EXHIBIT F SCS Soils Map and Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations EXHIBIT G Assessor's Map EXHIBIT H Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports CASK 3 — FIELD INSPECTION 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) "TASK 4— DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS TASK 5 — MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS 12567 002.doc [JPJ/tep] TASK I STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS TASK 1 — STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND MAPS The proposed Paccar Parts Warehouse project is approximately 15 acres. The site is located within a portion of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 5 East, Willamette Meridian, City of Renton, King County, Washington. More particularly, the site is located on the northeast corner of North 4th Street and Garden Ave. North. The enclosed Exhibit A, Vicinity Map depicts the exact location of the proposed site, as well as the Assessor's Map located in Exhibit G. The site currently has one building, associated parking and utilities. The remainder of the site is undeveloped grassland. According to the City of Renton basin maps, this site is at the basin boundary between the Lower Cedar River Basin and the East Lake Washington -Renton. There are currently on -site catch basins and pipes that drain north across both the Dallas Mavis Truck Decking facility and the Paccar main warehouse to North 8th Street and then north within Garden Avenue, eventually discharging into Lake Washington. The southern portion of the site drains to the existing storm pipe conveyance system in Garden Ave. North, which flows north to 5th Street and then west to Burnett Avenue North and then north to North 6th Street and then west to discharge into the Cedar River. The soils in this portion of King County are not known to be conducive to infiltration. The type of soil on this site is Urban type soils per the King County Soil Survey. The preliminary geotechnical report lists the surface soils as sandy silt and silty sand. For hydrology modeling purposes, the soils were modeled as till type soils. A copy of the soils map is included as well as the preliminary soils report. Commercial developments are located to the north, east and west. There are existing residences across North 4th Street to the south. North 4th Street forms the southern property line, Garden Avenue the western property line. The site is fairly level in nature but tends to slope to the south and west towards the streets. UPSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS Based on the USGS Quad Map, our site visit, and a topographic map prepared by Dodds Engineers, Inc., it does not appear that there is any upstream flow onto the site. Based on City of Renton basin maps, this site is located on the ridge between two basins; therefore, no upstream area was included in the hydrology analysis. 12567 002.doc [JPJ/tep] TASK 2 RESOURCE REVIEW TASK 2 — RESOURCE REVIEW Adopted Basin Plans: The site is part of the Lower Cedar River Basin and the East Lake Washington - Renton Basin. Finalized Drainage Studies: This is not applicable. Basin Reconnaissance Summary Report: The northern portion of the site is located in the East Lake Washington - Renton Basin. The East Lake Washington - Renton Basin is a small completely urban basin and is located in central King County between the Cedar River and May Creek. The Lower Cedar River Basin, which encompasses the southern portion of the site, is partially developed overall but completely developed surrounding the project site and downstream of the project. The reconnaissance summary reports are located in Exhibit H. Critical Drainage Area Maps: Since the project is located within the City of Renton, King County does not map water quality or flow control applications for this area. However, the surrounding areas, as delineated in the 2005 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM), require Level 2 Flow Control and Basic Water Quality Treatment of stormwater. Floodplain and Floodway FEMA Maps: Please see the enclosed FEMA Map (Exhibit D of this report), which is Panel No. 977 of 1,725, Map No. 53033C0977F, revised May 16, 1995. This FEMA map indicates that the project site is located in Zone X and is not subject to flooding. Other Off -Site Analysis Reports: A review of Exhibit H, Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports, and the site investigation work were conducted in preparation of this Level 1 Drainage Analysis. The United States Department of Agriculture Soils Conservation Service Map is also provided. See Exhibit F. Sensitive Areas Folios: Based on a review of the King County Sensitive Areas Map Folios, it was found that the subject site does not lie within any sensitive areas. Road Drainage Problems: This is not applicable. United States Department of Agriculture King County Soils Survey: Based on the soils map for this area, the entire site is located within Urban type soils, which are assumed to be till type soil and not suitable for infiltration. Wetland Inventory Maps: There are no known wetlands within the vicinity of the project site Migrating River Studies: This is not applicable. 12567 002.doc [JPUtep] TASK 3 FIELD INSPECTION TASK 3 — FIELD INSPECTION There were no problems reported or observed during the resource review. The City of Renton has not logged drainage complaints for this or surrounding sites. (See attached e-mail from Gary Fink at the City of Renton PBPW/Surface Water Utility.) 3.1 Conveyance System Nuisance Problems (Type 1) Conveyance system nuisance problems, in general, are defined as any existing or predicted flooding or erosion that does not constitute a severe flooding or erosion problem. Conveyance system nuisance problems are defined as flooding or erosion that results in the overflow of the constructed conveyance system for runoff events less than or equal to a 10-year event. Examples include inundation of a shoulder or lane of a roadway. Overflows collecting in yards or pastures, shallow flows across driveways, minor flooding in crawlspaces or unheated garages/outbuildings and minor erosion. Based on the field reconnaissance performed by this office, there is no evidence of past conveyance system nuisance problems occurring. 3.2 Severe Erosion Problems (Type 2) Severe erosion problems are defined as downstream channels, ravines, or slopes with evidence of or potential for erosion/incision, sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems or propose a landslide hazard by undercutting adjacent slopes. Severe erosion problems do not include roadway or minor ditch erosion. Based on our site visit, there was no evidence of or potential for erosion/incision sufficient to pose a sedimentation hazard to downstream conveyance systems evident anywhere along the downstream drainage course. Because the downstream drainage course is almost entirely within storm pipes, no potential for picking up sediments is present. 3.3 Severe Flooding Problems (Type 3) Severe flooding problems can be caused by conveyance system overflows or the elevated water surfaces of ponds, lakes, wetlands, or closed depressions. Severe flooding problems are defined as follows: • Flooding of the finished area of a habitable building for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Examples include flooding of finished floors of homes and commercial or industrial buildings. Flooding in electrical/heating systems and components in the crawlspace or garage of a home. Such problems are referred to as severe building flooding problems. • Flooding over all lanes of a roadway or severely impacting a sole access driveway for runoff events less than or equal to the 100-year event. Such problems are referred to as severe roadway flooding problems. As mentioned previously, there is no evidence of flooding on the downstream drainage courses, or from our site visit downstream of the subject property. It is not anticipated that there will be any problems with flooding from this project. The field reconnaissance for this Off -Site Analysis Drainage Report was conducted on August 17, 2006. It was sunny at the time, and the skies were clear. High temperature on this day was approximately 80 degrees. 12567 002.doe [JPJ/tep] Drainage Report was conducted on August 17, 2006. It was sunny at the time, and the skies were clear. High temperature on this day was approximately 80 degrees. 12567-Level Ldoc [JP1/tep] Karen Harris om: Gary Fink [GFink@ci.renton.wa.us] int: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:07 AM To: Karen Harris Subject: Paccar Parts Warehouse Drainage Complaints Good Horning, Per your request, a review of drainage complains was conducted for the Paccar Parts warehouse site at North 4th Street & Garden Avenue North in Renton. Review of records from 1996 to dates shows no documented drainage comp:Laint for this location. Please feel free to call if you need further information. Regards, Gary Fink City of Renton PBPW/ Surface Water Utility 425.430.7392 TASK 4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS TASK 4 — DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PROBLEM DESCRIPTIONS Runoff leaves the site by in two areas, one to the east in Garden Avenue and then west in North 5th Street and the other to the north through the Paccar main warehouse site. Downstream Drainage Course No. t courses off the western property line of the site into the right-of-way of Garden Avenue North where it flows north in the existing 12-inch storm pipe to North 5th Street. Flow continues west in a 24-inch storm pipe approximately 1,540 feet to Burnett Avenue North, then north approximately 650 feet to North 6th Street and the west approximately 800 feet until it discharges into the Cedar River. Runoff from Downstream Drainage Course No. 2 sheetflows off the southeastern property line of the site and drains to the existing catch basin at the northern boundary of the project site. This pipe system continues north in a 42-inch storm pipe through the Dallas Mavis Truck Decking facility and then north and east through the Paccar main warehouse site for approximately 1,700 feet. Flow continues north in the Garden Avenue right-of-way in a 72-inch pipe for approximately 2,400 feet, crossing Lake Washington Boulevard and the Burlington Northern railroad track and then via open ditch to Lake Washington. 12567.002d- i1Plitep] TASK 5 MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS TASK 5 — MITIGATION OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL PROBLEMS The area downstream of the proposed project known as Paccar parts warehouse does not exhibit any potential problems, nor is there evidence of any existing problems in these downstream drainage courses. Since Basic Water Quality and Level 2 Flow Control are the proposed means of detaining runoff, likely there never will be an impact to the downstream property from the development of the Paccar site. This project will neither aggravate nor create a problem as specified in the problem specific mitigation requirements set forth in Section 1.2.2.1 of the 2005 KCSWDM, as delineated in Task 4 of this report. A Level 2 Off -Site Analysis should not be required for this project site as there is no evidence of existing or potential problems identified in this Level 1 Analysis. 12567.002.doc [JPJ/tep] EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP Job Number Scole: For: a+PACCAR 9"Q'd Norizonlol Verficol Q.6H'4Vjm, 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 Shee!` (425)251-6222 Title: (425)251-8782 FAX _ "°° °"° VICINITY MAP s' SUR FNfX1EDWO WR L SlWQ Dole — Grr'Mc e,.,o SURVEYNIG� ENv�10N1EMAF SERVCES or -- EXHIBIT B DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP AND SYSTEM TABLE - EAST BASIN OFF -SITE ANALYSIS D [NAGE SYSTEM TABLE Downstream Drainage Course #1 Basin: Lower Cedar River Subbasin Namc: Subbasin Number: Observations of Field Distance Inspector, Drainage Component Drainage Component from Site Existing Potential Resource Reviewer, or Symbol Type, Name, and Size Description Slope Discharge Problems Problems Resident Consnictions, under capacity, pondiag. Type: sheettlow, sale, stream, overtopping, flooding, habitat or organism channcl, pipe, pond: size, Drainage basin, vegaation. cov r, destruction, wowing. bank sloughing, Tnhum,y area, likelihood of problcnn, See Map diameter, surface area t depth, type of sensitive area, volume Ft. sedimentation, incision, other erosion overflow pathways, potential impacu O 24-inch CMP INorth 5th Street 0 450 None I None Qz 24-inch CMP North 5th Street/Park Avenue North 0 40 None None _j 24-inch CMP North 5th Street 0.3 250 None None ® 24-inch CMP North 5th Street 0.2 272 None None Os 24-inch CMP North 5th Street 0.23 272 None None © 24-inch CMP North 5th Street 0.41 309 None None t2567 002.doc [R /tep] D4 - 5 T23N E W 1/2 I:t 1 T r r f t � I2Aa- tl/ ' "�'la �e�l 1°'° V •�. 1. ,; � s, k�12,➢3-Y � � t _ � , (: �X4 'RFt-x IZAri{ `tyfz u \•, 0 i 12•DS-lad C,L,_R \ \ - '' A a IEF� j IxF3- u { 1e"nesCet 1r8th Si,.'.. "IeFS-3 IV 8th St- ]2F3-9 Ix.W- .. �52 ➢ar11 I le.ab�� \_J'W:i !1 �32'FS`lx IZFa-x D �BAa_'° 1� teFa NyIIIII Q! II 12,06 6 12 13 12A6-t I ^� I lzaa•2t... ! y�l � /�� I II 1tjW-YS _ ., l II � eas-R F 1! N 6th t za y �_ EF '_ 6 h St zA)1 Ar bt Stl e " m_- e ( ea7 m le )-3 i� uA°-qz I? I i f D 6 St [L� 1xAD� '�" sue-. c zD� i N t t JImile r Iti�} ii - G isi 5,= / De-1° - �' f �' "J, i v� t L_��_. is Pe`e -Plan _D ne- r - Storm System F4 - 17 T23N R5E W 1/2 1:4DDD D E 24^4 PB/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES Cant""t Womb 0.5 or LO memn 04n8/06 Dates. NAVD 19M Mat® 8 T23N R5E W 1/2 5308 JEG I IUN I 5308. J STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE OIW DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE ? ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2098 5308020301 12,33-1 1 0 0 0 S 27 50 53082302 12,B3-2 _ R-1996 �2099 5308020302 12,B3-2 f D 0 0 S 33 190 OUT/LK.WA- -UT/LK.WA R-1996 ----- 2100 ----....----------- 5308020401 --- I2,B4-I _- 2 N 0 0 0 C 15 PCP 80 53082402 12,B4-2 R-1996 --__- O l 2 l --._-.__. 5308020402 .. 12,B4-2 I ._.__ 0 . 0 0 S 15 375 5308082403 12,$4-3 R-1996 2102 5308020403 12,B4-3 1 0 0 D S 15 0 53082301 12,B3-1 R4996 2103 5308020501 12,B5-1 2 Y 0 0 0 C Y 12 PCP 40 53082502 12,B5-2 R-1996 2104 5308020502 12,B5-2 1 0 0 0 S 15 PCP 380 53082503 12,B5-3 R-1996 _550 ----12-,B5 20503 -3 __ _.._------_.--_- 53082401 12,134-1 R-1996 2106 5308020601 12,B6-i I 0 0 0 S 12 PCP 280 53082502 12,B5-2 R-1996 ----------._--- 2107 5308020701 ---- 12,B7-1 - 2-48 -_.._--. Y _---..-_. 27.5 I7 _---- --. I6.93 -- C -.--_ N --__._--- 24 PCP -0--- 0 ---- 5-- ._-----.. 53082712 ------ 12,B7-12 - SURVEY 2108 5308020703 12,B7 3 2-48 Y 26.8 18-13 17 C N 24 PCP 300 53082701 12,B7-1 SURVEY 2109 5m-80207041 12,B7-4 2 Y 26.67 17 16.6 C N 24 0 53082705 12,B7-5 W-2743 2110 5308020705 12,197-5 2 Y 25.86 16.6 0 C N 24 PCP 0 53078703 11,H7-3 W-2743 2111 5308020706 12,67-6 I 0 0 0 S 12 PCP 100 53082707 12,B7-7 R-1996 -_.... 2112 ------. _..__._--- 5308020707 12,B7-7 -__._ 1 __.-. 0 -. D 0 S 12 PCP 230 -.... _.- --- 53082708 12,67-12 R-1996 2ll3 5308020708 12,87-8 2 Y 30.97 20.43 19.98 C N 18,24 PCP 19 53082711 12,57-]I re31a/R-2s24 __._-- 2114 -------_._ 5308020710 12;67-IO I U --------- 0 0 ---_-_- S ..._- - 12 ____ PCP --_. 35 -_.------- ._ -- 53082707 ___.. ----. 12,B7-7 - - R-1996 2115 53050207t1 12,67-ll 2 Y 31.12 19.98 20.42 C N 24 PCP D 53082712 12,87 12 £8314/R-2824 Monday, September 18, 2006 _ Page 148 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2116 5308020712 - 12,B7-12 2-48 Y _ 27.22 16.8 17 C N 24 PCP 0 53082704 12 B7-4 R-2824/W-2743 2117 5308020713 12,B7-13 2 Y 28.06 22.3 --- 0 C - -- N 12 PCP - D 53082602 - ]2,B6-2 -- - R-27431R-1560 2118 5308020801 12,B8-1 2-48 Y 26.9 19.4 18.13 C N 24 PCP 300 53082703-- 12,B7-3 F.B.R89 2119 5308020802 12,B8 2 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 12 PCP 35 53082803 12,B8-3 R-1996 2120 5308020803 12,138-3 1 0 0 0 S 24 PCP 25 53082804 12,38-4 R-1996 2121 5308020804 12,B8-4 1 0 0 0 S 12 PCP 140 53082710 -------- 12,B7-10 R-1996 2122 5308020805 12,B8-5 1 0 0 0 S 12 PCP 150 53082706 12,B7-6 R-1996 2123 5308020806 12,138-6 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 24 PCP 180 53082801 12,B8-I R-1996 2124 5308020806 12,138-6 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 24 PCP 150 OUT OUT R-1996 2125 5308030401 12,C4-1 2 N 0 0 0 30 450 53084306 12,133-6 R-1996 2126 5308030402 12,C4 2 2 Y 0 0 0 N 30 350 53083401 12,C4-1 R-1996 2127 5308030403 12,6-3 2 Y 0 0 0 N 30 190 53083402 12,C4-2 R-1996 2128 5308030404 12,C4-4 2 Y 0 0 0 N 30 200 53083403 12,C4-3 R-1996 2129 5308030501 12, 5-1 1 0 0 0 8 12 310 53083504 12,65-4 R-1996 2130 5308030502 12,C5-2 1 0 0 0 S 140 8,C5-3 A-1996 2131 5308030503 12,C5-3 1 0 0 0 S 24 230 �53083504 12,C5-4 R-1996 2132 5308030504 12,C5-4 1 0 0 0 S 30 RO 53083505 12,C5-5 R-1996 2133 5308030505 12,C5-5 1 0 0 0 8 30 300 53084508 12,D5-8 R-1996 Monday, S_ember 18, 2006 Page 149 of 569 SECTION r5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. W STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2134 5308030506 12,C5-6 2 N 0 0 0 24 275 53083404 12,C4-4 R-1996 2135 5308030507 12,C5.7 1 0 0 0 S 24 300 53083506 12,C5.6 R-1996 -__ 2136 -------- 5308030601 12,C6.1 2 Y 0 0 0 N 18 190 53083602 12,C6-2 R-1996 2137 5308030602 12,C6-2 1 0 0 0 S 24 455 53083507 12,C5-7 R4996 2138 5308030701 12,C7.1 2 Y 27.06 17.36 17.42 C N 24 PCP 0 53072707 12,C7-7 FB314 2139 5308030704 12,C7-4 2 Y 27.18 17.63 17.55 C N 24 PCP 128 53083704 12,C7-5 SURVEY 2140 5308030705 12,C7-5 2 Y 27.02 17.67 17.55 C N 24 PCP 136 53083701 12,C7-1 SURVEY 2141 5308030706 12,C7-6 2 Y 27.57 17.84 17.7 C N 24 PCP 276 53083704 12,C7-4 SURVEY 2142 3308030707 12,C7-7 2 Y 26.64 17.26 17.23 C N 24 PCP 166 53082708 12,B7-8 SURVEY (�.2143 5308030801 12 C8.1 2-48 Y 29.4 21.11 20.56 C N 24 CMP 272 53083802 12,C8-2 R-1559 2144 5308030802 12 CS 2 2-48 Y 28.9 20.56 20 02 C N 24 CMP 272 53083803 12 CS-3 R 1559 2145 5308030803 12 CS 3 2-48 Y 27.7 20.02 19 4 C N 24 CMP 309 53082801 12,B8-1 R-1559 2146 5308030804 12,C8-4 2 Y 0 0 0 C N to PCP 0 53083805 12,C8-5 FIELD 2147 5308030805 12,C8-5 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 10 PCP 0 53083806 12,0-6 FIELD 2149 5308030806 12,C8-6 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 10 PCP 0 53D82802 12,B8-2 FIELD 2149 53o804D201 12,D2-1 CUL 0 15.22 16.08 48 PCP 66 OUT OUT R-2051 2150 5308040202 12,D2-2 CUL 0 15.35 15.41 48 PCP 66 OUT OUT R-2051 2151 5308040203 12,D2-3 CUL 0 14.97 15.16 48 PCP 72.5 OUT OUT R-2051 Monday, September 18, 2006 Page 150 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE OIW DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 1 ? ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2152 5308040204 12,D2-4 CUL 0 14.93 14.95 48 PCP 72.5 OUT OUT R-2051 2153 5308040206 12,D2-6 CUL 0 16.31 16.14 54 PCP 66.8 OUT OUT R-2051 --- 2154 5308040207 -- - 12,D2-7 ----. -- CUL _ ------ -------- 0 - _ --- 16.15 -------- 16.04 - ------.._-- - - - ------ 54 - PCP _- 70.5 70.5 -- ------ OUT - U ----- OUT R-2051 2155 5308040208 12,D2-8 CUL 0 14.82 14.82 84 PCP 64.2 OUT OUT R-2051 2156 5308040301 12,D3-1 2-72 Y 25.45 17.38 16.57 C N 48 PCP 0 53084314 12,D3-14 R-1899/R-2208 2157 5308040302 12,D3-2 2 Y 24.68 16.78 15.92 C N 48 PCP 0 --------- POND I POND I R-1899/FIELD 2158 5308040303 12,D3-3 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 18 170 T TO D34TOD3-5 J D34TOD R-1996 2159 5308040304 12,D3-4 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 42 290 53084305 12,63-5 R-1996 2160 5308040305 12,D3-5 1 0 0 16.09 S 48 CMP 825 OUT/LK.WA. UT/LK.WA R-1996- _.. 2161 5308 - 5308040306 --2, -._------ 12,D3-6 2 .-_-_ Y 0 -_-_-_ 0 0 C ____. N 36 _..._.. Z00 _200 53084305 12,D3-5 R-1996 2162 5308040307 12,D3-7 2 N 259 1728 17.15 C N 72 PCP 132.5 53084308 12,D3-8 R 1899 2163 53080403-08 12,D3-8 2 25.7 17.15 17.15 C 72 PCP 47.85 53084309 12,D3-9 R-1899 2164 5308040309 12,D3-9 2 25.6 17.1 16.91 C 72 PCP 190 53084310 12,D3-10 R-1899 2165 5308040310 12,D3-10 2 26.1 16.91 16.27 C N 72 PCP 198 53084318 12,D3-18 R-2051/17-2-5 2166 5308040312 12,D3-12 2 24.82 15.78 15.56 C 72 PCP 70.2 OUT OUT 0-2051 2167 5308040313 12,D3-13 1 0 0 0 S 18 PCP 200 53084301 12,D3-1 R-1996 2168 5308040314 12,D3-14 2-72 N 28 1657 16.39 S N 48 PCP 0 53084302 12,D3-2 R-1899/R-2208 2169 5308040315 12,D3-15 2-48 N 24.6 17.86 17.63 S N.._. 48 PCP 153 53084314 12,D3-14 R-2208 Monday, September 18, 2006 Page 151 of 569 SECTION L 5308 j STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE OM/ DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2170 5308643316 12,D3-16 2-48 N 23.3 1828 17.86 S N 48 PCP 183 53084315 12,D3-15 R-2208 12171 5308040317 12,D3-17 2-72 Y 23.49 18.9 18.28 S N 48 PCP 170 53084316 12,D3-16 R-2209 2172 5308040318 12,D3 18 2 120. N 26.67 16.33 15.78 C N 72 PCP 221.7 53084312 12,D3-I2 D-2051 --------_ 2173 5308040401 -.. ---. 12,D4-1 - 2-72 _ ------ Y ------- 25.56 17.24 --------- 17.42 C __----- N -------_ 48 PCP _ _ _ 216 53084301 12,D3-1 R-1899 2174 5308040407 12,D4-7 1 0 0 0 S 18 PCP 350 53084401 12,D4-1 R-1996 2175 5308040410 12,D4-10 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 36 175 53094411 12,D4-11 R-1996 —217G-530804041-- ---- -- 1 — 12,D4-11 - 2 --- Y--- -- -- - 0 -- 0 _. —_- 0- __-..-- C- N 36_ --2-6-0- -- --53-- -__ 084412-- . -12,D4-12 _ _---- ---- R-1996 2177 5308040412 12,64-12 2 Y 0 0 0 S N 42 450 53083304 12,C3-4 R-1996 2178 5308040413 12,D4-13 1 0 0 0 S 24 75 T INTO 412" PIPE JTO 41271 R-1996 2179 5308040414 12,D4-14 CUL 0 0 0 18 90 53084413 12,134 13 R-1996 2180 5308040415 12,D4-15 1 23.22 18.89 18.9 S 18 PCP 330 53084317 12,D3-17 R-2208 2191 5308040415 12,D4-15 CUL 0 0 0 12 175 53-94414 12,D4-14 R-1996 2182 5308040416 12,D4-16 1 23.51 19.03 18.89 S 18 PCP 98 53084415 12,D4-15 R-2209 2183 5308040417 12,D4-17 1 23.22 19.27 19.11 S 18 PCP 175 53084416 12,D4-16 R-2209 2184 5308040418 12,D4-18 1 23.7 19.86 19.36 S 18 PCP 100 53084417 12,D4-17 R-2208 2185 5308040419 12,D4-19 1 24.44 20.05 19.85 S 18 PCP ---- 130 53084418 ------------------ 12,D4-18 -- R-2208 2186 5308040420 12,D4-20 1 24,42 20.87 20.29 S 12 PCP 115 53084421 12,D4-21 R-2208 2187 5308040421 12,64-21 1 24.13 20.29 19.34 S 12 PCP 74 53084417 12,D4-17 R-2208 Monday, September 18, 2006 Page 152 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE i 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2188 5308040422 12,D4-22 1 23.5 20.3 19.8 S 12 PCP 125 53084423 12,D4-23 R-2208 2199 5308040423 12,D4-23 1 23.98 19.8 19.2 S 12 PCP 55 53084416 12,D4-16 R-2208 2190 5308040501 12,D5-1 2 Y 0 21.4 21.2 C N 18 CMP 50 53084502 12,D5-2 R-1941 ..--------.__ 219I 5308040502 12,D5-2 2 -.. _—...----. Y -- 0 — --- 21.62 21.22 -----.... C ------- N ------- 18 PCP __..._ --_.._--- 385 -- 53085505 ----. - 12,E5-5 - _--- R-2448/R-1899 __. 2192 _.-- -.. 5308040503- _12---,D5-3 -_ 3-4-8. _.-.- _ 25 ... 21.73 _ __ 21.29 ....._.. S _._. 24 PCP -- - 176 -----.. -----._ 53084504 -.------ 12,D5-4 _ ____.- R-1996 2193 5308040504 12,-D5-4 2-54 Y 25 2129 20.93 S N 24 144 53084611 12,D6-11 R-1996 2194 5308040506 12,D5-6 2 0 0 0 S 15 110 53084507 12,135-7 R-1996 2195 5308040507 12,D5-7 2 0 0 0 S 24 175 53084508 12,D5-8 R-1996 2196 5308040508 12,D5-8 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 30 250 53084509 12,D5-9 R-1996 _...- 2197 5308040509 53080----12, --._---- 12,D5-9 2 -----___. .----- 0 0 --------._-----s- 0 S 36 ..-____- 175 53084410 12,D4-10 R-1996 2198 5308040512 12,D5-12 1 25.62 22.62 22 02 S 12 PCP 215 53084513 12,D5-13 R-2448IR4899 2199 5308040513 12,D5-13 2 Y 0 22.02 21.62 C N 12 PCP 210 53084502 12,D5-2 R-1899 2200 5308040515 12,D5-15 1 24.65 21.44 20.87 S 12 PCP 115 53084420 12,D4-20 R-2209 2201 5308040516 12,D5-16 1 24.76 20.51 20.04 S 18 PCP 130 53084419 12,D4-19 R-2208 2202 5308040517 12,D5-17 1 25.07 20.89 20.44 S 18 PCP 130 53084516 12,D5-16 R-2208 2203 5308040518 12,D5-1R 1 25.72 21.12 20.86 S IS PCP 130 53084517 12,D5-17 R-2208 2204 5308040519 12,D5-19 1 25.18 21.97 21.4 S 12 PCP 115 53084520 12,D5-20 R-2208 2205 5308040520 12,D5-20 1 24.89 21.4 20.59 S 12 PCP 66 53084516 12,D5-16 R-2208 Monday, S_r_ember 18, 2006 Page 153 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY _ The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W ❑IAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (In) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2206 5308040521 12,135-21 1 25.58 21.64 21.48 S 12 PCP 56 53084519 12,135-18 R-2208 ,2207 5308040522 12,D5-22 1 25.91 21.32 21.64 S 12 PCP 103 53084521 12,D5-21 R-2208 ------- 2209 ------- 5308040523 ---- 12,D5-23 - _ 1 -______- _- 0 ------- 0 0 0 53084522 12,135-22 R-2209 2209 5308040524 12,155-24 2 N 0 0 0 0 53084523 12,D5-23 R-2208 2210 5308040525 12,D5-25 2 Y 0 0 0 0 .---------_ 53084524 12,D5-24 R-2209 2211 5308040526 12,135-26 2 N 0 0 0 0 ....... 53084525 ... ... -- ]2,D5-25 R-2208 2212 5308040527 12,D5-27 1 25.8 22.43 0 12 PCP 0 53084526 12,D5-26 R-2208 2213 5308040528 12,D5-28 1 26.39 22.49 0 12 PCP 97 53084527 12,135-27 R-2208 2214 5308040529 12,D5-29 1 25.75 22.59 0 0 53084526 12,D546 R-2208 --- 2215— - -- 530804053D— --- .._.. 12,D5-30 __.__---- t - --------------- 26 22.23 ------ 22.1 S 12 PCP 146 53084529 12,D5-29 - R-2208 2216 5308040602 12,D6-2 2 Y 27.01 21.21 21.21 N 18 CMP 73 53094501 12,D5-1 R-1941 2217 5308040603 12,D6.3 2-54 Y 26.58 21.67 21.4 N 18 CMP 225 53084602 12,D6-2 R-1941 2218 5308040603 12,D6-3 2-54 Y 26.58 20.26 20,05 N 18 CMP 135 53084604 12,D6-4 R-1941 2219 5308040604 12,D6-4 2 Y 26.4 20 19.95 N 18 CMP 270 53084701 12,D7-1 R-1941 2220 5308040605 12,136-5 2 Y 27 20.47 20.26 C Y 2-12. PCP 60 53084602 12,D6-2 R-1996 2221 5308040606 12,D6-6 3-48. 25 22.13 21.69 S 24 PCP 176 53084607 12,D6-7 R-1996 2222 5308040667 12,D6-7 2-54 Y 25 21.69 2133 S N 24 PCP 144 53084609 12,D6-9 R-1996 2223 5308040608 12,D6-8 3-48. 25 21.77 21.33 S 24 PCP 176 53084609 12,136-9 R-1996 Monday, September 18, 2006 Page 154 of 569 S SECTION 5 708 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W DIAM PIPE LENGTH OWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2224 5308040609 12,D6-9 2-54 Y 25 21.33 20.93 S N 24 PCP 158 53084611 12,136-11 R-1996 08040610 12,D6-10 3 176 53084611 12,D6-112225 R-1996 222.6 5---308-0461---1-2—,D-6 I1 --2--54 Y -_-_.-2 5 _---2--0.9 3 - 20.75 -----._N 24 PCP- 112 --- -5-3-084-6-0- -605 __... 12,D6-5 - ------ --------`------ R-1996 ----------- 2227 -..---- 5308040615 12,D6-IS _.----- 1 ----.._— ----..... 0 0 0 S ___. 370 5-3-0:._ _ 53084604 _ 4-------. 12,D6� R-1983 2228 5308040616 12,136-16 1 27.33 22.27 20.66 S 12 PVC 150 53084710 12,D7-10 R-1922 --- 2229 -----4 5308040618 -l-_-.. 12,D6-18 --_. i .__--- 26.21 22.57 _-.2 22.23 .___._0945 S 12 PCP 128 0 - 53084530 --- 35-30R-220__ 12,D5-30 - _.._._.... R-zzos 2230 5308040619 12,D6-19 1 26.51 22.82 22.61 S 12 PCP 133 53084618 12,D6-18 R-2208 2231 5308040620 I2,D6-20 I 26.5 22.58 22.42 S 12 PCP 97 53084528 12,135-28 R-2208 2232 530 0040621 1-2D6-21 1 26.5 23.09 22.54 S 12 PCP 146 53084620 12,D6-20 R-2208 2233 --------12,6 5308040622 12,66-22 1 26.47 23.26 _.6 22.36 S 12 -- PCP 56 53084623 12,136-23 R-2208 2234 5308040623 --- 12,D6-23 ---- ] -- 26.33 22.36 22.03 22.03 - -- 5 -- 12 --- PCP ------- 79 --..__- 53084624 _---------2208 t2,D6-24 - - R-2208 2235 5308040624 12,D6-24 1 26.7 21.89 21.36 S 12 PCP 71 53084625 12,136-25 -R-2208 2236 5308040625 12,D6-25 1 26.69 21.32 21.32 S 12 PCP 48 53084626 12,D6-26 R-z2oe 2237 5308040626 ]2,D6-26 2 Y 26.97 21.37 21.2 S N 12 PCP 0 53094627 12,D6-27 R-2208 2238 5308040627 12,D6-27 2 Y 27.04 21.37 20.67 S N 12 PCP 150 53084722 12,D7-22 R-2208 2239 5308040701 12,D7-1 2-54 Y 26.52 20.05 18.98 N 27 PCP 346.2 53084702 12,D7-2 R-1941 2241 5308040702 12,D7 2 2 Y 27.23 23.28 23.1 C N 12 PCP 327 53084703 12,D7-3 SURVEY 2240 5308040702 12,D7-2 2 Y 27.23 18.83 18.32 C N 24 PCP 472 53084704 12,D7-4 _-- - BURVEY Monday, S , ember 18, 2006 Page 155 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY 1 The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE OfW DIAM PIPE LENGTH DWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2242 5308040703 12,D7-3 1 28.1 2327 22.94 C 12 PCP 158 530848D1 121 R-1941 i2243 5308040709 12,D7-9 1 26.61 23.42 20.66 S 12 PVC 133 53084710 12,D7-10 R-1922 2244 53-0040710 12,157-10 1 26.31 20.59 20.04 S 12 PVC 135 53084712 12,D7-12 R-1922 2245 5308040711 12,157-11 2 Y 28 18.27 17.97 C N 24 PCP 282 53083706 12,C7-6 SURVEY 2246 5308040712 12,D7-12 2-54 Y 27.99 20.04 19.68 C N 24 PCP 155 53084713 12,D7-13 R-1922 2247 5308040713 12,D7-13 2-54 Y 28.92 19.68 19.1 C N 24 PCP 23 53084711 12,D7-11 R-1922 2248 5308D40714 12,D7-14 2 Y 28.05 18.7 18.54 C N 24 PCP 0 53084726 12,D7-26 R-2208/EX18T 2249 5309040716 12,D7-16 2-48. 28.81 23.01 22.81 S N 10 CMP 42 53084717 12,137-17 R-1920 2250 5308040717 12,D7-17 2-48. 28.78 22.81 22.6 S N 12 CMP 14 53084718 12,D7-18 R-1920 225E 5308040718 12,67-18 2-48 29.28 22.65 21.83 S N 12 PVC 149 53084719 12,D7-19 R-1920 2252 5308040719 12,D7-19 O/W 28.6 21.83 20.11 C Y 12 CMP 0 53084720 12,D7-20 R-1920 2253 5308-NM0 12,D7-20 1 28.14 19.8E 19.13 S 12 CMP 34 53084704 12,D7-4 R-1920/R-220R 2254 5308040722 1207-22 2 Y 26.95 20.65 19.45 S N 12 PCP 157 53084725 12,D7-25 R-2209 2255 5308040723 12,D7-23 1 27.44 23.53 21.75 S 12 PCP 12G 53084724 12,D7-24 R-2209 2256 5308040724 1207-24 1 27.69 21.66 20.84 C 12 PCP 55 53084722 12,D7-22 R-2208 2257 5308040725 12,D7-25 2 N 27.31 19.4 19.28 S N 18 PCP 37 53084704 12,D7-4 R-2088 — 2258 _-__.. --- ----- 5308040726 ---- 12,D7-26 -- --- 2-48 ---- Y ------- 28.5 ---....---- 18.54 -_..._---- 0 C -------- N -----------_.__ 24 0 -...---08 5308471E ---11-- - 12,D7-11 -------' - R-2208 2259 5308040727 12,D7-27 2-48 Y 28.07 23.16 22.76 S N 12 PCP 42 53084704 12,D7-4 R-2208 Monday, September 18, 2006 Page 156 of 569 SECTION 5308 STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES AND OUTFLOW PIPE INVENTORY The inventory information for the storm drain system was compiled from numerous sources, is the best information available at this time and should be used for general guidance only. The City of Renton is not responsible for errors or omissions when this information is used for engineering purposes and design. Users of this information must field verify the data and are responsible for the accuracy of their work. ID STRUCTURE INDEX TYPE cb GRATE UPPER LOWER GRATE O/W DIAM PIPE LENGTH OWN STREAM DS PLAN FILE 1 7 ELEV (ft) IE (ft) IE (ft) TYPE sep (in) TYPE (ft) STRUCTURE INDEX 2260 5308040728 _ 12,D7-28 1 -- 28.14 - 23.5 23.1 -- 5 - 12 PCP 96 - 53084727 ---------___._ ]2,D7-27 _..------0----- R-228 30804072912,D-2 23.4 S 12 PCP 56 53084728 12,7-282261 R-2208 2262 5308040730 12,D7-30 1 28.69 24.99 24.99 --S 12 PCP 112 53084729 12,137-29 R-2208 2263 5308040731 12,D7-31 I 28.38 23.46 23.3 S 12 PCP 120 53084728 12p7-28 R-2208 2264 5308040732 12,D7-32 1 28.5 23.9 33.46 S 12 PCP 120 53084731 12,D7-31 R-2208 2265 5308040733 12,D7-33 1 29.01 24.87 24.75 S 12 PCP 48 53084732 12,137-32 R-2208 2266 5308040734 12,D7-34 1 28.98 25.05 24.91 S l2 PCP R3 53084733 12,D7-33 R-2208 2267 5308040735 t2,D7-35 I - 29.14 25.24 - 25.05 --12 -- 12 PCP 84 _.. 53084734 12,D7-34 — -_-._ R-2208 2268 5308040736 12,67-36 1 28.86 25.46 25.11 S 12 PCP 43 53084735 12,D7-35 R-2208 2269 5N8-040801 12,D8-1 2-48 Y 28.92 22.94 22,61 C N 12 PCP 193 53084802 12,D8-2 R-1941 jj 530 12,D8-2 2-48 D 2. 28 21.5 N 450 0284807 12,D8-7 R-1559 2271 5360-40803 12,D8-3 2-48 Y 29.85 23.96 - 23.21 - N -- 18 PCP - 187 53084802 12,D8-2 R-1941 2272 5308040804 12,D8-4 2-48 Y 30.59 24.15 24.01 N- 18 PCP - 172 53084803-- --- 12,D8-3 - R-19a7 2273 5308040805 12,D8-5 2 Y 0 0 0 C N 8 PCP 0 53083804 12,C8-4 FIELD aj 2274 5308040807 12,D8-7 2-48 Y 30 21.48 21.3 C N 24 CMP 0 53084809 12,D8-9 R-1559 2275 5308040809 12,138-9 2.24. Y 29.6 21.3 0 C N 24 CMP 0 53083801 12,C8-1 R-1559 2276 5308040810 12,D8-10 2-49 Y 30.15 24.05 24.15 S N 12 PCP 128 53084909 12,D8-9 R-2209 2277 5308040811 12,D8-11 1 30.55 24.95 24.05 S 12 PCP 112 53084810 12,D8-10 R-2208 Monday, S mber 18, 2006 Page 157 of 569 EXHIBIT C DOWNSTREAM BASIN MAP AND SYSTEM TABLE - NORTH BASIN OFF -SITE ANALYSIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM TABLE Downstream Drainage Course #2 Basin: East Lake Washington - Renton Subbasin Name: Subbasin Number: Symbol Drainage Component Type, Name, and Size Drainage Component Description Slope Distance from Site Discharge Existing Problems Potential Problems Observations of Field Inspector, Resource Reviewer, or Resident See Map Type: sheettlow, swale, straun, channel, pipe, pond; size, diameter, surface area Diainage hasin, v�eetatinn, cover, depth, type of sensitive area. volume Ft, Consvictions. under capacity, pu Whig, ovenol, ,- Flooding, habitat or organism desuuction, scorning, bank sloughing, sedin entation, incision, other erosion Tributary area, likelihood of problem. overflow pathways, potential impacts Q1 24-inch PEP Commercial development/Dallas Mavis Truck Decking facility — 395 None None 24-inch Pipe Paccar Main Warehouse — 28 None None O 42-inch SD Paccar Main Warehouse 0.19 62 None None ® 42-inch SD Pacear Main Warehouse 0.19 141 None None OO 42-inch SD Paccar Main Warehouse 0.20 300 None None © 42-inch SD Paccar Main Warehouse 0.20 300 None None 42-inch SD Paccar Main Warehouse 0.20 300 None None 02.doc [JPJ!tep] D4 - 5 T23N jE W 1/2 7 ne-a ! POND Op IN '4, ,D3,I9 i\ .. 3E,113-13 12 - �. '\ � � \• 1\_j\,. Fl.dl �{1 \•,�,,,,�\\ 12,E4-5 `+ A 12, -3 r r „ r :t ! '1� -2E �', .f ' �\\\� �_�i�[G,• r12,DN44\ t , • �, - - 12.D4-tE �! � ! ' � ? � `� -`4t� - J 1i�4->\ �u lu; m 12,E4P4 i 32,E4-7 12,D4 12,114-15 -12.C4-4 12,D4-13 IE,HS- 13 16 ,R-12 2,C3-6 17 11E.H3-1 �� 12,114. 1 11 I rI 12,C5- 12,C5-4 4 I •_ 2,Ej,9 $th S't1z $th St 12 cs-s 1 D5 PS._ IRID5.ii:_.. >�ris-�' _... _ _ .. -__.' 'E5�7 '` 12.DS=26 112;D5-12 - ---12 .!z n6.0 sz n6- j J II - Eq -2 =S-9 IO 12.D6_ `,12,D6h9 II �i'i lzcs- Ifs - - I t ll � 12,C6-1 In 1116-19 12,D64,{ 11 J �� ,,(\j\\\ c '` f• t t 1 2,D6-237-16 .il 7-1 70 IMUN-IM2 -A _ .'• n lE,H7-�12,C7-�_I 12,C7-S 12,C7-4 ,2,C7-6 _I ' j F I r�t N 6t ems---- - 6 h Sit >2 D7 1 yy, A' ,1E,H7-1. a.._,�_..— _ + lE,D7� _.. _ 3 12 i17E,D -2B 1E17 - rr ue7 W i - 7- 12 7 i2 1E,37 �_ _ � _. /t _'.,r 'I __._ _ - _�cs•__d � �sM,+ �.�! f ! :.3 71.�.. L, : I _ St .D7'J3 12,D7 r 1 . /I! \ 1 •-��-l//;rr. 't L!'r\ \ { -� 1�iHB --- - - - N - t - . � - " err >� >x �.-r ate_. j _3 r /?. •, - 12 B 7 1z,ne �- i 7 > - Z - -� Z . 1 y { l 1 � C r I: � t _ n.cz-3 n � . vnx ,�--.,..,-_—---°��,_,_-.a...,,�.,. �=•-Nam-.:« �,.•�.:.,� r'T-rA 1 n cE-2 w` = r 1 7.1?sP-s_• . _ - - s „ 7.C2-9"17.DE 17.D22 1 7 i'-.`- ! 7� E•- jF p., ri.HE-e "T".._: ! 17,C2- i - — ti�Y O r „ Storm System P/H/PW TECHNICAL SERVICES 04/18/06 F4 - 17 T23N ME W 1/2 Contour Intervals 0.5 or 1.0 mate x Datum: NAVD 1988 Mean T 111 00 N z V! F—+ N A7 2Q0 4Q0 E 4 1:4800 8 T23N ME W 1/2 5308 EXHIBIT D FEMA MAP EXHIBIT E SENSITIVE AREAS FOLIOS Map Output Page I of 2 0 King County WAP "I ItU 2-6 A-2,1 9! q! 1 2.-1 2 z :C1 2005 KItq CaurrlY 3r 17BTt ai Legend County Boundary 100 Year FloodpIain CA3 Trioulary Ba—r; x Nkiuntain Peaks Channel k1gratun Hazard .Areas Streets -7AT T- :'.r-1 : Da, r.- Source Aquiler SAO VVeMnd Parcels SAO Latdside ,A/ Agrr-utturalWaterwais SAO Coal hlrw 'Widl.le Net-.%x)rk SAO Seismr� SAO Stream SAC) Erosion Ae Chinook Dts1r)butK)n Sermtrve Area Notice an Tilie- ,Ai 2 si tra-i -j Draina, ye Complaints Areas Susireptabke to Groundwater Contaminalon Lakes and Large Rivers Streams Fk)odway Vol j r http://www5.metrokc.-govlservleticom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=overview&Clie... 10/9/2006 Map Output Page 2 of 2 information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King C :es no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King Cc II not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits result use or misuse of the information contained on this map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission c 10-9-2006 Source: King County NAP - Sensitive Areas (http://www.metrokc.gov/GIS/iMAP) http://www5.metrokc.gov/servleticom. esri. esrimap. Esrimap?S erviceName=overview&Clie... 10/9/2006 EXHIBIT F SCS SOILS MAP AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS �.. _ SITE f ` j I _ t m J r i. C - / �'t'�-J-,+ia _, �� r' i� '% •i�"'� 3t` I e 1 In ,. q �. t � - �r PC t,-try'.c' - - �.IS<7::c 'r'ya"x.'�'� i � .+r �-"�/f \"�•�=.:. r, b r.- . ��t l{ y v � . Job Number Scole: D-3 ne0 Horizonfol Verficol For: PACCAR Drown 10-1 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH Checked KENT, WA 98032 Sheet ?' (425)251-6222 Title: (425)251-8782 FAX Approved CIVIi i s q SURVEYING, ENGINEERING, WO L SERVICES SOILS MAP Of _ Dole ��TiNc ENG\NE�Q SURVEYING. EMnRON11ENTAL SERVICES HA. RTCROWSER October 5, 2006 Dave Bennitt PACCAR Inc. 777 - 106th Avenue NE Belleuve, WA 98004 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations Kenworth Parts Distribution Center Renton, Washington 17322-00 Dear Mr. Bennitt: This letter report presents our preliminary conclusions and recommendations with respect to foundation design for the new Kenworth Parts Distribution Center in Renton, Washington. Site Description The project site is located at the PACCAR facility in Renton at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Fourth Street and Garden Avenue North (Figure 1). The site is within the Cedar River valley, with ground surface elevations ranging between 31 and 36 feet. Figure 2 shows the PACCAR site and the proposed Distribution Center. The Distribution Center will be roughly square in plan with a footprint area of approximately 250,000 square feet. Subsurface Conditions To date, two shallow and two deep geotechnical explorations have been completed and evaluated for the proposed building site. In addition, three cone penetrometer probes were also advanced. Locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the explorations and corresponding field and lab data are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively. Additionally, we have developed a generalized subsurface cross section that cuts diagonally through the site (Figure 3). The location of the cross section is indicated on Figure 2. As expected, subsurface conditions at the site are typical for this part of the valley. Our explorations encountered alluvial soils to depths approaching 80 to 95 feet. This alluvium consists of highly variable and interlayered silt, clay, gravel, and sand. At depth, we encountered very dense PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 2 glacial soils that represent the lower boundary of compressible soils that would control foundation design. Of particular interest is the presence of layers of organic peat soils interlayered within the sand and silt layers. The organic soil is of particular interest because peat will tend to exhibit very large consolidation settlement, and this settlement will tend to continue over long periods of time. There does not appear to be a single or multiple discrete layers of peat. Rather, we observed the peat typically in 4-inch-thick lenses. Based on the frequency of encountering organic material in the essentially continuous CPT probes, we estimate an accumulated thickness of peat of about 2 feet in the upper 50 feet across the building site. In addition to our deep boring B-3 in the northeast corner of the proposed building, we also advanced two additional shallow explorations in this area to assess the thickness of "stabilized soil" in this area where the building footprint overlaps one of the stabilized soil cells. There is a thin soil cover over the cement -stabilized material and the depth to the bottom of this stabilized material ranged from 7 to 8 feet below existing grade. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 17 feet below ground surface in the higher northern portion of the site and 14 feet in the southern lower portion of the site. Previous borings and monitoring wells indicate that the groundwater table fluctuates considerably depending on seasonal conditions. The groundwater levels observed in our borings appear to be representative of low groundwater conditions associated with dry seasons. Based on previous borings and monitoring wells, we recommend that a groundwater level at an elevation of 22 feet in the southwest corner of the property, and 26 feet in the northeast corner of the property be used for preliminary planning and design purposes. The above description is based on the subsurface information currently available. In our opinion, the borings performed at this stage of the project are not enough to provide final design recommendations given the size and variability of the site. As mentioned in our proposal, several additional explorations are recommended for the geotechnical design study that would help us evaluate the subsurface conditions. The proposed locations of the additional explorations are shown on Figure 2. Nevertheless, the nature and extent of variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of our borings and across the site may not become evident until construction. If significant variations in the next phase or during construction appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations that are presented subsequently in this letter report. PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 3 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS Although foundation loads have not yet been established, we understand that the building will be predominantly steel frame construction with perimeter concrete stem walls about 10 feet in height. Therefore, wall loads are expected to be quite light. Interior column loads have not yet been established but we have assumed typical column loads on the order of 100 to 125 kips. Floor loads have not yet been finalized; however, based on conversations with the design team, we have assumed that the design floor load would not exceed 500 psf. Site Pretreatment In our opinion, based on the assumed building loads, shallow foundations and slabs -on -grade could be used for support of the building provided that the site is treated to accommodate settlement. We recommend that a preload and surcharge program be implemented to precompress the site soils. Preloading works by temporarily placing a weight of soil in the building area that is approximately equal to the weight of the building such that the underlying site soils are pre -compressed under this temporary load. The preload fill is allowed to stay in place long enough for the underlying soils to fully consolidate. Based on explorations from this preliminary phase and our previous experience in the area, we estimate this primary consolidation (i.e., preload duration) would take 4 to 8 weeks. In addition to preloading to accommodate the building, we will also need to accommodate the long-term, time -dependent portion of settlement related to the organic and fine-grained soils at the site. Peat soils will tend to continue to consolidate and settle over time. This time -dependent portion of settlement can be reduced by placing additional preload weight on the building area for some period of time. This additional weight is generally referred to as a "surcharge." Given the loads cited above and an assumed in -place fill density of 125 pcf, we anticipate a preload height corresponding to 4-1/2 feet (i.e., 4 feet of preload and an additional 1/2 foot to account for the settlement that will occur under the weight of the preload). We also anticipate the need for a surcharge of about 4-1/2 feet to account for the time -dependent portion of settlement that would occur over the design life of the structure, which is assumed to be 40 years. The magnitude of the time -dependent portion of settlement is estimated as 9 to 10 inches. Residual settlements (occurring beyond the design life) are estimated as 1 to 2 inches. Differential settlements are estimated to be half of the residual settlement. The height of the preload and surcharge results in a total height of fill of about 9 feet measured from finished floor elevation (preload height is equal to the weight of soil removed and not the weight placed). For example, in the southern portion of the site, 4 feet of fill are required to reach the finished floor elevation; therefore, a total of 13 feet of fill will be required. PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 4 The preload and surcharge fill should extend outward at its full height at least 5 feet laterally from the edge of the building. To avoid undesirable settlements of existing structures and utilities, it is recommended that the toe of the preload/surcharge is placed no closer than 25 feet to these existing features. Given the size of this building, the preload and surcharge fill will represent a substantial amount of material. At this stage of design, we understand that the preload and surcharge fill will need to be placed at one time. If the schedule changes, it may be possible to economize on the amount of fill needed by phasing the preload and surcharge operation. For example, we could preload/surcharge one half of the building and then move the fill to the other half after the appropriate consolidation time. This could also be done in thirds. This type of operation is typically referred to as a "rolling surcharge." SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM To assess the performance of the preload/surcharge fill, a settlement monitoring program will be necessary. Without settlement monitoring, the surcharges must be left in place the full time planned, and predicted post -construction building settlement would still be regarded as approximate at best. With proper instrumentation, the settlement progress can be more closely monitored, future settlements predicted with more confidence, and the basis of the design verified. Through analysis of the monitoring data, we can implement design revisions, if necessary, or remove the surcharge early, if possible. An early removal or design revision decision would be based on the settlement rate, the construction benefits, and the residual settlements predicted for the building. For the settlement monitoring program, we recommend the following steps: ■ Install settlement plates at strategic locations, including settlement plates throughout the building footprint. ■ A surveyor should obtain initial settlement plate elevations immediately after placement of the plates and prior to placement of any fill. Obtain readings by standard differential leveling to the nearest 0.01 foot. ■ During fill placement, the settlement plate rods will need to be extended by coupling pipes together. A survey reading should be made immediately before and after the pipe extension is installed. kh PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 5 ■ The surveyors must establish a series of benchmarks that will be outside the area of settlement influence; we estimate that a minimum distance of 300 feet is sufficiently far away from the preload site to obtain reliable survey readings. ■ Utilities sensitive to settlement located within 25 feet of the toe of the preload fill should be incorporated into the monitoring program. Based on survey readings, preload/surcharge may need to be removed upon the recommendation from the geotechnical engineer. ■ During the first two weeks, obtain readings three times per week. After the first two weeks, the frequency may be reduced to twice per week. After four weeks, the frequency may be reduced further, to once per week, but only upon the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer reviewing the survey data. ■ Retain Hart Crowser to review the settlement plate data on a regular basis as they are obtained. This will allow us to make recommendations regarding placement of additional fill and preload duration. Foundations Once preloading has been completed, the building can be founded on shallow footings and slabs - on -grade. We recommend the following design parameters: ■ Footings can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure equal to 2,000 psf. ■ All footings should have a minimum width equal to 24 inches and the bottoms of the footings should be at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. ■ The upper soils at the site are very loose and may be unsuitable for direct support of the footings. We recommend providing an allowance for overexcavation below the footings and replacement with densely compacted fill. Two feet of overexcavation and backfill should be allowed for in all areas for all footings. The actual required depth will depend on conditions encountered and, therefore, the need for overexcavation should be assessed in the field on a footing by footing basis. ■ Slabs -on -grade can be used for support of the floor slab provided the upper 24 inches of subgrade have been recompacted to 95 percent of the maximum modified Proctor dry density. This may require some overexcavation and some moisture conditioning and recompacting of the site soils. This earthwork will be greatly simplified by conducting these operations during extended periods of dry weather. Ar7 PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 6 ■ Slabs can be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 250 pci (based on a 1- by 1-foot plate). ■ Slabs should be underlain by at least 6 inches of free -draining sand to act as a capillary break. Site Preparation and Grading We understand that proposed grading plans calls for up to 4 feet of fill to be placed above existing grades on one half of the site. Before fill is placed, subgrade preparation should include stripping and grubbing of deleterious fills or soil, surficial topsoil, and tree/brush roots or debris. Grasses with minimal roots do not require removal before grading. The existing building foundations and pavement along the southern portion of the site can be broken up and compacted into the lower portion of the fill, no closer than 2 feet from any footings or slabs. Cut and Fill Slopes We recommend the temporary or finished grade for well constructed slopes be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Slopes should be protected both during and after construction from erosion, and drainage should not be allowed to occur over the face of slopes. Structural Fill During wet weather, structural fills should consist of well graded, durable, granular material (sand or sand and gravel) that does not contain more than 5 percent material by weight passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction). In addition, it is usually desirable to limit this material to a maximum diameter of 6 inches for ease of compaction and future utility installation. During dry weather, any non -organic, sand or gravel soil that can be compacted in accordance with the subsequent recommendations of this report can be used. Structural fill should be placed and compacted according to the following recommendations: ■ Control the moisture content of the fill within 2 percent of the optimum moisture. Optimum moisture is the moisture content corresponding to its maximum Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557); ■ Compact to a minimum of 90 and 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedure), within 2 feet of footings and slabs, respectively; ■ Place and compact all structural fill in lifts with a loose thickness no greater than 10 inches. If small, hand -operated compaction equipment is used to compact structural fill, fill lifts should not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness; and PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 173 22-00 Page 7 ■ Structural fill used to backfill utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. The contractor should be responsible to have the necessary compaction equipment on site to meet the compaction specifications. The compacted densities of fill lifts should be verified by testing following compaction. Before fill control can begin, the compaction characteristics of the fill material must be determined from representative samples of the proposed structural fill. A study of compaction characteristics should include determination of maximum dry density, gradation, and optimum and natural moisture contents of these soils at the time of placement. Full-time inspection of the contractor's compaction activities should be performed. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In this section we address the design response spectrum and discuss the liquefaction potential at the site. Design Response Spectrum The structural engineer uses the design response spectrum to calculate the seismic -induced base shear of the proposed structure. We assume that the seismic design of this project will be performed in accordance the 2003 International Building Code. The basis of design for this code is two-thirds of the hazard associated with an earthquake with 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year window of time, which corresponds to an average return period of 2,475 years. We obtained the seismic hazard from the United States Geologic Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS 2002) for Latitude 47.489 and Longitude-122.199. Below, we provide parameters for seismic design in accordance with this code. These coefficients should provide all of the information required to perform the seismic design in accordance with the IBC 2003. ■ Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SS = 1.43 g; ■ Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S, _ 0.49g;and ■ Site Class E (for buildings with periods less than 0.5 seconds). The site contains liquefiable soils, which would be classified as Site Class F and require a site -specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis. However, the code permits structures with periods of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second to be analyzed based on the PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 8 Site Class E. The structural engineer should be consulted to verify that this is the case for the proposed warehouse. Liquefaction Liquefaction of saturated granular soils can occur as a result of cyclic shaking and shear deformation during an earthquake. Shaking increases soil pore water pressures, which reduces the strength in the liquefaction zone, potentially causing settlement. Because there are zones of liquefiable material beneath the site, the building area will undergo some level of subsidence as a result of liquefaction. Because the depth to groundwater is on the order of 15 feet the upper soils will not liquefy and will retain their integrity. This means that liquefaction should not result in a catastrophic collapse of the foundations for the building. The effects of liquefaction will manifest themselves in potentially substantial settlement of the building. We have not yet concluded our quantitative analysis of subsidence but 6 to 12 inches is not unrealistic to consider under a severe seismic event. We expect this subsidence to occur over the width of one bay (approximately 40 feet) as differential settlement. The structural engineer will need to consider this movement during design of the structure. A AL% PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 9 For slabs -on -grade, we expect that potentially extensive damage will occur that will require repair or replacement of the slab. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. MATTHEW GIBSON, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Generalized Subsurface Cross Section AW Appendix A - Field Explorations Methods and Analysis Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Program cc: Vicki ZumBrunnen, PACCAR Rick Grimes, Freiheit and Ho Architects J:\Jobs\l 732200\Kenworth Geot Recomm Ur ELH.doc EXPIRES 10/03/ c GARRY E. HORVITZ, P.E. Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer a Vicinity Map PACCAR Mawr a Co C 0 z 2 W Q c "'t /4ar P, 900 7th St Airport Way S S Tobin St D D- M CD sG,M z z z� m m m 900 NE 12th St NE ,- G) D < NE tot D 900 V NE 9th St � � m D cn <CD x Z Z z o CU Q. NE 7th 3 4 IIr D Subject � CD NE 6th N sty St 0 Property ,2: m N 5th St a E ca '?!+' w NE 4th St ' Greenwoo N 3rd S# Memorial D 3(as Park cD z 900 Mt Olivet Cemetery S 2hd St S 3rd S# Q L S 4th St CO S 6th St ` Al � 7th Sysa� '"�i m� ton All S Source: Based on map prepared from Microsoft Streets and Trips, 2005. Project Area IOU SE sth S� 2000 4000 Scale in Feet HARTCROWSM N >� 17322-00 9106 Figure 1 Site and Exploration Plan PACCAR Exploration Location and Number B Proposed Hart Crowser, Proposed Explorations O B-4 Hart Crowser Boring, Current Study 9 CPT-2 Hart Crowser Cone Penetrometer, Current Study O GT-1 Hart Crowser Boring, 1989 Study QP 0 100 Scale in Feet -10 GT-2Aj LB-21 A A LB-23 GPR-8� N 200 LW-12 9 Landau Associates Boring, 1986 Study GPR-1 ♦ Hart Crowser Cone Penetrometer,1990 Study LB-14 A Landau Associates Boring A A' Approximate Cross Section Location and Designation Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A -A' PACCAR B-2 (27' N) A► 40 30 B-4 (5' N) Ground Surface - CPT-2 (45' S) B-1 (35' N) j I 50/5" 50/5" 50/3" 50/5" GTA (16' S) - LW-10 (5' N) 50l5 f Soil Cement 11 5 Sandy SILT 2 — $ 17 2 1 2 - 20 3- ? _ ? ? ----- ? -- _. - ? Sandy SILT -2 9 - 1 Silty SAND - _ 70 Silty SAND 6 - - ? - ? --- ? - ? --- � � - - - - - -- ? -_ ? --- ? -- 1 - 5 -28 35 - 24 10 2 _ �Silty SAND 12 ? - ? ? — SILT with Peat Lenses ? --- ? -- ? --- 42 - - 11 - 1 Sandy SILT with 19 00 Peat Lenses o 15 ? - - 12 4 ? --- ? ? —_ - ? -- - ? - _ _ -- -- - - ? --_ - ? ---- ? ---- ? -- Silty SAND _.- - 0.1 14 18 U 78 Sandy GRAVEL SILT/SANb --- ? - - - - — - c 50/5" _ ? -- -- ? ---- — ?------- ? --- --- ? --- ? - Sandy SILT - ? --- Silty SAND Silty SAND Y - 12 15 CU -20 15 - ----- ? _ -- - ? 'Sandy ? ?SAND with Peat =- ? -- CCyAY with Peat 6 37 w . 46 G dAVEL — _ ? -_ Silty SAND 37 -30 - 18 - -_ ? - ? _ - Compressible ?- with Peat 16 - 13 8 Sandy SILT and CLAY Layers ? _ 10? 24 ? 4 - ? ? -- ? ---- ? ----- ? ? --- -'- 21 -40 Sandy GRAVEL - ? -- 47 _ �- - _ ? - 11 30 - 18 Silty SAND to Sandy SILT ? --- 2 15 -50 - 13 - ? _ _ ---- i4 62/11" -60 56 -70 Note: The stratum lines are based upon interpolation between explorations and represent our interpretation of subsurface conditions based on currently available data. A' - 40 - 30 20 10 00 - -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 - -60 -70 HC-102 Exploration Number (34.5' E) (Offset Distance and Direction) Exploration Location 9 Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows per Foot 0 20 40 Scale in Feet MW am OWM- t 17322-00 10106 Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser used in determining the nature of the soils underlying the project site addressed by this report. The discussion includes information on the following subjects: ■ Explorations and Their Location; ■ The Use of Auger and Mud Rotary Borings; ■ Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures; ■ Use of Shelby Tubes; and ■ The Use of Cone Penetrometer Probes. Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project include four borings (B-1 through B-4) and three Cone Penetrometer Probes (CPT-1 through CPT-3). The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, probing, sampling, and testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of our explorations, located in the field by hand taping from existing physical features. The ground surface elevation was estimated from known elevations at adjacent sites. The method used determines the accuracy of the location and elevation of the explorations. The Use of Auger and Mud Rotary Borings With depths ranging from 11.5 to 95.0 feet below the ground surface, four hollow -stem auger and/or mud rotary borings, designated B-1 through B-4, were drilled from August 17 to 18, 2006. Specifically, B-1 and B-2 were auger borings; B-3 was drilled hollow -stem auger down to 20 feet then the drilling continued as mud rotary; and B-4 was drilled hollow -stem auger down to 15 feet then the drilling continued as mud rotary. The auger borings used a 3-3/8-inch inside diameter hollow -stem auger and were advanced with a truck -mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The mud rotary boring used a 4-7/8-inch- diameter drag bit and was advanced with a truck -mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The drilling was continuously observed by a Hart Crowser representative. Detailed field logs were prepared of each boring. Using the HartCrowser Page A-1 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and thin -walled Shelby tubes, we obtained samples at 2-1/2-to 5400t-depth intervals. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5 at the end of this appendix. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1586) was used to obtain disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split - spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free -falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split -barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into water -tight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. In the Event of Hard Driving Occasionally very dense materials preclude driving the total 18-inch sample. When this happens, the penetration resistance is entered on logs as follows: Penetration less than 6 inches. The log indicates the total number of blows over the number of inches of penetration. Penetration greater than 6 inches. The blow count noted on the log is the sum of the total number of blows completed after the first 6 inches of penetration. This sum is expressed over the number of inches driven that exceed the first 6 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the first 6 inches are not reported. For example, a blow count series of 12 blows for 6 inches, 30 blows for 6 inches, and 50 (the maximum number of blows counted within a 6-inch increment for SPT) for 3 inches would be recorded as 80/9. Use of Shelby Tubes To obtain a relatively undisturbed sample for classification and testing in fine- grain soils, a 3-inch-diameter thin -walled steel (Shelby) tube sampler was pushed Hart crow er Page A-2 17322-00 October 5, 2006 hydraulically below the auger (as described in ASTM D 1587). The tubes were sealed in the field and taken to our laboratory for extrusion and classification. The Use of Cone Penetrometer Probes We used a cone penetrometer to probe the subgrade soils for this study. Completed by Northwest Cone Exploration, of Snohomish, the probes, designated CPT-1 through CPT-3, were advanced to depths ranging from 26.1 to 85.0 feet below the ground surface. The system is mounted on a truck which provides the necessary reaction for the applied loads. The cone and its sleeve provide information by which we can interpret the density and consistency of the soils. Correlations exist between the point resistance of the cone and the bearing capacity in the soil. Other correlations exist between the friction registered on the sleeve and the friction characteristics of the soil. We use the penetrometer results in conjunction with the reference "Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice" by T. Lunne, P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M. Powel, 1997. Logs of cone penetrometer probes are presented on Figures A-6 through A-8. ):\jobs\1732200\Kenworth Geot Recomm U, ELH.doc Hart crowser Page A-3 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 were used as an identification guide. Soil descriptions consist of the following: Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the test pit logs. SAND or GRAVEL Standard Pesistadon SILT or CLAY standard Approximate Penetration 3trengtA Density (N) CORSlstency In TSF inTSI In BlowalFoot In BI. IF In Rio s/F of In Blows/Foot Very loose 0 to 4 Very soft 0 to 2 <0.125 Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 0.125 to 0.25 Medium dense 10 to 30 Medium stiff 4 to 8 0.25 to 0.5 Dense 30 to 50 Stiff 8 to 15 0.5 to 1.0 Very dense 150 Very stiff 15 to 30 1.0 to 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Sampling Test Symbols ® Split Spoon ® Grab (Jar) m Shelby Tube (Pushed) Z Bag ® Cuttings 0 Core Run SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS •'r GW iVREs, LITTLE on No AND o�° GP NIz,uREs. uTTu; OR NO GRAVELLY SOILS I ITTLEOR NO FNESI COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM gvEL sANO. GRAINED SOILS COALIE FINES LT wxTURES GC wv NlziuREs RAVEL SANO IETAINED . EIEVE OUNTOFNHEsI "-E THAN'�.�. SAND CLEAN SANDS .'... i'.:: SW s. uirLE OR NO FFINESs F.ELLr OE WITERA" AND : SP IS,,Z1VOLLYsANo. LITTLE ER NO LARGER — 512ENo E SANDY SOILS TTLE OR NO E-SI _E THANFINES SANDS WITH SM SAND -SILT FRACTION uTURES SC mnREs s. sgNO.cur 'AsSWo ON . sIEYE (, UNTIF`FIFINI ML TSAN—IFIE u"° SILTS OF WT. AND LESS THAN so CL Dvs. SANDYNUM cl,AY S.b bLI.—S. GAY RAINED OILS CLAYS — - - — — OL—D SITE AND YsaFLawvusncnr sa aE nwrERRrISE MH FINEACEOIS11 SIxE SILTS AND G—TERTHAN CH YE OF NOD nc m CLAYS _ — OH FLASTKm.oRowicsuTs spLs HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT IC T, H—S, ,TN oNTENTS Moisture Dry Little perceptible moisture Damp Some perceptible moisture, likely below optimum Moist Likely near optimum moisture content Wet Much perceptible moisture, likely above optimum Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Trace <5 Slightly (clayey, silty, etc.) 5 - 12 Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly 12 - 30 Very (clayey, silty, etc.) 30 - 50 Laboratory Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification CN Consolidation UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial CU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial QU Unconfined Compression DS Direct Shear K Permeability PP Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF TV Torvane Approximate Shear Strength In TSF CBR California Bearing Ratio MD Moisture Density Relationship AL Atterberg Limits Water Content in Percent L Liquid limit Natural PlasBc Limit PID Photoionization Detector Reading CA Chemical Analysis DT In Situ Density In PCF Groundwater Indicators V_ Groundwater Level on Date or (ATD) At Time of Drilling Groundwater Seepage (Test Pits) Sample Key Semple Type Semple Recovery 12 S-1 23 6o"'. Sample Blows per Number 6-inches r-* Y HARTCWWSER 17322-00 Figure A Boring Log B-1 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Drill Equipment: Auger Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (AjSTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. • Water Content in Percent ft AL/ 17322-00 8106 Figure A-2 Boring Log B-2 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth Class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Drill Equipment: Auger Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot =04M S-2 10011 r 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. 0 10 20 30 40 50« AL 100* 0 20 40 60 e0 • Water Content in Percent 9 �,/ if/.11RTOWYME 1 17322-00 8106 Figure A-3 Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Gas: Log Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet o SOIL -CEMENT ML Very loose, wet, gray, sandy to very sandy SILT with 114-inch fine sand seams. ML Soft, wet, gray, slightly sandy to very sandy SILT. �3-inch seam of fine ravel SP-SM `- Very loose to loose, wet, gray, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND. ML Soft, wet, gray -brown, very sandy SILT. MH Very soft, wet, gray -brown SILT with some fibrous peat. SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND. ML Medium stiff, wet, light gray SILT. Drill Equipment: Auger to 20'. Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample . Blows per Foot S-1 10 Sore 5 0 S-2 t 10 S-3 z 1 15 Q ATD 0 A S 4 0 20 a S-5 s 25 S-fi 122 2 30 1 S-7 00 0 S-8 40 S-9 S-10 45 1. Refer to Figure A-t for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification.(ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. - Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Gmphic Cie. Loy Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet 45 SM \4 inches of wood/peat Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND. . '-4 inches of wood/peat IL Medium stiff, wet, gray CLAY. 13-inch interbedded sand lenses and 2-inch peatlayer SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty to very silty, fine SAND with interbedded 4-inch lenses of wood/peat. '13-inch lens of wood/peat ML Stiff, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT. "3-inch lense of wood/peat SM Medium dense, wet, gray, interbedded, slightly silty SAND and sandy SILT. CH Very soft, wet, blue -gray, slightly sandy CLAY. ML Stiff, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT. Drill Equipment: Auger to 20', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample ♦ Blows per Foot 5-11 so S-12 55 S-13 60 S-14 65 S-15 a 70 0 5-16 75 171 4 5-17 5 6 80 0 5-18 as 5 5-19 31 90 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanatlon of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). ` 4. Groundwater level, If Indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time- 0 10 2D 30 40 5D+ PP=1.25 233 0 20 40 60 80 100+ • Water Content in Percent f� jJARTCWWSM 17322-00 8106 Figure A-4 213 Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth Class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Drill Equipment: Auger to 20'. Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson S-20 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. ISoil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. DSCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Sample STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Blows per Foat 0 10 20 30 40 50+ Gs 0 20 40 60 80 100+ • Water Content in Percent HARTCo*Sr-A 17322-00 8106 Figure A-4 313 Boring Log B-4 1, Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 32 Feet iorizontal Datum: Local rertical Datum: NAVD88 t USCS Graphic j class Log Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet 0 ML Loose, moist, brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT W Drill Equipment: Auger to 15', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample & Blows per Foot S-1 S-2 tc ATO S3 to S-4 -20 S-5 25 S-6 30 S-7 -35 S-8 -40 S-9 -45 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). ' 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. • Water Content in Percent S% I7/.YS/ V\V I/.7M 17322-00 8/06 Figure A-5 1/2 S-4 -20 S-5 25 S-6 30 S-7 -35 S-8 -40 S-9 -45 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). ' 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. • Water Content in Percent S% I7/.YS/ V\V I/.7M 17322-00 8/06 Figure A-5 1/2 Boring Log B-4 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 32 Feet iorizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions W-G • ML (Medium stiff), wet, gray SILT with some peat. SM Medium dense, wet, gray, very silty, fine to medium SAND. Dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, sandy F GRAVEL. - Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND. ML Medium stiff, wet, gray -brown, sandy SILT with peaty organics. GP Dense, wet, gray -brown, slightly silty, slightly sandy GRAVEL. O O SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND. Bottom of Boring at 85.0 Feet. Started 08/18/06, Completed 08/18/06. Depth in Feet 45 so 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Drill Equipment: Auger to 15'. Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot s 0 3 sc 1 ) 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. P 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are Interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. IUSCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwaler level, ifindicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. S-13 S-14 S-1s J/A317 0 9 S-16 11 S-17 s . • . 0 20 40 60 80 too. • Water Content in Percent >A !�r HARMWIMM 17322-00 8106 Figure A-5 2/2 Hart Crowser _ Operator. Brown CPT Date/Time: Bi l7/2006 8.3008 AEI Sounding. CPT,01 Location Paccar PCF Cone Used. DSA0902 Job Number: '17322-00 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPT N` Of TSF Fs/Ot (o) Pw PSI Tone. UBC-1983 60% Hammer 0 350 0 5 -10 50 0 12 0 60 10 I �II 20 I r�r I 30 I � � 40 _ -- Depth (ft) 50 60 90 Maximum Depth = 26 08 feet Depth Increment = 0. 164 feet 1 sensitive fine grained # 4 silty clay to clay 7 silty sand to sandy silt 110 gravelly sand to sand 1v 2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand - i 11 very stiff fine grained (') ■ 3 clay 0 6 sandy silt to rlayey silt 9 sand i 12 sand to clayey sand C" -red first 6 feel of gravel `ill and backfilled'rvith sand Pefu d at 26 feet due la dense gravel soil behawor type and SPT oared on data !ro,rt JBC-1983 Northwest Cone G_pl—t— Figure A-6 Hart Crowser Operator: Brown --PT Dane/Time. 8/17i2006 9: 1933 AM Sounding. CPT-02 Location Daccar PCF Cone Used DSA0902 Job Number 17322-00 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Ot TSF Fs/Qt (%) 0 350 0 5 10 - r 20 - 30 Depth (ft) 50 60 Ir 70 80 90 Maximum Depth = 84.97 feet 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay . 2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay Ed clay =` 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Predrilled First foot of asphalt and gravel subbase .iod behavior!ype and SPT based an data from JBC 983 Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPT N' Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 10 50 0 12 0 60 irswn. _ I� ts. - I - r i I r�Mr _ III .+w�rirrl. i:�wrl� it i I Depth Increment = 0. 164 feet 7 silty sand to sandy silt 10 gravelly sand to sand 8 sand to silty sand 11 very stiff fine grained ('1 9 sand 72 sand to clayey sand f') monhwear cone =xploranorl Figure A-7 Hart Crowser Operator. Brown CPT DatelTime. 8/17/20061020148AM Sounding. CPT-03 LocationPaccar PCF Cone Jsed. DSA0902 Job Number 17322-00 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type` SPT N' Qt TSF FsrQt i%) P. PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 0 350 0 5 -10 50 0 12 G 60 0 _—T.___.—__T _. _-. -_ - _—�T— _� _ _r.—_'.. __ _ 20 A 30 an Depth ft) ' I 0 I i Maximum Depth = 41 34 feet Depth 'ncrement = 0. 164 feet I sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ® 7 silty sand to sandy silt 10 gravelly sand to sand 2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand .., 11 vory stiff fine grained (") 3 clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 9 sand 12 sand to clayey sand P,dnlled first foot of a.rhalt end gravel subbase Ref—d at 41 ieet due to I—c gravel 'Soil ash —or lvpe and SPT based 11 data -rnm JBC-198.7 Northwest Cone Exploration Figure A-6 cc APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. Water contents were not determined for very small samples nor samples where large gravel contents would result in values considered unrepresentative. The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also presented on the exploration logs. Grain Size Analysis (GS) Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The size distribution for particles smaller than the No. 200 mesh sieve was determined by the hydrometer method for a selected number of samples. The results of the tests are presented as curves on Figures B-2 through B-4 plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. Hart crowser Page B-1 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Atterberg Limits (AL) We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized in the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figures B-5 and B-6. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other test results. Pocket Penetrometer (PP) and Torvane (TIO The pocket penetrometer and torvane procedures provide quick approximate tests of the consistency (undrained shear strength) of a cohesive soil sample. The pocket penetrometer device consists of a calibrated spring mechanism which measures penetration resistance of a 1/4-inch-diameter steel tip over a given distance. The penetration resistance is correlated to the unconfined compressive strength of the soil, which is typically twice the undrained shear strength of a saturated, cohesive soil. The torvane device consists of a 1-inch-diameter plate with eight equally spaced and radially arranged 1 /4-inch vanes. The vanes are pressed into the soil and the device is rotated. The vanes force a shear failure to take place over the area of plate face. The resistance at failure, as measured by a calibrated spring, correlates to the undrained shear strength of the sample tested. The exploration logs show the results of the pocket penetrometer and torvane tests. 1:Uobs\1732200\Ken rth Geot Rec Ltr ELHA.o Hart Crowser Page B-2 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System Soil Grain Size Size of Opening In Inches Number or Mesh per Inch — l p g (US Standard) _ Grain Size in Millimetres J S Ilil'� I I� Iw� hII ICI I I I I IIIII ICI � I III�II I I I I IIII I I I I I m I c, 4 M R Grain Size in Millimetres COBBLES . �I�� Coarse -Grained Soils Fine -Grained Soils _ _L_ Coarse -Grained Soils GW_' GP IS GC SW SP SM SC EL c5%fines IGRAVEL with >12% fines Clean SAND <5%fines -r SAND with >12%fines Clean GRAVEL >50% coarse fraction larger than No. 4 SAND >50% coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 - Coarse -Grained Soils >50% larger than No. 200 sieve 1 D 4 for 13 W "(D.)2 G W and S W i — & 1 c j i< 3 G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting ' Dru;>6 for S W — � Duo x D,,' — requirements for G W and S W G M and S M Atterberg limits below A line with PI <4 G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with PI >7 Coarse -grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols. Dto, D., and Dso are the particles diameter of which 10, 30, and 60 percent, respectively, of the soil weight are finer. Fine -Grained Soils_ ML CL 1 OL MH CH T OH Pt SILT CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic Highly --� Soils with Liquid Limit c50 % Solis Organic ' q Is with Liquid Limit>50 % Soils l_ Fine•Grained Soils >50% smaller than No. 200 sieve 60 50 a 40 30 m a 20 10 0 CH C L Pere MHor0H —CL-ML ML or 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Liquid Limit 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 AM as HAY[/ OWMV M 17322-00 8106 Figure B-1 Particle Size Distribution Test Report e s5,g s g 100 90 80 70 Ir W 60 Z L I Z 50 W U w d 40 _Q+ 30 20 10 0 100 10 t 0.1 0.01 0.0 GRAIN SIZE - mm /6COBBLE %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY • 0.0 11.8 50.6 37.6 ■ 1 0.0 0.8 47.7 51.5 AJ 0.0 1 0.0 1 43.2 56.8 LL PI De D, D, Daa D1s D10 C. C� • 3.577 0.6 0.324 ■ 0.201 0.095 ♦ 0.186 0,083 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS NAT. MOIST. • Slightly gravelly, very silty SAND ■ Very sandy SILT ♦ Very sandy SILT SM ML NIL 22.3% 29.4% 29.8% Remarks: • ■ Project: PAccAR PFc Client- • Source: B-1 Sample No.: S-4 Depth: 10.0 to 11.5 ■ Source: B-3 Sample No.: S-2 Depth: 8.5 to 10.0 ♦ Source: B-3 Sample No.: S-6 Depth: 28.5 to 30.0 A Y ns22-oa HARTQW*5W F(gureB-2 Particle Size Distribution Test Report 100 90 HIM F 80 70 W 60 Z z Z 50 W U ¢ a 40 30 - 20 10 0 - 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 GRAIN SIZE - mm COBBLE %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY 61 0.0 0.0 75.9 24.1 NJ 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 0.0 51.2 41.3 7.5 ILL PI Das D■ Dso Dao Dis D10 C. C • 0.33 0.186 O.153 0.088 ■ 0.166 �142 • 24.435 9.049 5.085 1.301 0.302 0.131 68.88 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 11SCS NAT. MOIST. • Silty, medium to fine SAND ■ Very sandy SILT • Slightly silty, very sandy GRAVEL SM NIL GW-GM 19.3% 25.5% 7.2% Remarks: • ■ Project: PAccAR PFC Client: • Source: B-3 Sample No.: 5-20 Depth: 93.5 to 95.0 ■ Source: B4 Sample No.: S-1 Depth: 3.5 to 5.0 • Source: BUJ Sample No.: S-8 Depth: 38.5 to 40.0 A � 77322-00 %O*jA Figure B-3 Particle Size Distribution Test Report z e e t 100 90 80 70 M W 60 Z L f— Z 50 W U - a 40 30 20 WWI I 10 0 1 F I J Fi+H++ --:1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 GRAIN SIZE - mm /oCOBBLES %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY • 0.0 0.0 73.0 27.0 LL PI D., D� Dso Dao Dts Dto Co Ce • 0,292 0.183 0.157 0.083 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS NAT. MOIST. • Very silty, time SAND SM 30.3% Remarks: • Project: PACCAR PFC Client: • Source: B-4 Sample No.: S-10 Depth: 48.5 to 50.0 R L 17322-00 WWA Figure B-4 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report 50 Dashed line indicates the approximate Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report so I Anchorage ^600 Cordova Street, Suite 110 ,chorage, Alaska 99503-2745 rax 907.276.2104 Tel 907.276.7475 Edmonds 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Fax 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682 Portland Five Centerpointe Drive, Suite 240 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-8652 Fax 503.620.6918 Tel 503.620.7284 Seattle 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102-3699 Fax 206.328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 www. ha rtcrowser. com ' Printed on a minimum 10% recycled post -consumer fiber. EXHIBIT G ASSESSOR'S MAP EXHIBIT H BASIN RECONNAISSANCE SUMMARY REPORTS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 28 LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN JUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District I Cvnthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams. District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims. District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve. District 3 Gary Grant. District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River S Water Resource Section Lam Gibbons. Manager. Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Amy Stonkus. Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist. Earth Consultants. Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist, Earth Consultants. Inc. Parks, Planning and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager. Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager K Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist ,, Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dyanne Sheldon. Wetlands Biologist Cindv Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson. Planning Support Technician Robert Radek. Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolvn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed. Tvpesetter Lela Lira. Office Technician Martv Cox. Office Technician P:CR TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 1I. INTRODUCTION 0 III. FINDINGS IN LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN 2 A. Overview 2 B. Effects of Urbanization 7 C. Specific Problems 9 1. Threat of damage to property from landslides and erosion processes 9 2. Threat of damage to property from Flooding 9 3. Loss of fish habitat 10 IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 11 A. Mitigate current and prevent future threat of damage from mass -wasting and other forms of erosion 11 B. Mitigate current and prevent future loss of fish habitat 12 V. MAP 15 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs A-1 APPENDIX B: Capital improvement Project Ranking (for East B-1 Lake Washington and West Lake Washington) APPENDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations C-1 L SUMMARY Lake Washington Basin combines the East and West Lake Washington Basins, which together consist of the catchments of many small streams that flow directly into Lake Washington. Most of the combined basin lies within the incorporated areas of Seattle and other cities surrounding the lake. The reconnaissance, therefore, focused on five small, somewhat isolated geographic areas on County -administered land. For purposes of the study, these have been named Sheridan, Bryn Mawr, Kenmore, Finn Hill, and Hazelwood. The Lake Washington Basin has been almost completely urbanized. Expansive areas of impervious surface and severely altered stream systems have produced substantial increases in surface water runoff and attendant problems — flooding, erosion, sedimentation, landslides, and loss of habitat. Even the Hazelwood unit in the southeast quadrant of Lake Washington, the least developed unit studied, shows severe signs of stream erosion caused by housing developments upstream. There were several specific problems found during reconnaissance. There is a threat of damage to property from erosion, including landslides and other forms of mass-vrasting. This is demonstrated by debris slides at the edge of the plateau above Tributary 0228, the more shallow slides on the lakeshore cliffs and ravine of Tributary 0464A, and the severe hillside erosion along Tributaries 0224 and 0227. There is a threat of damage to property from flooding due to the deterioration of some culverts In addition, there has been damage to fish habitat where streams have been placed in culverts, where there are barriers to fish migration, where the natural features of streams have been destroyed, and where water quality is poor. Recommendations in the Lake Washington Basin include 1) mitigating current and preventing future erosion, using a combination of regulatory measures (such as stiffening requirements for permits and property transfers and implementing joint jurisdictional basin planning) and structural measures (such as increasing R/D capacities where needed, rerouting surface runoff around sensitive areas, and employing instream erosion control). Recommendations also include 2) mitigating current and preventing future kiss of habitat with planning and regulatory measures (such as developing water quality standards and treatment strategies and developing consistent guidelines for protecting wetlands and streams) and structural measures (including the elimination of barriers and the use of two -cell R/D ponds). II. INTRODU(MON: History and Goals of the Program In 1985 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins --Evans, Sons, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investigations used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6018 in April 1986, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important element of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions, 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage problems. P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) 3' The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage conditions in the County in order to transmit information to policymakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County officials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on. a site -specific basis for any proposal. M FINDINGS IN LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN Reconnaissance of the Lake Washington Basin was conducted in March 1987 by Robert Fuerstenberg, biologist; Matthew Brunengo, geologist; and Bruce L. Barker, engineer. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A. Overview of the Basin Cmg[aphic and land use features. Lake Washington Basin combines East Lake Washington and West Lake Washington Basins. These consist of the catchments of many small streams that flow directly into Lake Washington. Most of the combined basin lies within the cities of Seattle, Lake Forest Park, Kirkland, Hunt's Point, Yarrow Point, Medina, Clyde Hill, Bellevue, Beaux Arts, Mercer Island, and Renton or within the drainage basins of larger streams, such as Thornton Creek, McAleer Creek, Swamp Creek, Sammamish River, Juanita Creek, Forbes Creek, Mercer Slough, Coal Creek, May Creek, and Lower Cedar River, that are described in other reconnaissance reports. For the purpose of this study, the combined East and West Lake Washington Basins will be termed "the basin." The unincorporated County land within the Lake Washington Basin may be divided into five small, somewhat isolated geographic areas. The findings and recommendations in this report have been organized according to these designated areas: The Sheridan area, north of Seattle, is bounded by McAleer Creek Basin on the north, Thornton Creek Basin on the west, and the city of Seattle on the south; The Brvn Mawr area, south of Seattle, is bounded by the city of Seattle on the north, the city of Renton on the south, and on the west by the ridgeline between Renton Avenue S and Empire Way S; The Kenmore area, at the north end of Lake Washington, is bounded on the north approximately by 223th Street SW in Snohomish County, on the east by the Swamp P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) Creek Basin, and on the west by the Lyon Creek Basin and the city of Lake Forest Park; The Finn Hill area, at the northeastern corner of Lake Washington between Kenmore and Juanita, is bounded on the north by the Sammamish River Basin and on the east and south approximately by 84th Avenue NE from Northeast 145th Street to Juanita Point. The Hazelwood area, in the southeast quadrant of Lake Washing on east of Mercer Island, is bounded on the northeast by the Coal Creek Basin, on the southeast by the May Creek Basin, on the south by Mav Creek and Renton, and on the west by Lake Washington. Only a small part of the shoreline is administered by King County, the rest is within Bellevue or Renton. The total drainage area for Lake Washington is approximately 608 square miles (not including the Lake Sammamish Basin's 97.7 miles). While this basin is large, the actual area studied during reconnaissance is much smaller and includes only the geographic areas listed above. A total of 13 streams were included in the study. The total land area for each geographic unit, together with the lengths of major tributaries, is as follows: Unit Square Miles Mai. Tribs Length Sheridan .5 0048 0.4 Brvn Mawr 2.9 0464D 1.35 mi. Kenmore 2.2 0056 2.00 mi. Finn Hill 6.8 0227 1.00 mi. 0228 2.00 mi. Hazelwood 2.1 0281 1.30 mi. These five geographic units are distributed over four King County Community Planning Areas: The Shoreline Communiri Planning Area, which contains the Sheridan area, is a mature suburban community,,with approximately 90 percent of its usable land already developed. Single-family residences dominate this area, but the number of multi -family units is slowly increasing. The Sheridan area contains some of the highest densities in the planning area: 4-6 single-family units per acre and up to 48 units per gross acre in multi -storied apartment structures in planned unit developments. These maximum densities are located in the south-central portion of the area along Bothell Way (State Road [SR[ 522). Community -scale retail business is also located along Bothell Way in the same vicinity. Zoning changes are likely to occur as new multi -family units are considered in single- family zones. Concurrent changes in commercial and business categories should also be anticipated. These changes, however, are likely to occur along Bothell Way and not in the interior of the Sheridan area, which is an established single-family neighborhood. The general character of the area is therefore unlikely to be greatly affected. The Northshore Communitv Plannin Area, which contains the Kenmore and Finn Hill areas, borders on portions of the cities of Bothell, Kirkland, and Redmond. Woodinville, though unincorporated, is a significant population and commercial center, and much of the recent growth of the Northshore Community Planning Area has been concentrated P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) there. In fact, the Northshore area is one of the three fastest -growing planning areas in King County (the other two are Federal Way and Soos Creek). From 1970 to 1985, the Northshore area population increased more than 106 percent, from 38,000 to 78,000. The population is expected to reach 122 000 -- a 64 percent increase -- by the year 2000. Single-family urban and suburban uses are dominant throughout the western portion of the plan area, adjacent to Lake Forest Park. Low -density uses such as suburban estates and general classifications are found in the eastern portion of the plan area (Finn Hill). Multi -family zones are located near and along major arterials, as are commercial and business facilities. Areas of concentration include Woodinville and Kenmore, along Northeast Bothell Way. Manufacturing and industrial zones also exist in Kenmore along the northern shore of Lake Washington and the lower reaches of the Sammamish River. Some agricultural land exists south and east of Bothell, along the north shore of the river. Continued growth in population will be accompanied by pressure for varied types of housing. Recent zoning changes have been directed toward an orderly transition from rural and low -density suburban to higher suburban and urban densities. Increased demand (and opportunity) for business and commercial services will accompany changes in housing. The Newcastle Community Planning Area, which contains the Hazelwood area, is surrounded by three significant urban centers: Bellevue, Issaquah, and Renton. The northern and western portions of the planning area consist of rolling to moderately steep hills developed at suburban residential densities. The plateau above the Cedar River has an established character of lower -density residential uses interspersed with pastureland. The eastern portion of the area lies on the steep slopes of Cougar and Squak Mountains and contains production areas for natural resources such as timber. gravel, and sand. Old coal mines lie beneath Cougar Mountain east of Newcastle. The major commercial center in the planning area is Factoria in the northwest. The population of the Newcastle Community Planning Area increased by 41 percent from 1970 to 1985. By the year 2000, the population is expected to reach 10' 000, a 42 percent rise in 15 years. This dramatic increase in population is expected to increase demand for single-family residences Densities should be expected to rise first in the northern and southern portions of the plan area and subsequently throughout the central portion. The Hi line Community Planning Area, which includes the Bryn Mawr area, is physically and economically dominated by Seattle -Tacoma (Sea-Tac) International Airport. Approximately 20 percent of the area is occupied by the airport itself; additional space is devoted to "clear zones" below and adjacent to the glide paths The remainder of this plan area is predominantly urban/suburban residential. Single-family units make up most housing, with multi -family units generally clustered around existing commercial centers and the airport. These commercial centers include Burien, Des Moines, and White Center. Significant strip development is located along State Road 99 and First Avenue S. In 1970, the population of the plan area was approximately 138,000. By 1980 that figure had declined to 129,000 (a 6% drop), and by 1985 the population had recovered P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) somewhat to 133,000. The estimated figure for the year 2000 is 135,000. There are dense concentrations of people in White Center and the North Hill neighborhoods. Existing development in the Highline Plan Area is substantial and generally not subject to drastic reordering. Future zoning changes will reinforce and improve existing residential neighborhoods and business centers. Geologic and geomorphic features The deep, elongated trough occupied by Lake Washington was carved mostly by glacial ice into unconsolidated glacial and nonglacial sediments. Those sediments reach thicknesses of more than 3,000 feet north of Mercer Island, but are thinner where they are lapped onto the bedrock of the Newcastle anticline to the south. The North Seattle and Interlake drift plains (west and east of the trough, merging to the north) are similar in topography and stratigraphy: drumlinoid plateaus surfaced with till overlying proglacial sands and gravels and lacustrine silt exposed mainly in bluffs along the lake. Toward Renton, these materials are plastered over sandstones, siltstones, and volcanic rocks of the Puget Group and folded into a ridge perpendicular to the trough. The topography, which determines current drainage patterns, was shaped by southward ice movements. Streams tend to flow north or south between drumlins. In the Kenmore and Bryn Mawr areas, at the northern and southern ends of the lake, respectively, slopes are relatively gentle, and till mantles the surface to the lake shore. The larger streams in these units flow directly toward the lake, and older sediments are exposed mainly in deep ravines. Along the eastern and western sides of the trough (where the Sheridan, Finn Hill, and Hazelwood areas are located) major streams rise on the plateau and flow parallel to the lake. Trough sideslopes, eroded by the sides of the glacier lobe, are steeper and generally expose the gravels, sands, and silts under till. The creeks in these areas are mostly small and fed by seepage, except where they have captured the flow of plateau streams. The differences in topography and exposure of geologic materials in the various terrains produce differences in the intensity of geomorphic processes. In general, the steep, high lakeshore bluffs have the highest levels of groundwater seepage, landsliding, and actual or potential stream erosion. Trough sideslopes, originally carved by glacial ice, make up all of the Sheridan area, the west -facing hillsides of Hazelwood and Finn Hill, and the bluffs west of Renton Airport in Bryn Mawr. In these areas, there is groundwater seepage in exposed sandy layers perched over silt or till. This seepage contributes to mass movement -- mostly shallow debris slides in Sheridan and Hazelwood, commonly in artificial cuts but including larger slumps in Bryn Mawr and Finn Hill and one large, active slump northeast of the May Creek interchange in Hazelwood. Most streams are short and ephemeral and have not eroded far into the bluffs. But in Finn Hill, greater seepage has formed larger streams; these have cut eastward, expanding their catchment areas and increasing their erosive potential. Likewise, one stream in Hazelwood has carved a deep ravine into the edge of the plateau. These large ravines are quite sensitive to further slope and channel erosion. Where slope aspect is parallel to the direction of ice flow, there is relatively impermeable till at the surface, so that more of the precipitation runs off into numerous smaller streams. The largest of these have cut through the till and into erodible sediments below, forming ravines where sliding and channel erosion are much more active. This is P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) especially true in the Lakeridge Park ravine in Bryn Mawr. Because lakeshore slopes in these areas are more gentle and experience little seepage, the landslide rate is lower than in similar areas. Slides of various magnitudes do occur, however, particularly where slopes have been undercut during road construction as along Bothell Way, Juanita Drive, and Rainier Avenue S and where the stratigraphy is particularly suitable (e.g., the old slide west of Kenmore). There are areas of rolling plateau in the Hazelwood and Finn Hill areas, and the upland regions of Kenmore and Bryn Mawr are similar. Because of the gentle gradients and moderate levels of urbanization, there are few erosion problems. Water perched over till collects into wetlands and small streams, then flows to the lake; it is on the plateau edges that these creeks cause problems. Development activities that would increase the volumes and rates of discharge in these streams would aggravate erosion downstream in the ravines. Major hydrologic and hydraulic features Lake Washington Basin, as the name is used here, is a collection of small, mostly urbanized basins that drain the plateaus around Lake Washington. Most of the drainage originates as surface runoff from urban areas, with groundwater seepages contributing significantly to the flow in the lower reaches and near the base of the bluffs. The hydrologic response to storms in the basin may be characterized as flashy (i.e., rapid increase and recession of flows) because of the large amount of impervious area, the steep gradients in the lower reaches, the short length of each tributary, and the lack of hydraulic controls such as lakes or wetlands. Particular hydrologic and hydraulic features of the five geographic areas studied during reconnaissance are described below. Sheridan area. Most of the drainage courses in the Sheridan unit have been piped directly into fake Washington. There is a single open channel left -- Tributary 0043. The volumes of flow and peak discharge in this stream are relatively small, even though the drainage area that feeds it is almost fully urbanized. The reason for this is that some of the area runoff used to feed it is now piped directly into the lake. Many springs exist between Bothell Way and the Burke -Gilman Trail. Significant amounts of flow have emerged from these seepages and have ponded in terraced yards on the hillsides; this has undermined the subbase of pavements and caused the periodic flooding of basements Most of the seepage is intercepted by storm sewers and discharged to fake Washington. Brvn Mawr area. Bryn Mawr is almost fully urbanized, with new construction proceeding in the few remaining undeveloped areas Flow originates as runoff from impervious areas and groundwater seepage in the lower reaches There are five streams with open channels, most of which have been partially channelized or piped. One example is Tributary 0464A, which has been channelized or piped along Renton Avenue for .30 miles. There is one large wetland in this area that was not covered by the King County Wetland [nventorv. This wetland is located in subcatchment 4 on Tributary 0464E at river mile .25. It is one of the few wetlands located in the Lake Washington Basin and provides flow attenuation and water quality enhancement for Tributaries 0464E and 0464D. Hazelwood area. A north -south ridge bisects the Hazelwood area. Rain falling on the west side of the ridge flows into subcatchments 13 and 19. Rain falling to the east P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) flows into Tributary 0281. Drainage from subcatchments 18 and 19 is diffuse, flowing into Lake Washington at many points. There were few problems associated with surface runoff in these subcatchments. Tributary 0231, however, has experienced severe channel erosion due to a combination of increased peak flows from new developments in the area and the highly erosive nature of the soils along the channel. Finn Hill area. Finn Hill is the most complex unit in the Lake Washington system. There are seven streams that drain a flat, developing plateau. The gradients of these streams increase to a maximum of 8-12 percent as they approach Lake Washington. Most of the runoff in this basin originates as impervious runoff or seepage out of hillsides. There are several wetlands located in the Finn Hill area. Three are identified in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF) -- one along the shore near Inglewood Country Club, another in Big Finn Hill County Park, and the third near Northeast 141st Street and 84th Avenue NE. During the reconnaissance, 10 other wetland sites were discovered, seven of them on the Tributary 0228 system. The hydrologic response to storms in the basin is typically fast, except for Tributary 0288, which is buffered from high peak flows by the many wetlands. Kenmore area. Flow in the Kenmore area originates as runoff from urban areas. The major tributary in the basin, 0056, has been channelized over most of its length. The headwaters of this stream are located in Snohomish County near a major housing development. Although the gradients in the basin are typically lower than those in the other areas, the hvdrologic response to storms is still fast due to the lack of vegetation along Tributary 0656, the large amount of runoff from impervious surfaces, and the small size of the basin. Habitat characteristics. Habitat diversity in all stream systems of the Lake Washington Basin has been significantly reduced by urbanization. Long reaches have been channelized or placed in culverts, reducing spawning and rearing areas. Numerous barriers, such as culverts, weirs, dams, and artificial cascades prevent access to upper stream reaches or entry to entire streams. In many streams, urban runoff causes erosion and gravel movement. This fills pools, deposits silt in riffles, and generally causes unstable stream conditions. Headwater areas have lost wetlands and riparian vegetation. The most usable habitat exists in the Finn Hill area where many streams descend from the uplands through deeply incised ravines to Lake Washington. Vegetation in the ravines has generally been left undisturbed, and wide riparian corridors exist all the way to the lake shore. Through these reaches, gradients produce pool -riffle characteristics well -suited to fish use. Woody debris is abundant but often unstable because of high flows. Debris jams are common and produce ephemeral barriers to fish movement. In Tributary 0228, however, conditions for fish use are excellent. Lower reaches of the stream have good pool -riffle sequences and relatively clean, stable gravels, as well as large, deep pools. Woody debris is common and stable; vegetation for stream cover is abundant. Benthic invertebrates are common and diverse, indicating a stable, balanced stream system. Only in this system were spawning and rearing salmonids observed. Even so, a 6-foot-high weir at river mile .45 forms an impassable barrier and prevents upstream migration of anadromous fish. Resident cutthroat trout occupy the upper reaches, particularly in the Finn Hill Park area. P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) B. Effects of Urbanization Intense urbanization of the Lake Washington Basin has had an adverse effect on all of the natural systems within the basin. Large areas of impervious surface, channeiized (and otherwise altered) streambeds, and the lack of wetlands or lakes to attenuate flows have severely altered the hydraulics of the basin. Surface erosion and mass -wasting, increased sedimentation of Lake Washington, and flooding have resulted. Other problems have been caused by excavation, clearing, and building on and along the tops of steep, sensitive areas. Some development of this kind has destabilized larger uphill areas, as well. Environmental problems are numerous in the basin, many of them related to the destruction of fish habitat. Direct loss of habitat has occurred through the channelization of streams; indirect loss by using streams as urban stormwater conveyance systems (which raises peak flows and commonly reduces water quality), the filling of wetlands in the headwater reaches, and the encroachment on riparian corridors (which results in the loss of floodplains and vegetation). These effects of urbanization, as well as the measures that have alreadv been taken to address them, will be examined within the context of the geographic areas in which they occur. In the Sheridan area, the creek does not carry a great deal of flow, because much of the area tributary to it has been diverted to storm drains that discharge directly to Lake Washington. Therefore, any future surface water problems in this area will be associated with seepage from hillsides. The combination of steep gradients and artificial channels makes it unlikely that these systems can (or possibly ever did) support anadromous fish populations. In the Brvn Mawr area, much of the flow has been piped, but to a lesser extent than in the Sheridan area. Some of the tributaries in this area show signs of stress from urbanization in the form of sediment transport induced by increased peak flows and water quality problems from oils and greases. Most of these problems stem from the fact that no onsite detention regulations were in effect at the time most development occurred. Sediments carried downstream settle out in Lake Washington, forming a delta that makes navigation and moorage near the stream mouth difficult or impossible. The worst case of sediment deposition occurs at the mouth of Tributary 0464D; this problem originates with significant rates of mass -wasting upstream (see Appendix C for locations). Although the Hazelwood area is the least developed area of the basin, its major creek, Tributary 0281, shows signs of severe channel erosion attributable to runoff from recently constructed housing developments. Sediments transported downstream had settled in the lower reaches of the creek, caused flooding, and formed a delta in fake Washington that posed a threat to navigation and moorage. The erosion problem was corrected by the installation of an instream detention pond at river mile .85 and a sedimentation pond at river mile .40. These ponds appear to be adequately handling current flows and sediment loads. Other problems still persist in the Hazelwood area, however. Shallow landslides have occurred in roadcuts along Interstate 405 (I-405), for instance, and losses of habitat have been brought about through the elimination of wetlands (at the headwaters of Tributary 0281), and poor water quality resulting from parking lot and road runoff. i P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) Development in the Finn Hill area began at the turn of the century along the lakeshore. As development continued inland, new drainage systems were constructed and connected to existing ones downstream. The process created a complex drainage system with many sections inadequately sized to handle the added flows. Low divides between many of the subcatchments have compounded the problem and made it easy to divert stormwater into streams other than those to which the water would naturally flow. This cross -basin ditching resulted in one of the more severe problems noted in this basin during reconnaissance. Flow from approximately 75 acres of subcatchment 12 was diverted to subcatchment 13 when a new development was constructed near the ridge line between the two subcatchments. The increased flows to subcatchment 13 caused stream erosion and sediment deposition in Lake Washington. Some of the worst erosion discovered in the basin during reconnaissance occurs in the Finn Hill area on Tributary 0229A. In addition to the hydrologic and geologic problems in Finn Hill, habitat has been lost on Tributaries 0222 and 0223 through the elimination of riparian corridors and wetlands. The Kenmore area has been almost fully developed. Its major tributary (0056) has been channelized over its entire length. The tributary receives runoff from Snohomish County and direct runoff from 61st Avenue NE (a major arterial). The most severe channelization and piping occur along the major arterial where the road has been constructed up the ravine. The crowding of the stream between the road and the valley walls has resulted in erosion of the shoulder and slopes. Tributary 0056 is also piped for approximately 600 feet from 61st Avenue NE and Northeast 130th Street to a condominium complex located on fake Washington. This eliminates fish habitat and restricts access to upstream migrants. These and other problems are discussed in greater detail in the section on specific problems (below) and in Appendix C. C. Spec Problems Identified The discussion outlining the effects of urbanization in the basin identified many of the problems found in the five geographic areas studied during reconnaissance. The following discussion gives further details of those problems and provides examples with regard to erosion, surface water issues, and habitat loss in the Lake Washington Basin. 1. There is a threat of damage to property from landslides and other erosion processes active in the basin. Specific problems include: a Mass movement, which occurs at all scales in the basis Slumping takes place in the glacially oversteepened trough sideslopes, usually aided by seepage of groundwater over perching layers. Slides have occurred in the lakeshore slopes of Finn Hill and Hazelwood; an ancient slump is mapped west of Kenmore. Most impressive of all are three prehistoric landslides, all now lying below Lake Wahhington and probably triggered by great earthquakes. One other landslide is located west of the Finn Hill area. Their existence demonstrates the ultimate instability of most steep slopes in this region. b. High rates of mass -wasting in the larger ravines Examples include the walls of the Lakeridge ravine, on Tributaries 0464D and E (in Bryn Mawr), and many of the ravines in Finn Hill. Movement can occur far uphill, as in the two debris P:LWB Lake Washington Basin (Continued) slides at the edge of the plateau above Tributary 0228 that contributed to gullying and sedimentation downstream. Most of the ravines should be considered sensitive, but those in which groundwater emerges at the surface are particularly susceptible to future landsliding. Shallow slides, commonly soil over till or bedrock, occur where very steep slopes have been formed by glacial or stream erosion. One example is the Lakeshore bluffs and ravine of Tributary 0464A in Bryn Mawr. In addition, many such problems have been created by excavation. For example, most of the steepest slopes in the Sheridan area are cuts made (in the 1890s) for the Seattle, Lake Shore and Eastern Railway, now the Burke -Gilman Trail, where slides are common. Likewise, shallow sliding has occurred in roadcuts along Juanita Drive (in Finn Hill), I-405 (in Hazelwood), Rainier Avenue (in Bryn Mawr), and Bothell Way (in Kenmore). Some of these may have destabilized uphill areas as well. d. hillside erasion from surface water discharging over steep banks This occurred in the Finn Hill area (e.g,, Trib. 0224, RM .45 and Trib. 0227, RM .60) and in Bryn Mawr (e.g., Trib. 0464A, RM .60). There is a potential for similar problems to occur as areas on top of the bluffs over Lake Washington continue to develop. 2 There is a threat of damage to property from flooding in the basis Flooding is being caused by: a. Stream erasion and deposition transport Urban development and its accompanying increases in impervious surfaces, alterations to stream channels (e.g., the diversion of flow on Trib. 0229A at RM .40), and inadequate erosion -control measures at new housing developments (e.g., on Trib. 0464D at RM .70) have caused the lower reaches of many streams to fill with sediment. Sedimentation, in turn, has reduced the channels' capacity to carry flow (usually increased in volume and rate from upstream development). b. Undersized and failing culverts. The majority of the failing drain pipes found on reconnaissance were located in the Finn Hill area near Lake Washington, along Juanita Drive. These have been in place for many years and may need to be replaced to assure that their sizes are adequate for current and future flows and that they are otherwise properly functioning. 3. Much fish habitat has already been lost. Much of the historic habitat in this basin has been last or irreparably damaged by urbanization. In the Sheridan and Bryn Mawr areas, for instance, most streams have been placed in culverts. In the Hazelwood area, the single perennial stream has been piped beneath a park -and -ride lot and lost to fish use. On Tributary 0222 in Finn Hill, a 20 foot high dam near the mouth makes fish passage impossible. Problems identified here (as well as the recommendations that follow) will relate only to those systems in which fishery and habitat benefits may be achieved with reasonable measures. a. Barriers to Fish migration. In urban systems, in general, fish passage through culverts and over weirs is a major problem. Numerous road crossings and P:LWB 10 Lake Washington Basin (Continued) landscaping works produce barriers of assorted kinds. Specific examples of barriers included: 1) Drop barriers in the form of culverts, weirs and falls occurred in the following locations: a) Tributary 0223 (RM .45), where a concrete spillway is a complete barrier to upstream migration. b) Tributary 0464D (RM .29), where a 3-Foot drop from the culvert to the stream surface is a complete barrier. c) Tributary 0227 (RM .13), where an impoundment dam 20-feet high and 60-feet wide is a complete barrier. d) Tributary 0056 (RM .05), where condominium development has landscaped the stream with pools and weirs but provided no fish passage. 2) Flow barriers, formed by culverts without baffles or with steep grades, have formed at the following locations: a) Tributary 0223 (RM .05), where the culvert under Holmes Point Road lacks baffles for fish passage. b) Tributary 0056 (RM .10), where a box culvert under Bothell Way may be a velocity barrier at high flow. 4) Habitat has also been damaged or destroyed because of poor water quality, usually the result of direct entry of road runoff into stream systems. The worst cases of poor water quality found were in places where roads were constructed near stream corridors. This runoff contains greases, oils, gasoline, anti -freeze, and other road -related pollutants. Such problems were apparent in the Kenmore area where Tributary 0056 receives direct runoff from 61st Avenue NE and in Bryn Mawr, which is completely urbanized. III- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION The following recommendations propose both regulatory and structural remedies for the extensive problems identified and discussed in the previous section. Suggestions for interlocal cooperation are included, where appropriate. A. Mitigate current damage from mass -wasting and other forms of erosion and prevent further problems 1. Adopt and implement pLwning and regulatory measures to protect sensitive areas in the Lake Washington Basin: a. King County should closely regulate undeveloped areas within landslide hazard zones that are not already dedicated open space (parks, school property, etc.) P:LWB 11 Lake Washington Basin (Continued) and designate them as open space. Priority should be given to the lakeshore slopes of the Finn Hill area and the ravine of Tributary 0281 in Hazelwood. Vegetation removal should be minimized in all such areas. b. Public agencies should exercise special care in approving the siun& design, and construction of structures within and directly above the landslide -hazard zones, Permit applications in these areas should include professional evaluations of slope stability conditions and potential for increase in erosion. c. Maintain uplands that currently act as natural water -storage arras (wet woodlands and pastures as well as wetlands) as open space, in order to preserve their stormflow-detention function. This applies particularly to the plateau in the Finn Hill area and the uplands of Bryn Mawr. Both drain into channels with erosion problems caused at least partly by high flows. d. Fstablish interiotal agreements among King County and the cities of Seattle, Renton, Bellevue, Lake Forest Park and other cities sharing basins in order to coordinate a future basin plan and to institute a means by which the costs of Future capital improvement projects may be shared. 2. Mitigate and prevent problems using structural measures: a. Increase R/D capacity on streams where needed. In some cases these can be integrated with wetlands. 1. In Finn Hill, new or expanded storage structures will probably be necessary for Tributaries 0222, 0228, and 0229A. 2. In Hazelwood, the recently rebuilt R/D structure above the damaged reach of Tributary 0281 may ameliorate the situation; however, this ravine is so sensitive that additional controls may be necessary. 3. In Bryn Mawr, increasing R/D capacity and lowering discharge rates could reduce erosion in Tributary 0464D. Some R/D facilities should be expanded and others fitted with control structures. King County should work with the city of Seattle on this project, as most of the tributary lies within city limits. b. Reroute surface runoff around sensitive reaches, or tightline flows through them. This is particularly important in Bryn Mawr. On steep slopes, tightlines should be made of flexible materials, or the couplings on corregated metal pipes sealed, to prevent leakage and failure. c. Utilize inchannel erosion control structures for damaged streams, particularly on Tributary 0281 (in Hazelwood) and 0229A (in Finn Hill). In 0281, where access is easy, check -dams or gabion weirs might slow the gullying, and reinforcement of the small bridge would prevent upstream migration of downcutting. Access is much more difficult in 0229A, but small-scale bioengirteering measures could retard erosion in that channel as well as in other gullies in remote places. P:LWB 12 Lake Washington Basin (Continued) B. Mitigate destruction to fish habitat and prevent further damage. 1 Develop and implement planning and regulatory measures to protect fish habitat_ a Establish appropriate interlocal agreements among public entities during the basin - planning process. Examples include Snohomish County, Lake Forest Park, Brier, and Bothell in the Kenmore area; Juanita, Kirkland, and Bothell in the Finn Hill area; and Bellevue and Renton in the Hazelwood area. Because of the potential effects to Lake Washington water quality, Metro should also be included in these discussions. b. Establish bilateral agreements between King County and Snohomish County and between King County and the various cities to develop consistent, comprehensive guidelines and regulations for protection and enhancement of wetlands and stream systems throughout the basin. c. The King County Public Works Department should give immediate consideration to the development of water quality standards and treatment strategies for urban stormwater runoff that enters Lake Washington. d. Develop a citizen information and participation program to educate the public on how to become involved with water -resource issues. This is critical to nonpoint control in the Lake Washington Basin. C. Minimize and prevent loss of habitat features: 1) Establish greenbelts or obtain conservation easements for those critical stream corridors and wetlands that remain in the basin. Of particular interest are the headwater areas of streams 0222 and 0228. 2) Cooperate with the Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game to detect hydraulic code violations throughout the suburban area, particularly in the Finn Hill area where homeowner landscaping causes the loss of quality habitat. 3) Consult with Washington State Departments of Fisheries and Game prior to designing capital improvement projects in order to work out details prior to design. 2- Design and implement structural solutions in order to restore and protect fish habitat in Lake Washington Basin. a. Eliminate drop barriers Construct downstream weirs or pool -and -weir fish ladders as required. Barriers such as the large dam on Tributary 0227 should be carefully evaluated prior to any removal or construction. (In this case, no action is recommended for the dam.) b. Eliminate flow barriers. Install baffles at 10-foot intervals through culverts. Several tvpes of structures are possible, e.g., slot weirs. angle weirs, and offset baffles. P:LWB 13 Lake Washington Basin (Continued) c. Prevent future barrier problems. Require that future public and private culvert installations follow these standards: 1) Use bottomless arch or semi -elliptical pipes; 2) Set culverts at mean grade for the reach; 3) Select sizes to accommodate the 100-year flood or fish passage. whichever is greater, 4) Set semi -elliptical (and round) pipes I foot below stream grade; 5) Equip tailwater devices with weirs to concentrate low flows and not inhibit fish passage; 6) Equip culverts over 40 feet long with baffles; 7) Avoid multiple -culvert installations. 3. Improve water quality in the basin: a Encourage use of two -cell R/D ponds with forebay and gravel filter. and discharge flows through grass -lined swales. b. Install oil water separators to improve water quality where necessary. P:LWB 14 3 104 ke IL YJ6 sr o aw LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (North Section) $ _ u 2 (� 4 r a ....... Basin Boundary F`� r 5 Subcatchment Boundary i O2 Collection Point Beac a 0 Stream R h .d 0056 Tributary Number gh nds a W 01604 Proposed Project 1 5 sT n r ity f c i'i� t72 Fej a a 1 Y Mites 4AE 14 7 "%it. M 'Milt ll 6`1701"u" 0 SM go G Wf 95 5 aY t V Hill Teel W 65 J :� N 5 ST 3 ❑ 5 a rl 75 ST reen View Ridge z SPnd Pont Rave nti O 50 s N T- =recount 3� Wallinghxd 4 e " 39. A ) N, LJ W C J � da e nAnn a a u v O - ig m Capi r1 Hill `R a dl Mac - TTI n°' AnU�l Q LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (South Section) ro-1 Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary OCollection Point ..r. Stream 0464D Tributary Number 416404 Proposed Project N July, 1987 J South":Pr':'. Mier E 0 2 Miles APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN Indicates project was identified by the Surface Walw Management Division prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this ]'reject Collect. Number Point Project Description 6402 4 Construct a proportional weir in the cross culvert at Renton Ave. Wetland has not been inventoried or rated. Will require further study and analysis. 6403 5 Replace failed sections of existing cross culvert and stabilize failing road embankment. Project is independently justifiable. 6404 8 Install standard control structure in cross culvert at 851h and Bowling St. Depression on upstream side is ideal for detention. Problem Addressed Increases detention of wetland located upstream of Renton Ave. will reduce peak flows downstream. Project will stabilize eroding road embank- ment and reduce sediment to creek. Project will increase detention to Trib. 0464F. 6405 11 Improve drainage system at 132nd and 80th flooding and ponding of water in intersec- Ave. S. tion. P:I.WB.APA A-1 Estimated Costs and Comments $129,000 (Project should be ana- lyzed at time of basin planning.) $54,000 $41,000 (Depends on land acquisition costs. Project should be ana- lyzed at time of basin planning.) $68,000 (Project is indcpen- dently justifiable.) Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 1602` 10 Install a standard control structure at Wetland the outlet to Wetland 1602 (rated #2) to 1602 increase detention. This wetland will require further biological evaluation before RJD design and construction. 1603 12,13 Install piping system necessary to direct flows (which had been piped from sub - catchment 12 to 13) back into collection pt. 12. 1604 10 Replace existing undersized cross culvert at Juanita Drive. 1605 5 Install 400' of tightline. Estimated Costs Problem Addressed and Comments Will mitigate high peak flows discharging $136,000 to Trib. 0228. (Depends on land acquisition costs. Project should be analyzed at time of basin planning.) Streambed erosion in Trib. 0229A located $252,000 in subcatchment 13. (Project is indepen- dently justifiable.) Flooding on upstream side of culvert, which $25,000 will worsen as development in area con- (Project is indepen- tinues. dently justifiable.) hillside erosion and high sediment load in $75,000 Trib. 0224. (Project is indepen- dently justifiable.) P:1. W B.A PA A-2 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (West Lake Washington Projects) Prior to the Lake Washington Basin field reconnaissance, one project had been identified for the West Lake Washington portion of the basin and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, four projects remain proposed for the West Lake Washington portion of the basin. Thev include four new, previously unidentified and unrated projects. These displace the previously selected project, which was eliminated based on the consensus of the reconnaissance team. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the West Lake Washington portion of the Lake Washington Basin had an estimated cost of $300,000. The revised list increases that cost to an estimated $301,000. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, Element 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can be considered now for merging into the. "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. RATING COST 1 6405 75 $ 72,000 2 6403 60 56,000 3 6402 44 131,000 4 6404 32 42.000 TOTAL $ 301,000 P:LWB.APB B-1 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN (East Lake Washington Projects) Prior to the Lake Washington Basin field reconnaissance, one project had been identified in the East Lake Washington portion of the basin and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reocnnaissance, four projects remain proposed for this area. They include three new, previously unidentified and unrated projects. These do not displace the previously selected project, which remains on the final list. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the East Lake Washington portion of the Lake Washington Basin had an estimated cost of $200,000, while the revised list increases to an estimated $504,000. This 152 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due mainly to the addition of new projects. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question, Element 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. These projects can be considered now for merging into the "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. RATING COST 1 1603 55 S 263,000 2 1605 40 79,000 3 1604 30 25,000 4 1602' 23 137,000 TOTAL $ 504,000 ' Project identified by the Surface Water Management Division prior to reconnaissance. P:L W B.APB B-2 APPENDIX C DE'rAILL'D FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS r.AKE WASHINGTON BASIN All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development and Basin Planning. Trill. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item" River Mile Point Cate of Prop. Pro'. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations I (X)56 El llabitat Condominium development has Same as existing conditions. Require development to provide fish RM .05 landscaped stream but pro- passage facilities. vided no fish passage through ponds. 2 0056 El Ilabitat Box culvert under Bothell Same as existing conditions. Construct fish -passage facility at RM .10 Way is a drop barrier to downstream end of box culvert. upstream migrants. 3 0056 El Habitat Stream receives road run- As upstream development in- Isolate storm drains from creeks, if RM .50 off from numerous catch- creases, water quality possible. Use vegetated swales and basins. problems will become more two -cell R1D ponds to filter runoff. severe. 4 00S6 E1 Habitat Creek has been forced into Same as existing conditions. Add habitat structures to channel, RM .RO roadside ditch with road- revegelate banks to provide pro - way construction. Habitat iective screen. diversity lost. Fish use declining. 5 0056 E2 llabitat Wetland fills occurring in Loss of wetlands will reduce Establish a cooperative basin Ilcedwalers headwater areas of stream productivity and planning agreement with Snohomish Snohomish County (city of summer flows, increasing County and city of Brier for Brier). peaks and volumes of winter protection of wetlands and streams. flows to King County. 1':I,WB.AI'C C-I Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Cate -gory Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 6 0222 E3 habitat Stream has been piped under Same as existing conditions. - Construct open channel with habitat RM .10 fairway for approximately enhancement through fairway. 75Y. historic fish use Remove pipe and dircel stream into through this reach; new channel. habitat lost. 7 0222 E3 Geology Channel erosion in Ingle- Stream is channelized through Maintain the upstream wetlands (above RM .20-.60 wood golf course, along most of [his reach, and the RM .70) to buffer high flows. Juanita Dr., and in vacant channel may be too small to Assure that the R/D pond at S. end lot upstream of Juanita accommodate present (and of golf course can accommodate high Dr. Deposition in pond anticipated future) high flows from the upper basin and serve on the golf course. Some flows. Continued construction as a sediment trap. sediment may have come upstream will probably in- Rebuild channel upstream of Juanita from recent construction crease high flows and act Dr. (RM 0.6) to stop erosion there. along Juanita Dr south as sediment source in the of the golf course and future. developing area to the east. 8 0222 E3 habitat Golf course pond used as Same as existing conditions. Establish minimum flow requirements RM .30 water supply for fairways. to prevent dewalering. Lower reaches of Trib. 0222 occasionally dewatered. May increase rearing mortality in welland. N 0222 E3 Ilabitat Tributary flows in storm Same as existing conditions. Seal catchbasins to prevent road RM 1.00 drain. Runoff from short runoff entry to stream. Action portion of Juanita Drive affects only 2-3 catch basins in enters 2-3 catchbasins a one -block distance. and flows directly into Direct runoff into parallel tight - stream. line system that bypasses stream. P:I .WII.APC C-2 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop, Pro'. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 10 0222 E3 Habitat Historic encroachment on Loss of wetlands may occur in Preserve these headwater areas from Rlcadwaters wetland. Some fill contin- this headwater area. encroaching development. Remove uing on perimeter. Portion fill; enhance a portion for emergent of wetland is bog. marsh habitat. Problem was referred to Building and Land Development for action. 11 0224 E5 Geology Gullying of ravine slopes There will be some increase Repair tightline. RM .10-.50 below street ends (61st in flows as construction Route drainage on north side along Pl. NE and 62nd Ave. NE), proceeds on the plateau. bench above the stream (county road culvert oulfall (RM 0.45), Main problem, though, is poor and sewer right-of-way) to the west, and broken tightline design and/or failure of or tightline to the stream in a (RM 0.35). Sandy slopes drainage structures. safe, nonerosive manner. are naturally sensitive - Tightline culvert at RM .45. to channel erosion and sliding. Sedimentation in R/D pond at valley mouth. 12 0224 E5 Hydrology Privately owned instream No future problems antici- None. RM .10 sediment pond exists at pated. this river mile. Pond was found to be nearly filled with sediment. This sediment accumulation appears to be a natural process and not a result of increased peak flows from upstream developments. 13 0224 E5 Hydrology 1605 Severe hillside erosion Continued hillside erosion Tightline drainage to bottom of hill RM .45 & Geology caused by surface runoff until mitigating measures and provide adequate energy dissipa- from NE 154th St. dis• are taken. tion. charging at the top of a steep slope. Pa.W11.APC C•3 '1'rib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Calcgory Prop. Prod. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendal ions 14 0224 E5 hydrology New development is dis- Area draining to these tribu- None. RM .35 charging storm runoff at taries is nearly fully devel- this river mile. 'right- oped. It appears that ade- lines were used to route quote detention and convey. flow down erosive hill- ance systems discharging to slopes. these tributaries were in- stalled and are functioning. 15 0227 E7 habitat Impoundment dam. Impass- Same as existing conditions. None. RM .1S able barrier. 20' high x 60' wide. 16 0227 E7 hydrology Old water supply dam (20' Reservoir will continue to None. RM .18 high x 60' wide) at this fill up with sediment. river mile. Dam is no longer used for water supply; it is acting as a sediment trap and is attenuating high flows. 17 0227 E7 hydrology Old water tank is discharg- Flow from tank could be None. RM .20 ing to creek at this river helpful in maintaining flows mile. Flow rate is ap- during low -flow months. proximately t/. of total flow in creek. 18 0227A E7 Hydrology Drainage system installed Continued flooding and Problem referred to Drainage RM .13 in new development is erosion of NE 135th PI. Investigation Section of Surface not adequate to handle Water Management. flows. P:I .WB.APC C-4 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Pro'. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 19 0227A E7 Geology Some channel erosion along Probably due to runoff from Control discharge of runoff from edge RM 25-.40 small tributary channels. homes along edge of plateau. of plateau, especially from any Some deposition above new Soils and slopes are very future sources. May be necessary to housing development. sensitive to erosion. Could tightline some of the existing become a major problem for sources on the steepest slopes to the the downhill development, bottom of hill in a safe, nonerosive especially since it is manner. located at the focus of a theater -shaped valley. 20 0227B E7 Hydrology Tightline has separated, Slopes will continue to be Repair tightline in such a way that RM .00-.25 & Geology allowing water to erode severely eroded until the segments of culvert can't become steep hillslope and cause pipe is fixed. This problem separated, or replace line with gullying in small tribu- may be the major source of flexible pipe. (Problem referred to tary channel. Deposition sediment filling the pond on King County Drainage Investigation in Trib. 0227 at Holmes Trib. 0227. and Roads Maintenance sections.) Pt. Dr. (Problem was first identified in 1986.) 21 0228 E9 Habitat Concrete culvert under No change. Same as existing Install baffles in culvert. Back- RM .05 Holmes Pt. Dr. is a partial conditions. flood to eliminate drop. migration barrier due to velocity and outfall drop. P:I.WB.APC C•5 Trib. & Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Cate o Prop. Prom. Conditions and Problems 22 0228 E9 Habitat Good habitat for resident RM .30 and anadromous fish. Deep pools and extensive riffles. Slight deposition in pools at obstructions. 23 0228 E9 Habitat Cascade to 6' high. Im- RM .45 passable barrier. 24 0228 E9 Geology RM .50 25 0228 El0 Geology 12M 1.15 26 0228 E10 Hydrology 1604 RM 1.22 Two small landslides at edge of plateau; severe gullying from slides downstream to the creek; deposition above driveway bridge. Most damage probably occurred during Jan. '86 storm. A breached dirt road -fill is being eroded by the stream; raw slopes con- tributing sediment. Existing cross -culvert at Juanita Dr. is undersized. Water has recently ponded to a depth of 6' on the upstream side. P:I.WII.APC C-6 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Recommendations Same as existing conditions Control stormwaler flows from future unless flows increase. Then upstream developments such that vol- expect increased erosion and umes do not increase. This will sediment deposition leading require higher than normal R/D to decreased habitat diver- storage and release rates below bed sity. scour limits. This area should be added to the SAMF. Same as existing conditions. Place steep -pass fish -way here tempor- arily, then construct permanent pool -weir fish ladder to allow salmonids upstream passage. No direct sources of surface Assure that no surface runoff is runoff were found, so it reaching the landslides (it may be appears that water source necessary to tighlline flow from is seepage. Erodible streets and homes directly to the materials in steep slopes creek). will continue to be eroded Revegetate slide scars to inhibit (dry ravel, spring sapping); erosion. gully walls are continuing Consider installation of check -dams to fall in. in the gully. The creek will continue to If the road bed is to be abandoned, undercut the sides of the reduce slope of faces along the fill. stream (or fix site for use as an R/D facility). Increased frequency and Replace culvert with a higher-capa- areal extent of flooding city pipe. on upstream end of culvert Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Itcm River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 27 0228 E10 Ilydrology 1602 Project proposed by County Plateau area is developing. Analyze project at time of basin RM 1.45 Surface Water Management This location is excellent planning to determine if project is to acquire wetland and for addressing increased necessary. Conduct thorough biologi- construct control structure peak flows. cal analysis to determine effects at to increase storage that time. capacity. 28 0228 Ell Hydrology Road embankment is eroding Continued embankment erosion Install riprap on eroding area. RM 1.55 into Trib. 0228 at this of NE 138th St. Problem referred to King County road location. Most of shoulder maintenance section of Public Works. has been lost. 29 0228 Ell Hydrology Storm -drainage infiltration Continued flooding and sub- RM 2.40 field is failing due to basin erosion until mitigat- impervious soils. This is ing measures are taken. causing frequent flooding and failure of road sub- base of 149th PI. 30 0229A E13 Geology Channel downcutting, bank- Recent roadside ditching RM .00- and lower -slope erosion; has expanded the drainage .60 deposition at the mouth. area, so downstream problems L.andsliding on ravine may increase. Impervious slopes. surface area may increase greatly upstream, causing accelerating erosion in the ravine. 1'.L.WU.APC C-7 Install underground vault in place of drain field and discharge to nearby drainage Swale. Problem referred to Drainage Investigation Section of Surface Water Management. Increase R/D facilities north of NE 120ih St. Consider inehannel check dams in middle reach (state property). Consider redirecting flow from area west of 76th Pl. NE back to the southwest (iightline along NE 1151h St. and through small ravine). Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Pro. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 31 01129 E13 hydrology 1603 Increased flows to Trib. Erosion will continue as Redirect flow from collection point RM .00-.30 & Habitat 0229A have caused severe development in collection 12 away from Trib. 0229A. Pipe flow erosion in this reach. point 12 continues. directly to Lake Washington. Approximately 75 acres of Provide greater R/D volume above drainage area from col- Juanita Drive, along 76th Pl. NE lection point 12 has been and from end of NE 1121h St. diverted to this tributary. 32 0229A E13 Habitat Road runoff from numerous Same as existing conditions. Provide catchbasins with oil/water RM .30 catch basins along 761h separators to decrease pollutant load Ave. NE enters creek. to steam. Likely negative effects on water quality. Down- stream residents notice turbidity, oil in stream after storms. 33 0229A E13 Habitat Runoff from Juanita Drive Same as existing conditions. Fit catchbasin at last discharge point RM .75 and adjacent parking lots with oil/water separator. is directed into stream here. Turbidity, oil film are apparent after rain. 34 0281 E16 Hydrology I-akehurst regional deien- Pond appears to be function- None. RM .25 tion and sedimentation ing normally. pond, construction com- plete. large amounts of sediment have been deposited in pond. 11:1WB.APC C-8 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Calego Prop. ['to. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems 35 0281 1-M Geology Active, major downculling Erosion seems to be a re- RM .30-.R5 & Ilydrology in the ravine (RM .40-.65), sponse to increase in high undercutting lower slopes; flows caused by development bank erosion upstream upstream. Further increases (RM .65-.85). Valley is in impervious surfaces up - cut into erodible sands stream could aggravate and gravels. Channel erosion. Two R/D facilities erosion is undercutting upstream at SE 601h St, may hillslopes in places. have already improved the Heavy deposition in R/D situation but the sands and pond (RM .40); deposition gravels are very susceptible also around docks at mouth. to erosion. Problem may be affected by presence of sewer line in ravine. 36 0251 E17 hydrology Existing R/D facility is No change. ItM 1.14 detaining water nearly to capacity. Providing good detention for tributary. 40 0464D W6 hydrology I irge quantities of sedi- Problem will continue until RM .00 ment accumulating in lower groundcover is reestablished. reaches. New construction upstream not controlling erosion into creek. 1':I.WB.A1'C Go Recommendalions -Assure proper functioning of upstream R/D facilities (especially at SE 60th St.). -Require onsile R/D if/when the two large parcels along 1161h Ave. SE are developed. Any runoff from homes in Leke Ileights (east of valley) should be routed around to the north; prohibit uncontrolled discharge onto hillslopes. -In the ravine, reinforce the small bridge (RM .65) so that downculling can migrate no further upstream. Consider installation of check dams or gabion weirs in gully. Maintain natural vegetation in the corridor. None Problem referred to drainage investigation section of Surface Water Management. Trib. & Collect. Prob.Site/ Existing Anticipated ftem River Mile Point Caleeory Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 38 0464D W3,5 Geology Sireambank erosion and Problems will continue and in Maintain the large wetlands west of RM .W-1.07 landsliding in steep -walled some cases increase. Slight Renton Ave. (0464E, RM. 20) and south ravine. Channel erosion, increase in impervious-sur- of S 115th St. (0464D, RM. 96). especially below culvert face areas upstream (especi- Sediment trap at RM. 15 would help (at RM. 96), through breach- ally in subcatchments 4 and control deposition at the mouth. ed roadfill (at RM. 78), 5) will increase peak Be extremely careful with runoff from and along sewer. flows. The sleep slopes homes along the ravine edge; route it will continue to fail, con- around sleep sections or tightline tributing sediment to the to the bottom of the stream. stream. homes are built (or are being built) all along the edges of the ravine; some may be damaged by future landslides. 39 464D W3 Habitat Sedimentation at culvert Same as existing conditions. Dredge sediment from stream. Replace RM .25 inlet trash rack has caused existing trash rack and culvert inlet complete migration barrier. to provide fish passage. 40 0464D W3 Flabilat 3' drop from culvert out- Same as existing conditions. Replace existing culvert with 42" RM .29 fall to water level; com- semi -elliptical pipe set at average plete upstream migration reach gradient, bottom at 1.0' below barrier. bed level. 41 0464A W11 Hydrology 6405 Drainage system at inter- Continued flooding and road- Install new system of caichbasins and RM .60 section of 132nd and 801h bed failures, as high ditch drainage pipe. Ave. S is not adequate. flows have been eroding Flooding of the intersec- the subbase. tion occurs regularly, according to residents. I':LWII.APC C-10 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item Rivcr Mile Point Calegory Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 42 0464D W5 Hydrology 6403 Bottom 8' section of cul- Roadbed erosion will continue Replace bottom section of pipe, RM .96 vert crossing S 1151h St. until mitigating measures install gabions to stabilize failing has failed, causing road- are employed. bank, and remove debris from upstream bed erosion. Upstream end end. is blocked with debris, causing water to pond to a depth of 4-6'. 43 0464E W5 Hydrology 6402 A small wetland exists on All of the flows generated by Acquire wetland and construct a RM .96 the upstream side of Renton subcatchmenl 4 could be control structure in the culvert Ave., probably a result detained by a detention crossing Renton Ave. of the high fill berm used pond at this location. for the road. 44 W8,9 Geology Runoff from roads, street Gullying will continue as Route flows (especially from culvert (hillsides) ends, etc., is eroding in- long as flows are routed NE of Dimmit Jr. H.S.) around the to the hillside along onto the slope. Sediment area, or tightline to bottom of hill. several pathways, mostly may affect homes downhill. within King County park land. 45 0464F W8 Hydrology 6304 Small depression located Location is ideal for Install standard control structure on RM 1.32 at corner of 85th Ave S detention. With suitable on upstream side of cross -culvert and Bowling St. control structure, detention to detain flows in depression. can protect downstream reaches. P: I . W B.A PC C-11 RECONNAISSANCE REPORT NO. 13 LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN TUNE 1987 Natural Resources and Parks Division and Surface Water Management Division King County, Washington King County Executive Tim Hill King County Council Audrey Gruger, District I Cynthia Sullivan, District 2 Bill Reams, District 3 Lois North, District 4 Ron Sims, District 5 Bruce Laing, District 6 Paul Barden, District 7 Bob Grieve, District 8 Gary Grant, District 9 Department of Public Works Don LaBelle, Director Surface Water Management Division Joseph J. Simmler, Division Manager Jim Kramer, Assistant Division Manager Dave Clark, Manager, River & Water Resource Section Larry Gibbons, Manager, Project Management and Design Section Contributing Staff Doug Chin, Sr. Engineer Randall Parsons, Sr. Engineer Andy Levesque, Sr. Engineer Bruce Barker, Engineer Arny Stonkus, Engineer Ray Steiger, Engineer Pete Ringen, Engineer Consulting Staff Don Spencer, Associate Geologist, Earth Consultants, Inc. John Bethel, Soil Scientist. Earth Consultants, Inc. Puts, Planninp and Resources Joe Nagel, Director Natural Resources and Parks Division Russ Cahill, Division Manager Bill Jolly, Acting Division Manager Derek Poon, Chief, Resources Planning Section Bill Eckel, Manager, Basin Planning Program Contributing Staff Ray Heller, Project Manager S Team Leader Matthew Clark, Project Manager Robert R. Fuerstenberg, Biologist S Team Leader Matthew J. Bruengo, Geologist Lee Benda, Geologist Derek Booth, Geologist Dvanne Sheldon, Wetlands Biologist Cindy Baker, Earth Scientist Di Johnson, Planning Support Technician Robert Radek, Planning Support Technician Randal Bays, Planning Support Technician Fred Bentler, Planning Support Technician Mark Hudson, Planning Support Technician Sharon Clausen, Planning Support Technician David Truax, Planning Support Technician Brian Vanderburg, Planning Support Technician Carolyn M. Byerly, Technical Writer Susanna Hornig, Technical Writer Virginia Newman, Graphic Artist Marcia McNulty, Typesetter Mildred Miller, Typesetter Jaki Reed, Tvpesetter Lela Lira, Office Technician Marty Cox, Office Technician P:CR TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY IL INTRODUCTION III. FINDINGS IN LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN A. Overview of Basin B. Effects of Urbanization C. Specific Problems 1. Drainage and flooding problems ? Damage to property 3. Destruction of habitat IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION A. Reduce landslide hazards B. Reduce erosion and flooding C. Prevent future erosion and flooding with appropriate analysis, planning, and polity development D. Stop present (and prevent future) damage to habitat by addressing specific problems in stream systems V. MAP 1 2 2 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: Estimated Costs A-1 APPENDIX B: Capital Improvement Project Ranking B-1 APPEDDIX C: Detailed Findings and Recommendations C-1 Ulm., The Lower Cedar River Basin, in southwest King County, is unique in its development pat- terns and the associated environmental problems that appear throughout the basin. Except for the city of Renton and areas on the Cedar River Valley floor, most of the development in the basin has occurred on the upland plateaus. Most of this development is recent and primarily residential. In addition, the plateau is the site of numerous sand and gravel mining operations and, in the southern uplands, an abandoned coal mine. Peat is also being mined north of Otter Lake. In some areas livestock are being raised on small farms; there are no major crop -related agricultural activities in the basin. The effects of development are most apparent where storm drainage is routed over the valley walls. Impervious surfaces on the plateau have increased the rate and volume of storm runoff; resulting in substantial erosion, siltation, and flooding below. In addi- tion, erosion and siltation have damaged or destroyed habitat in many tributaries, threatening the survival of fish. Habitat and water quality throughout the basin are also threatened by the filling of wetlands and the presence of large amounts of domestic trash in some streams. The reconnaissance team noted that the Peterson Creek system has so far remained in its natural, nearly pristine condition. Maintaining this quality should be a high priority in future basin planning capital project programs. Recommendations in the Lower Cedar River Basin include 1) designing and constructing appropriately sized R/D and other drainage facilities; 2) establishing stricter land use policies regarding floodplains, wetlands, and gravel mining; 3) conducting more detailed and comprehensive hydraulic/hydrologic analyses of proposed developments; and 4) preventing damage to the natural drainage system. The field team also recommends b) restoring the habitat of several tributaries (e.g., cleaning gravels, revegetating stream banks, and diversifying streambeds for spawning and rearing) as well as 6) protecting the nearly pristine quality of Peterson Creek. II- INTRODUCTION: History and Goals of the Program In 1935 the King County Council approved funding for the Planning Division (now called the Natural Resources and Parks Division), in coordination with the Surface Water Management Division, to conduct a reconnaissance of 29 major drainage basins located in King County. The effort began with an initial investigation of three basins -- Evans, Soos, and Hylebos Creeks -- in order to determine existing and potential surface water problems and to recommend action to mitigate and prevent these problems. These initial investiga- tions used available data and new field observations to examine geology, hydrology, and habitat conditions in each basin. Findings from these three basins led the King County Council to adopt Resolution 6013 in April 1936, calling for reconnaissance to be completed on the remaining 26 basins. The Basin Reconnaissance Program, which was subsequently established, is now an important ele- ment of surface water management. The goals of the program are to provide useful data with regard to 1) critical problems needing immediate solutions. 2) basin characteristics for use in the preparation of detailed basin management plans, and 3) capital costs associated with the early resolution of drainage and problems. The reconnaissance reports are intended to provide an evaluation of present drainage con- ditions in the County in order to transmit information to policvmakers to aid them in developing more detailed regulatory measures and specific capital improvement plans. They are not intended to ascribe in any conclusive manner the causes of drainage or erosion P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) problems; instead, they are to be used as initial surveys from which choices for subsequent detailed engineering and other professional environmental analyses may be made. Due to the limited amount of time available for the field work in each basin, the reports must be viewed as descriptive environmental narratives rather than as final engineering conclusions. Recommendations contained in each report provide a description of potential mitigative measures for each particular basin; these measures might provide maximum environmental protection through capital project construction or development approval conditions. The appropriate extent of such measures will be decided on a case -by -case basis by County offi- cials responsible for reviewing applications for permit approvals and for choosing among competing projects for public construction. Nothing in the reports is intended to substitute for a more thorough environmental and engineering analysis possible on a site -specific basis for any proposal. M. FINDINGS IN LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN The field reconnaissance of Lower Cedar River Basin was conducted in January 1937 by Robert R. Fuerstenberg, biologist; Bruce L. Barker, engineer; and Lee Benda, geologist. Their findings and recommendations are presented here. A. Overview of Lower Cedar River Basin The lower Cedar River Basin is located in southwest King Countv and is 27 square miles in area. It extends southeast from the mouth of the Cedar River on Lake Washington to approximately river mile 14.0. The boundary to the northeast is marked by a ridgetop connecting the city of Renton to Webster and Franklin Lakes: the boundary to the southwest runs along Petrovilsky Road to Lake Youngs. Renton is the only incorporated area in the basin. Other population centers include Fairwood, Maplewood Heights, and Maple Valley. Except for the city of Renton. most of the residential concentrations are located on the upland plateaus overlooking the Cedar River Valley. These upland developments are recent compared to the smaller established communities on the valley floor. The basin lies within portions of three King Countv planning areas: Newcastle in the northeast (which includes Renton), Tahoma-Raven Heights in the east, and Soos Creek (the largest of the three) in the west. Rural areas exist on the valley floor on both sides of the Lower Cedar River, from approximately river mile 5.50 to 13.00. These are limited to pastureland for horses, cows. and some sheep and several small "u-pick" fruit and vegetable farms. Similar areas are located on the southern uplands above the reach from river mile 5.50 to 7.00 and in the Lake Desire -Otter lake area. The plateau is also the site of sand and gravel mining operations and, in the southern uplands, of the abandoned Fire King Coal Mine. Peat deposits exist west of Lake Desire and north and south of Otter Lake, and peat mining is being carried out north of Otter Lake. Present zoning allows for urban and suburban densities throughout much of the basin, particularly on the upland plateaus and in the Cedar River Valley from its mouth to appoximately river mile 6.50. Population projections for the year 2000 in the three plannign areas containing the Lower Cedar Basin are over 311.000. an increase of 47 P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) percent from the present. Most of this growth will occur in the Soos Creek Planning Area. Dominant geological and geomorphic features. The geology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is diverse. Geological formations exposed along the valley include sedimentary rocks. undifferentiated older glacial drift, extensive ground moraine deposits, recent alluvium along the Cedar River, and landslide deposits along the river and its tribu- taries. The sedimentary rocks, composed of moderately dipping sandstones, con- glomerates. mudstones, and shales, are exposed locally along the cliffs of the Cedar River Valley near the mouth of the Cedar River. In addition, the Renton formation, composed of sandstones, mudstones, and shales with periodic deposits of coal, is also exposed along the lower portion of the Lower Cedar River Valley. Undifferentiated glacial deposits found here are composed of three or more till sheets, glacio-fluvial sand and gravel, glacio-lacustrine clay, and sand, and non -glacial sand, clay and thin peat. These lie over the sedimentary rock formations and are best exposed in cross-section along the cliffs of the main valley and major tributaries. The morphology of the Lower Cedar River Basin is dominated by the valley formed by the Cedar River. Valley walls are steep cliffs formed by landslides in glacial sedi- ments. A once extensive and meandering River, which created a wide valley floor as it cut its way westward, the Cedar today is diked for most of its length through the lower valley. A narrow but extensive band of landslide deposits exists along the steep cliffs of the main river and its major tributaries. The landslide deposits consist of deformed blocks of glacial sediments and colluvium derived from slides or mass flowage, such as landslides and debris flows. Recent alluvial deposits fill the vallev and major tributaries. Small, composite, alluvial debris fans exist at the mouths of the largest tributaries. Closed depressions, principally in the uplands, have lacustrine and peat deposits. The Lower Cedar River Valley has a high potential for erosion due to steep slopes and the existence of a clay layer that promotes soil failures. In addition. the confined nature of tributary channels between steep hillslopes promotes bank erosion during high flows. Numerous recent landslides are evident along cliffs of many of the steep tributaries and along the main stem of the Cedar River. These have been accelerated by the removal of vegetation and the routing of concentrated storm flows over steep slopes in areas where development has occurred. Hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics. The Cedar River Basin is composed of a complex drainage network consisting of the Cedar River and 17 tributaries. The larger tributaries begin in lakes or wetlands on the bluffs and flow through relatively flat, stable channels to the edge of the Cedar River Valley, then plunge down to the valley floor through steep, erodible ravines. Tributaries of this type such as Tributary 0304 (with headwaters at Wetland 3111) and Tributary 0323 (which begins at Lake Desire). are found on the south side of the Cedar River. Another type of tributary collects surface runoff from urbanized areas. pastureland, and wooded areas. Tributaries 0302, 0307, and 0312 are examples of this type of tributary. They are intermittent (depending on rainfall), shorter in length. flow through shallower channels that are sleeper at the bluffs and transport more material during times of P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) high flows. Some of the worst problems located during field investigation (see Appendix C for a full listing) occur on this type of tributary. Catchments 5, 6, and 12 have very infiltrative soils. Urban developments hvae utilized R/D poinds to effectively infiltrate all urban runoff before it reaches the valley hillslopes. The infiltrated runoff then reappears as springs. Two large lakes (Desire and Otter), together with four smaller ones (Shady, Peterson, Webster, and Francis) lie in the southeast third of the basin. Numerous large wetland areas exist in this section as well. The field team identified 10 potential wetland sites that had not been previously identified in the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). The system of lakes and wetlands in this area effectively buffers the high flows draining to these tributaries. Habitat characteristics With few exceptions, usable fish habitat exists only in peren- nial streams (i.e., Trib. 0302, 0304, 0305, 0328, and possibly 0308). In other streams (e.g., Trib. 0303 and 0310), steep gradients preclude fish use. Steep gradients also reduce fish use in the perennial systems (except for Trib. 0328). Habitat is in various stages of degradation in these systems; pools are being filled and gravels and debris shift regularly. In Tributary 0328 (Peterson Creek), however. habitat diversity is extensive, and the channel is not seriously degraded. At this location the field team observed at least three species of salmonoids. In general, the most diverse and least disturbed habitat in a tributary system occurs in the large wetland areas in the southeast third of the basin. Usable habitat for anadromous fish is found in the low -gradient portions of streams where channels cross the Cedar River Valley floor. In these reaches, however. only spawning habitat is likely to be available, as the pools and woody debris necessary for successful rearing either do not exist or are quite limited. Excellent spawning and rearing areas exist where pools and riffles are extensive, instream cover and bank vegetation are intact, and diversity of habitat types is abundant. B- Effects of Urbanizatm in the Basin Flooding, erosion, and the degradation of habitat associated with development in the Lower Cedar River Basin are most apparent where development has eliminated vege- tation along the edges of the valley and where stormwater has been routed down channels and wales The removal of vegetation, such as trees, above and below the edges of valley walls, as well as the discharging of stormwater over the valley wall, has resulted in tension cracks and landslides that are endangering some houses. The sedi- ments from these failures are depositing in streams and on valley floors and damaging fish habitat and private property. Discharging stormwater from increased impervious areas into steep tributary channels and swales is seriously destabilizing channels and valley walls; this in turn results in channel downcutting, bank erosion, and landslides The sediments from these problems often degrade fish habitat and settle out on pri- vate property along the valley floor. Two serious instances of development -related erosion occurred during the November 1986 storm: 1) culverts rerouting the stream were plugged, causing the formation of a new channel that destroyed portions of roads on Tributary 0314; and 2) new, uncom- P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) pacted fill adjacent to new residences near collection point 5 was washed partly away during the storm, causing landsliding and gullying. Future problems will be similar to these, as commercial and residential developments increase flow rates and volumes by decreasing natural storage and infiltration. This is expected to occur if wetlands on the upper plateau are encroached upon or lost (e.g., on Trib. 0304 at RM 2.30 and on Trib. 0304A at Rm 1.60). The preservation of wetlands and streambank vegetation and the attenuation of storm flows are essential in this basin. C. Specific Problems Identified The steep valley sideslopes through which streams pass and the often dense upland development result in a number of similar problems that repeat themselves throughout the Lower Cedar River Basin. The most significant of these are outlined and discussed below. 1. Drainage and flooding problems are often the result of several conditions: a. Undersized culverts and inadequate entrance structures. The most notable area is on Tributary 0306 at river mile .30, where a culvert here was blocked by debris carried downstream by the stream and caused erosion and flooding of Fairwood Golf Course. The blockage was compounded by the fact that the culvert was undersized: the problem will worsen as flows increase from upstream development. b. Serious instream erosion and subsequent downstream sedimentation. These have been caused by three main factors: 1) runoff from residential developments on the bluffs above the valley, 2) compacted pastureland due to livestock, and 3) runoff from impervious areas originating at gravel pits. These problems will continue and worsen until mitigative measures are taken. (See Appendix C for specific examples.) C. Undersized rechannelized streams. Tributaries on the valley floor are too small to carry the increased flows originating in developed residential areas along the top of the bluffs. For example, Tributary 0302 at river mile .25. the channel along Maplewood Golf Course, overtops and floods during storms. d. Construction in wetland and floodplain areas, Many of the wetlands on the south side of the Cedar River are peat bogs, and roads built through them continue to settle each year, increasing the amount of flooding on the road. For example, the road crossing with Tributary 0323B north of Lake Desire will experience more severe flooding as the road settles. e. Discharging of stormwater at the top of steep banks At river mile 2.20 on the Cedar River, a trailer park (constructed on the edge of the cliff) discharges its drainage down the valley wall. Increased flows erode the steep valley, depositing sediments on the valley floor, blocking channels and causing flooding. These problems will eventually stabilize, but only after a large quantity of soil has been eroded. P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) 2 Damage to property is being caused by three factors: a. Landslides and potential landslides. Landslides are accelerated by the removal of vegetation on steep slopes in preparation for residential construction and/or by the routing of storm flows over hillslopes. For example, a large landslide has already occurred in the front yard of a resi- dence on the Cedar River at river mile 7.80. b. Sedimentation (from landslides). Sedimentation and channel and bank ero- sion are damaging private property along the valley floor (Trib. 0299 and 0310). C. Flooding during storms. Flooding has been brought on by the effects of development and associated changes to the natural drainage systems in the basin. (See "B" above.) 3. Destruction of habitat is being caused by four conditions: a. Sedimentation of pools and riffles and cementing of graveL& These problems, the result of severe erosion and the transport of bedload material, have been caused by upland developments in the basin and the presence of associated impervious surfaces, which increase the rate and quantity of surface runoff. Sedimentation and cementing of gravels in streambeds destroy natural spawning and rearing habitat. On Tributary 0307 at river mile .40 and Tributary 0305 at river miles .95, 1.20, and 1.70, recent high flows have eroded the streambed at least one foot, contributing to a serious siltation problem downstream. Heavy bedload transport is evi- dent in all systems of the basin except Tributary 0328. In Tributary 0303 at river mile .25, fine sediments are accumulating in gravels that may be used by resident fish. In Tributary 0304 between river miles .95 and 1.20, pools are being filled by sands and gravels and rearing habitat is being rapidly lost. b. C tannelization of stream beds. Loss of habitat through channelization has occurred in all the major streams of the basin, but most noticeably in those reaches that cross the vallev floor. These reaches lack habitat diversity, reducing fish use for spawning and rearing. Channelization has damaged or destroved habitat in several reaches that were once heavilv used by fish: these include Tributary 0302 between river mile .30 and 40, Tributary 0304 between river miles .05 and J& Tributary 0305 between river mile .20 and .75, and Tributary 0328 from river mile 1.10 to 1.40. These systems cannot afford a further reduction of habitat and still remain viable fishery resour- ces. C. The accumulation of trash in stream beds This problem occurs in close proximity to residential areas. Trash degrades water quality and is visually unpleasant. Tires, appliances, furniture, and other trash have been thrown into Tributary 0302 at river miles 1.00 and 1.10 and in Tributarv_ 0303 at river mile .35. P: LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) d_ Wetland encroachment. Encroachment destrovs habitat and eliminates natural water filtration and storage for surface runoff. Examples of this problem were observed on Tributary 0304 at river mile 130. Tributary 0308 at .80, and Tributary 0304A at river mile 1.80. Many wetlands have already been completely lost through filling, for example on Tributary 0306A at river mile .55. Suspected violations were forwarded to Building and Land Development for enforcement. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION The primary recommendations for action in the Lower Cedar River Basin addresses current severe problems related to erosion, habitat destruction, and flooding. Prevention of these problems will be accomplished by controlling locations and densities of new development and providing adequate R/D facilities for stormwater. A- Reduce landslide hazards by: 1. Including sensitive areas not previously mapped on the Sensitive Areas Map Folio (SAMF). See Appendix C for a full listing of sensitive areas. 2 Establishing building setbacks along cliffs and native growth protection easements along steep ravines. 3. Discouraging or eliminating the routing of stormwater over cliffs, unless adequate tightline systems can be constructed to convey flows in a safe, nonerosive manner to the bottom of cliffs. 4. Decreasing peak flows by constructing larger R/D facilities to lessen the landslide and erosion occurrence along tributary slopes. B. Reduce erosion and flooding in the basin by improving surface water management: I. Direct the Facilities Management Section of the Surface Water Management Division to evaluate existing storm -detention and conveyance facilities to deter. mine whether thev are properly sized to meet current standards. Evaluation should begin with all single -orifice R/D facilities. 2 Consider areas other than wetlands as regional storm -detention facilities. Tribulary 0300 at river mile .42 is the site for a proposed dam, for example. 3_ Utilize existing lower quality wetlands (those rated other than tf1) as regional storm -detention facilities. Wetlands 3102 and 3142 could provide more live storage. for example. 4. Review channel and culvert capacity for conveying existing and future runoff, and establish floodplain areas in regions of slight gradient for existing and future runoff conditions. 5. Promote the inflltration of surface water through the use of retention facilities and open channels instead of pipes where the soil and slope conditions permit. Collection points 5, 6, and 12 on plateaus have such soil conditions. P:LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) C Prevent future problems of erosion and flooding with appropriate analysis, planning, and policy development related to surface water management: I. Conduct a detailed, comprehensive hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of any proposed developments to determine impacts on the drainage courses downstream. This is especially critical for areas on the upper bluffs and plateau, which drain over steep, sensitive banks above the Cedar River. 2. Conduct a study of the impact of locating infiltration ponds utilized near the edge of the bluffs to determine their effect on seepage faces on the lower face of the bluffs. This might be accomplished with a computer -based numerical model of the groundwater flow. 3. Require the tightlining of storm drainage down steep or sensitive slopes when they cannot be directed away from the slopes. This is done by piping the flow down the slope and dischare ng it at the bottom with adequate energy dissipation. Many of the intermittent tributaries flowing down the banks should be tightlined as urban development increases flow to them. 4. Construct new RID ponds with filter berms to improve water quality and reduce fine sediment loads New R/D ponds should have two cells with gravel -berm filters and vegetated swales at the inlet and outlet. Consider Tributaries 0304, 0304& 0302 and 0303 as sites for this type of facility in order enhance water quality. 5. Maintain natural vegetation on streambanks and floodptains This is especially important for relatively flat channels flowing on the plateau before thev reach the steep bluffs because these channels and their floodplains will attenuate flows during times of heavy runoff. 6. Maintain buffer areas around wetlands Many of the tributaries on the south side of the Cedar River headwater at wetlands. These wetlands act as natural storage areas during storms. 7. Reevaluate King County policy regarding permitting for gravel mining on steep, sensitive slopes. & Include the city of Rention in future interfocal agreements for planning and capi- tal improvement projects where city and county interests overlap. D. Climinate present damage to habitat and prevent future damage by addressing specific problems in the stream systems. The following activities should be coordinated among King County, the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, and State Departments of Fisheries and Game: 1- Reduce damaging storm flows with greater detention volume and lower release rates at upstream developments 2- Implement restoration projects on Tributaries 0304 (river mile .00-.20), Tributary 0305 (river mile .20-.30). Tributary 0303 (river mile .25-.35), and Tributary 0323 (river mile 1.10-1.40): P: LC Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) a On Tributary 0304: Clean streambed gravels, add habitat and bed -control weirs, and plant bank vegetation for shade. b. On Tributary 0305: Construct a new channel and move stream from road- side channel to its new location on adjacent lands. Implement a full restoration project to provide channel meanders, habitat structures, pool/riffle enhancement, streambed gravel replacement, and revegetation. C. On Tributary 0303: Move stream from present channel to a location further north, away from the roadside. If relocation is not possible, these minimum steps should be taken: Add habitat structure to existing channel with root masses, deflectors, boulder clusters, and other features; revegetate channel banks with shrubs and small trees•, enhance stream crossings with bottomless pipe arches. d. On Tributary 0328 (Peterson Creek): Add habitat structure by replacing the straight, shortened channel with a more natural, meandering one; place habitat structures (such as root masses, deflectors, cover logs, and boulder clusters) throughout the channel; and revegetate banks with shrubs common to adjacent riparian zones (salmonberry, ninebark, or dogwood, for example). 3. Protect the Peterson Creek system (f'nb. 0328) in its present, near -pristine state - This will include not only the restoration outlined in section A above, but also the adoption of land use management regulations to prevent future habitat destruction: a Protect all existing wetlands within the subcatchments of Peterson Creek. Employ wetland buffers at least 100 feet wide without exception. b. Restrict development in the critical headwater area (drainage, habitat, water quality) bounded by fake Desire, Otter Lake, and Peterson Lake to rural densities. C. Designate and protect sueamside management zones of at least 100 feet from the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) along the main stem of the creek. Use 25 feet from the OHWM on tributaries. d. Preserve floodplains and their forests for dynamic retention of sediments and water. C. Restrict vegetation remoral in sfteamside/wetland management zones. f. Size R/D facilities to store the 100-year storm at a two -to -five-year release rate_ Use the two -cell type of pond with a forebay, a gravel filter, and a vegetated Swale outflow where feasible. g. Regulate more closely all septic tank and drain -field installations, as well as maintenance schedules, particularly in the Lake Desire, Otter Lake, and Peterson Lake drainage areas. P:LC 9 Lower Cedar River Basin (continued) It. Work with the State Department of Ecology to establish minimum stream - flow requirements for Peterson Creek and Lake Desire tributary. 4. Develop and promote public education and involvement programs for basin awareness. Work with schools, environmental groups, and the civic and business communities to conduct educational and restoration programs. P:LC 10 s 1 ' w LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN Basin Boundary Subcatchment Boundary Collection Point Stream ti r. j 99 Tributary Number 03115 Proposed Project r' Q 2 Miles r July, 1987 _l $1f)5 2U \ J )' F T �4 1� /• 1109 o w w ,3117� a y � N r, IIll 3121 I 3122 1 3116 pia -- I o,. r r� r 21 CP 3115 _ I 311� �x u.my a APPENDIX A ESTIMATED COSTS: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS LOWER CEDAR CREEK BASIN Indicates project was identified by Surface Water Management office prior to reconnaissance. NOTE: All projects are located on map included in this report. Project Collect. Number Point Project Description 3105• 10 Enhance 2200' of Trib. 0305 from Cedar River to Elliot Bridge. 3109° 10 Secure easements to wetland located in Cascade Park and construct a berm at the outlet. Replace existing catch basins with control structures. Project should he justified by a basin study. Wetland rated #2. (This wetland will require further biological evaluation before R/D design and construction.) Problem Addressed Mitigates flooding of King County park land. Better utilizes wetland's storage capacity to address peak flows from surrounding urban area. Estimated Costs and Comments $115,000 (NOTE: This project was proposed by Surface Water Management, is in the design phase, and will be constructed by 1989.) $186,000 P:LC.APA A•1 Project Collect. Estimated Costs Number Point Project Description Problem Addressed and Comments 3111 Secure easements to outlet to Francis Will provide additional storage $175,000 (Wetland lake and 1100' of channel from lake to mitigate anticipated future 3136) to SE 184th St. Construct a weir to increased flows. raise lake level 1', and enhance 1100' of Trib. 0317. Should be justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #1. (This wetland will require further biological evaluation before R/D design and construction.) 3112 19 Secure easement for outlet to wetland Will provide additional storage $117,000 (Wetland and replace existing weir with a for anticipated future peak flows. 3142) concrete -slotted weir. Should be justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. (This wetland will require further biological evaluation before R/D design and construction. 3114° Secure casement to Welland 3150 and Addresses anticipated increases in $134,000 (Wetland constrict a containment berm and flow caused by development. 3150) control structure at the outlet. Project should be justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. (']'his wetland will require further biological evaluation before R/D design and constructton.) 3115 18 Install detention pond and 1.000' Mitigates severe erosion and $361,000 of tightline. Project is indepen- flooding during times of high dently justifiable. flows. P:LC.APA A-2 Project Collect. Number Point 3116 21 3117 16 3118 10 3119 4 3120 15 Project Description Raise existing road embankment 24'. Project should be indepen- dently justifiable. (Refer to Roads Division.) Install 1,400' of tightlinc, a sediment trap, and 700' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Project is independently justi- fiable. Install 300' of 36" culvert, a new inlet structure, manhole, and catch basin. Project is independently justifiable. Construct a detention dam and control structure in a deep channelized section of Trib. 0300. Project is independently justifiable. _ Construct a sedimentation pond and 1,000' of channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. Project is indepen- dently justifiable. Problem Addressed Mitigates seasonal flooding of lake Desire Dr. SE caused by road bed settling in the peat bog. Mitigates severe erosion, sediments deposited on County roads, and flooding during times of high flows. Will prevent blockage of culvert and the accompanying flooding and erosion of Pairwood Golf Course and mobile home park below. Project location is ideal because it addresses flows from a large residential area before they reach the steep, sensitive area next to the Cedar River. Mitigates flooding of residence and sediment deposition on Jones Rd. Estimated Costs and Comments $73,000 $501,000 $87,000 $159,000 $163,000 P:LC.APA A-3 Project Collect. Estimated Costs Number Point Project Description Problem Addressed and Comments 3121 7 Secure casement to wetland and con- Addresses increased flows in Trib. $371,000 (Wetland struct a containment berm and concrete 0304 and 0304A from residential 3102) weir at outlet. Project should be developments. justified by a basin plan. Wetland rated #2. Biological assessment is needed to assure that this project does not decrease habitat values. 3122 11 Purchase existing ponds on Fanwood Mitigates flooding and erosion $342,000 Golf Course and expand to provide downstream. greater flow detention. Project is independently justifiable. P:I,C.APA A-4 APPENDIX B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT RANKING LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN Prior to the Lower Cedar River Basin field reconnaissance, 12 projects had been identified and rated using the CIP selection criteria developed by the Surface Water Management (SWM) and Natural Resources and Parks Divisions. Following the reconnaissance, 13 projects remain proposed for this area. They include eight new, previously unidentified and unrated projects. These displace seven previously selected projects, which were eliminated based on the consensus of the recon- naissance team. Projects were eliminated for several reasons: two sites were annexed by the city of Renton, two projects were found to be unnecessary, two sites were categorized as #1 wetlands (and are- ineligible), and one project was determined to be infeasible. The previous SWM capital improvement project list for the Lower Cedar River Basin had an esti- mated cost of $2,710,000, while the revised list increases to an estimated cost of $2,7841000, This 3 percent increase in estimated capital costs is due to the addition of projects after the reconnaissance. The following table summarizes the scores and costs for the CIPs proposed for the Lower Cedar River Basin. These projects were rated according to previously established SWM Program Citizen Advisory Committee criteria. The projects ranked below are those for which the first rating question. ELEMENT 1: "GO/NO GO," could be answered affirmatively. Projects with scores of 100 or higher can be considered now for merging into the "live" CIP list. RANK PROJECT NO. SCORE COST 1 3122 103 $342,000 2 3118 90 87.000 3 3120 75 163,000 4 3109" 67 186.000 5 3121 65 371.000 6 3117 60 501.000 7 3115 60 361,000 8 3116 55 73,000 9 3114` 28 134,000 10 3111' 25 175.000 11 3112' 17 117,000 12 3119` 15 159,000 13 3105 12 115.000 TOTAL $2,784,000 Projects proposed prior to the Reconnaissance Program P:LC.APB B-I APPENDIX C DETAILED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN All items listed here are located on final display maps in the offices of Surface Water Management, Building and Land Development, and Basin Planning, Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item` River Mile Point Catego Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 1 5 Geology Gullying and landslides in Continued erosion. Recompact fill, revegetate, uncompacted fill in new and drain adequately. development near edge of steep hillslope. 2 13 Geology Small landslide has formed None (natural failure). None. debris flow (11/86). Sedimentation in yard of residence. 3 0299 4 Geology RM 2.6 4 0299 RM 9.65 16 Geology Landslides in sedimentary Natural failure. None. rock in cutbanks adjacent to railroad. Drainage from residential Increasing erosion. Provide adequate R/D to area is resulting in attenuate flows. gullying in swale. P: LC.APC C-1 Trib. R Collect. Existing Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems 5 0299 18 Geology Horse farm in uplands has RM 12.1 created extensive imper- vious surfaces, resulting in channel scour, bank erosion, landslides, and sedimentation at mouth of basin. Residence overcome with sediment. 6 13 Geology Landslide terrain for sale by realtors. High risk for landslides, flooding (from springs). 7 7 Geology Large-scale landsides adjacent to Cedar River due to springs and cutting of toeslopes by streams. Appears to be natural. 8 -- 2 Geology Gullying in valley wall, possibly from natural springs. 9 -- 14 Geology Landslide debris flow from residence on SE 147th PI., Renton. P: LC.APC C-2 Anticipated Conditions and Problems Recommendations Continued high erosion and Develop R/D at horse farm sedimentation, to attenuate peak flows. See Project 3115. Site of future mass erosion. Natural process. Unknown. Existing tension cracks indicate future instability. Prohibit development here. Notify Building and Land Development. Add area to SAMF. None None. Revegetate hillslope with trees and shrubs. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 10 0299.IA 21 Hydrology 3116 Frequent flooding of Road located on top of peat Elevate the road 34' by RM .08 county road caused by low bog and will continue to filling on top of the road embankment. settle, aggravating flooding present road embankment. problem. Also stabilize embankment. 11 0300 4 Geology Extensive channel and Problems will continue. Provide adequate R/D in RM .00-.40 bank erosion and numerous uplands. (See Project landslides due to 3119.) development -related stormwater. 12 0300 - 4 Hydrology 3119 Development -related peak Increased erosion on Construct detention dam in flows have caused sig- hillslopes below. deep, channelized reach of nificant bank erosion. Trib. 0300, 13 0300 4 Hydrology 3109 Collection point 4 has Degradation of Trib. 0300 Construct berm and standard RM 1.40 been nearly completely from RM .42 downstream. This control structure at outlet urbanized. section is very steep and to Wetland 3120 in Cascade susceptible to erosion. Park 14 0302 6 Geology Channel downcutting and Will continue at same level Control storm flows from RM .50 bank erosion. or increase. uplands. 15 0302 6 Geology Bank erosion (medium den- Increasing erosion with Provide adequate R/D in RM .80-1.00 sity) at meanders and increasing flow from devel- uplands as area develops. - obstructions. opments. P: LC.APC C-3 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Pro*. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 16 0302 6 Geology Gully erosion from broken None. Culvert has been None. culverts. repaired. 17 0302 6 Geology Severe gully erosion Continued erosion. Tightline flows to RM .60-.80 creating small valleys main stem. from daylight culverts. 18 0302 6 Habitat Stream channeled along While fish now use this Add habitat diversity RM.35 golf course road. No reach, lack of habitat will (e.g., structures, overhead overhead cover. No habi- eventually reduce popula- vegetation). Gain tat diversity. tions. easement to restore mean- 19 0302 6 Hydrology Tributary dmins down RM .45 sleep bluffs on north side of Cedar River, carrying debris and flooding Maplewood Golf Course. 20 0302 6 Habitat Water supply dam. Full RM .50 barier to upstream migration. Impoundment is filling with sediment. 21 0302 6 Habitat Severe gullying from right RM .90 bank corregated metal pipe. Heavy sediment delivery to stream. P: LC.APC C4 Problem will worsen as development upstream continues. As impoundment fills, storm - water will flood over bank. Structure may fail. Will continue to erode until reaches till layer. ders, if possible. Construct detention dam upstream of golf course. Dredge pond and maintain it as sediment catch. Tightline downslope. Add velocity attenuator at stream. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Prof. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 22 0302 6 Habitat Trash in stream (auto, Area adjacent to corridor, Remove trash. RM 1.00 tires, appliances). will continue to collect Distribute educational trash and debris. Further materials to streamside worsening of water quality, residents. sedimentation, erosion. Cite violators, if problem persists. 23 0302 6 Habitat Trash in stream. Water Area adjacent to corridor, Remove trash. RM 1.10 quality problem, will continue to collect Distribute educational unsightly. trash and debris. Further materials to streamside worsening of water quality. residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. 24 0303 6 Geology Extensive bank erosion in None. Increase R/D volumes, slow release upper portions of tribu- rate to nonerosive levels. tary. 25 0303 6 Habitat Habitat suitable for resi- Sediments will eventually Control stormwater volumes RM .25 dent fish. Sediment accu- cover gravels. Habitat and discharge rates from mulating. will become unsuitable for developments. fish use. Manually clean gravels when necessary. 26 0303 6 Habitat Trash and litter in Further decreases in water Remove trash and litter. RM .35 channel affecting water quality. Distribute educational materials quality, causing erosion. to streamside residents. Cite violators, if problem persists. P: LC.APC C-5 Trib. R Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Catego Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 27 0304 7 Habitat Landslides contributing Sediment will continue to Maintain riparian corridor RM .40 sediment to channel. Heavy enter system until landslide with setbacks at least 50' deposition in pools, at stabilizes, from tops of banks. obstructions, even in riffles. 28 0304 8 Habitat Horses have access to Further decreases in water Encourage residents to fence RM 2.10 stream, causing some bank quality, bank erosion likely. channel back 15' from ordinary deterioration and possibly high-water mark. affecting water quality. Limit access to livestock to one or two points along stream. 29 0304 KM- 2.30 30 0304 KM— 2.40 31 0304 RM .80 P: LC.APC 8 Hydrology 8 Habitat 7 Geology Flooding caused by failing R/D at 176th St. & 146th Ave SE. Encroachment occurring along all boundaries of this headwater wetland. Several gullies due to daylight culverts; a few have recent landslides. C-6 Problem will continue until outlet structure is modified. Wetland likely to be reduced slowly until it is completely destroyed. Loss of storage, filtration, organic production, and wildlife habitat. Problem will continue. Problem referred to Main- tenance section of Surface Water Management Division. Require encroaching fills to be removed. Establish specific buffer around this wetland. Enforce sensitive areas ordinances and regula- tions. Tightline drainage. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 32 0304 7 Habitat Extensive riffle (to RM Gravels risk becoming Enhance habitat by addi- RM .00 .15. Creek channeled. No cemented. Few resting areas tion of woody debris in woody debris, little bank for upstream migrating fish. stream. vegetation. Steelhead, Revegetate bank. coho spawners here. Enhance pool/riffle ratio. 33 0304 7 Habitat Debris jam may be a Debris will continue to Selectively remove debris RM .20 partial migration barrier. accumulate. Channel will to allow fish passage. likely divert or jam will Stabilize large woody fail, releasing accumulated debris. sediment. 34 0304 7 Habitat Debris jam. Bed drops 3' Debris will continue to RM .62 over jam and sediment, accumulate. Channel will forming anadromous likely divert or jam will barrier. fail, releasing accumulated sediment. 36 0304 7 Habitat Water turbid; oily sheen Water quality will continue RM .80 and odor present. Storm to decline as runoff and drains empty directly into waste enter stream. stream. 37 0304A 7 Hydrology 3102 Existing forested wetland Additional storage could be RM 1.30 provides detention for utilized by constructing Trib. 0304A and 0304 in berm and weir at outlet. heavily developed area. This could be done to atten- uate increased peak flows as upstream area develops. P: LC.APC C-7 Selectively remove debris to allow fish passage. Stabilize large woody debris. Educate residents about how to maintain water quality. Mark storm drains with "Dump no oil" signs. Emphasize recycling of oil. Construct a proportional weir and berm at wetland outlet. Project could be used instead of Project 3107 to rpeserve the #1 rated wetland (where project would be built). Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 38 0304A 18 hydrology 3115 Runoff generated on top of Flooding will continue as Construct detention pond RM .40 bluffs on southwest side long as land use remains the at top of bluffs. of Cedar River is causing same on top of bluffs or Tightline drainage down severe bank erosion, until mitigating measures bluffs, then channelize it flooding and debris flows are taken. Runoff origin- to an existing ditch onto several residences ates from highly compacted alongside SR 169. of valley floor. pastureland on uplands. Prevent similar problems elsewhere with land use regulations, including provisions for preservation of vegetation buffets near tops of cliffs. 39 0305 10 Geology Extensive bank erosion, Susceptible to increases Attenuate high flows. partly due to subsurface with increasing storm flow. clay layer and landslide topography. 40 005 10 Geology Local severe bank Problem will continue. Existing rock -filled KM_ 1.10 erosion. gabions are deflecting flow. 41 0305 10 Geology Extensive channel down- Continued erosion. Attenuate high flows with RM 2.10- cutting and bank erosion. adequate R/D. (R/D 1.75 currently exists.) 42 0305 10 Geology Several gullies and also- Erosion will continue. Tightline culverts. RM 2.15- ciated landslides due to 1.75 daylight culverts on steep slopes adjacent to chan- nels. P: LC.APC C-8 Trib. K Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Prod. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 43 0305 10 Habitat Madsen Creek in ditch along Potential for fuel entry in- Acquire 30' easement away KM-F. 20 SE Jones Rd. Heavy silt; to creek. Further decreases from roadside. Construct road runoff; water quality in water quality can be ex- new stream channel. adversely affected. pected. 44 0305 10 Habitat Creek in ditch along south Further decreases in water Acquire 30' easement away RM .35 side of SR 169. Heavy quality can be expected. from roadside. Construct inputs of oils, anti- Potential for autos to enter new stream channel. freezes, heavy metals, channel. Lack of habitat. organic pollutants likely. Sand, silt from roadside (of SR 169) enters also. 45 0305 RM .00- 10 Hydrology 3105 Section of Trib. 0305, Flooding will continue. Construct and enhance 2200' of .40 RM DO-.40 is experiencing (See Appendix A, Project channel through undeveloped extensive flooding. 3105.) King County Park Land. 46 0305 10 Habitat Channelized along dri- Further siltation, water Acquire easement; move RM .50 veway; lacks habitat quality degradation can be creek from driveway diversity. Driveway sedi- anticipated. Lack of habitat 10-15'. Add meanders and ments enter channel, and precludes optimum salmonid habitat structures to oil placed on driveway use. increase diversity. enters stream. 47 0305 10 Habitat Channelized tributary Little salmonid use Add structures to increase RM .65 lacks habitat diversity, anticipated. Spawning and diversity in stream. cover for salmonids. rearing success limited Manually clean gravels by Gravels compacted. (unless reach is restored). churning them. P: LC.APC C-9 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Cate o Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 48 0305 10 Habitat Good spawning riffles occur Increased flows may cause Control flows into system RM .90 here. '/-3" gravels, few gravel bar movement. from developed areas fines, not compact. High Suitable gravels may be upstream. If necessary, flows are moving material, transported downstream to add bed controls to hold however unusable areas for spawning gravels or "vee" stnc- salmonids. tures to recruit them. 49 0305 10 Habitat Severe bank cutting and Further erosion/scouring can Control high flows by RM .95 erosion occurs here. [led be expected. Channel increasing upper basin R/D scouring evident. Reach deterioration will continue. facilities, lowering subject to high, rapid Flows appear to be generated discharge rates to stream. flows. at developments. 50 0305 10 habitat Much woody debris Debris jams will occur with Control upstream flows RM 1.20 movement and numerous greater frequency as flows with greater R/D volume, debris jams. Reach is increase. Sediments will lower discharge rates. subject to high, rapid build up and channel will Selectively remove debris. flows. divert. 51 0305 10 Habitat Channel erosion, bank Further channel deteriora- Increase R/D capacity. RM 1.70 failures, downcutting oc- tion may be expected. Silt, Decrease discharge rates. curring. Reach subject to sand transport to mainstem high, rapid flows. will increase. 52 0306 10 Geology Failure of manhole during Not applicable. Repair manhole. RM .40 11/86 storm has resulted in gully erosion. P: LC.APC C-10 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi, Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 53 0.106 10 Geology Channel downcutting, bank Erosion will increase. Clay Further increase in runoff RM ,20 erosion and several layer in valley makes area should be attenuated; this landslides, due both from sensitive to landslides. is a sensitive channel. increased storm flows and development along edge. 54 0306 10 Geology Undersized culvert in arti- Possible fill failure: Lake Enlarge the corregated RM .30 ficial fill in golf course ponded behind culvert in metal pipe and/or threatens to build lake and in 1981 and threatened construct adequate trash possibly overtop bank. the fill. rack. Breach flood possible. 55 0306 11 Habitat Channel subject to high, Further channel damage can Increase R/D capacity, RM .25 damaging flows. Erosion be expected. Sediment decrease discharge rate. evident. transport downstream will continue. 56 0306 10 Geology Downcutting, bank erosion Will continue or increase in Attenuate storm flows. RM .30-.45 and landslides. future. 57 0306 Hydrology 3118 Trib. 0306 connects with Problem will worsen as Replace existing pipes RM .30 large tributary at manhole development upstream with larger diameter pipes here. Debris from 0306 continues. (if downstream analysis clogs this manhole, causing allows for increased flows). severe erosion of Fairwood Install new inlet struc- Golf Course. lures with trash racks. 58 0306A 11 Hydrology 3122 Existing small ponds on Area upstream is developing Acquire easements for ponds RM 1,30 0306A are overtopped and quickly, thus worsening the and additional area around ponds receive considerable silt problem. and construct detention pond. during high flows. The Location is ideal for addressomg ponds are located on peak flows before they reach Fairwood Golf Course. the sensitive Cedar Reiver bluffs. P: LC.APC C-11 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Prol. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 59 0306A 11 Habitat Some usable habitat exists Further habitat deterioration Increase R/D capacities. RM .25 for resident salmonids. likely. Channel erosion will Decrease discharge rates. Water quality is poor. increase. Encourage use of 2-cell Channel subject to high detention ponds, swales. flows. Prohibit filling of existing wetlands, ponds in upper basin. 60 0307 12 Geology Extensive bank erosion at Increased erosion will Mitigate development- RM .10-.40 all meanders and obstruc- result with increased flows. related high flows. tions (trees, cars) due Provide adequate R/D. 61 0307 12 Geology TM .10-.60 62 0307 12 Habitat RM .30 63 0307 RM .60 13 Hydrology to increased flows from development. Stream eroding toes of slopes resulting in landslide failures. Stream channel pushed to one side of ravine for roadway. High energy system. Much bank cutting, sediment transport, debris movement. Area on top of bluffs near Trib. 0307 has excellent infiltrative capacity. P: LC.APC C-12 Increasing erosion with increasing flows. Erosion will worsen as stream flows increase. May threaten road bank at toe of slope. Infiltration sites should be used whenever possible. These would provide ground- water recharge. Mitigate development related high flows. Provide adequate R/D. Increase R/D capacity at all delivery points. Reduce release rate below channel scour level. Construct retention faci- lities for new develop- ments in area at these sites. Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 64 0309 15 Habitat Subject to heavy, rapid Erosion, deposition will Control storm flows RM .10 flows. Channel erosion, increase. Sediments will upstream. deposition bars migration. migrate downstream, creating Control volume and discharge a water quality problem. rates. 65 0310 15 Geology Sedimentation upstream from Continued sedimentation. See "Hydrologic and hydraulic RM .60 culvert due to debris and characteristics" section in undersized culvert. New this report. corregated metal pipe con- tinues to pass water through. 66 0310 15 Geology Severe erosion below Continued erosion and Install energy dissipator culvert, severe sedimen- sedimentation. below corregated metal pipe. tation in residence yard. Excavate channel through yard where original channel was located. 67 0310 KM_ 1.5o 63 0310 RM .25 IS Geology 15 Habitat 3120 Road drainage forming gully adjacent to road; road bed in danger. Corregated metal pipe is anadromous barrier. P: I .C.APC C-13 Continued erosion Problem will continue. Reroute drainage. Refer problem to Roads Maintenance. Reinstall corregated metal pipe at or below bed level. Trib. X Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 69 0310 15 Hydrology 3120 Existing channel draining Frequency and severity of Construct detention pond RM .40 off bluffs on north side problem will worsen as on upstream side of Jones of Cedar River, causing development on bluffs Rd. to trap sediments, and flooding of residences and increases. enhance 1,000' of creek debris flows onto Jones Rd. from Jones Rd. to Cedar during peak flows. River. 70 0310 15 Habitat Corregated metal pipe Problems will continue and Remove new and old pipes; RM .60 outlet approximately worsen as outfall velocities replace at lower level 9' above bed level, will scour bed and banks. with oversized pipe with Complete barrier to fish. Upstream has recent (11/86) trash rack. Old culverts at bed level deposition up to 4' deep, are plugged. 71 0311 13 Geology Gully erosion in drainage Continued accelerated ero- If possible, enlarge R/D ItM 1.70 Swale due to outflow of sion. prior to its outlet in the wetland that partly seems wetland. to act as an R/D facility. 72 0314A 16 Hydrology 3117 Severe erasion, flooding, Problem will be aggravated Tightline drainage between RM .20 damage to County and as area above develops. detention ponds in gravel pit. private roads from Construct detention pond increased runoff from next to Jones Rd. to trap gravel pit operations on sediments. hillside. Construct channel from Jones Rd. to Cedar River. 73 0314A/ 16 Geology Inadequate R/D, plugged Not applicable. See hydrology comment 0314B culvert caused by exten- above. RM .10-.40 sive channel and bank erosion and landslides. Water has cut a new channel. P: LC.APC C-14 Trib. & Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proj. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 74 0317 Hydrology 3111 Francis Lake is only Trib. 0317 flows through Construct proportional RM 1.60 hydraulic control for steep area downstream of weir at outlet. Trib. 0317. lake. If area around Francis Enhance 1,100' from Lake develops, increased Francis Lake to SE 184th St. peak flows could cause severe damage to Trib. 0317 in the steep region. 75 0320 Hydrology 3114 Existing forested wetland If surrounding area urban- Construct containment berm KM 2.40 with large amount of un- izes, this would be a good and control structure at utilized storage. Wetland site to attenuate peak outlet of wetland (if bio- currently detains flows on flows. logical analysis permits). Trib. 0320. 76 0318 19 habitat Salmonid parr in many Decrease in water quality Establish and maintain ,km-. 10 pools. Urge pools up to with increasing develop- adequate buffets, 100' 1.75' deep. Some deposi- ment. Loss of habitat. from ordinary high-water tion in pools, behind Decrease in fish use. mark or 25' from top fa obstructions. slope break, whichever is greater. 77 0382 19 Habitat Salmonid use apparent from System is mostly in natural Maintain adequate stream TM .35 carcasses. Sockeye, condition. As development corridor buffers. Chinook spawners. Some increases, higher flows and Reduce discharge rates to sedimentation occurring. worse water quality can be pre -development levels. expected. Prevent clearing, grading within buffers. P: LC.APC C-15 Trib. C Collect. Existing Anticipated Item River Mile Point Category Prop. Proi. Conditions and Problems Conditions and Problems Recommendations 78 0328 19 Geology Medium -density landslides None. Limit development in the RM .50 and high -density bank basin. erosion occurring due to natural causes. This indi- cates channel and valley sensitive to effects of development. (Sensitivity due to clay layer. Basin hosts some of best fish habitat in upper reaches.) 79 0328 19 Habitat Significant salmonid use Sedimentation from upstream Maintain leave strips KM .70 throughout. Sockeye reach possible. Adjacent adjacent to stream at spawners, carcasses present. development will likely least 100' from ordinary Coho, steelhead parr in reduce diversity and quality high-water mark. Restrict pools. Excellent habitat of habitat. use/development within this for spawning and rearing streamside management zone. (a redd site). Much diversity -- most exemplary in basin. 80 0328 19 Habitat RM 1.10 1.40 81 0328 19 Hydrology 3112 RM 1.40 Channelized reach. Uniform channel, no habitat diver- sity. Heavy sand deposition. Little overhead canopy or bank vegetation. Lake Peterson is small, open -water wetland with a weir at outlet. P: LC.APC C-16 May cause thermal problems as water temperatures rise. No useful habitat. Iake provides good peak flow attenuation and will become more important as upstream tributary area develops. Restore stream habitat throughout: add structure, diversity, bank vegetation, and canopy. Cost should be borne by party(ies) who channelized this reach. Replace weir at outlet with a higher weir in order to gain additional storage. 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology The existing site has one commercial building, associated parking, and utilities. The remainder of the site is grass with very little slope or apparent flow paths. Historical records indicate that this area has been previously developed and then cleared to grassland, so the entire site 15-acre was modeled as till pasture for existing hydrology calculations. B. Developed Site Hydrology The proposed site will have a large warehouse building surrounded by parking and loading docks. The developed site will be split into two basins and will drain to one of two proposed water quality and detention ponds. The site was assumed to be 85 percent impervious in existing conditions. All runoff from the site will be directed to the ponds. C. Performance Standards The water quality and detention system is designed to meet the requirements of the 2005 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual and the City of Renton standards. D. Flow Control System Level 2 Flow Control was used for this project based on the flow control map in the 2005 KCWSWDM. Peak flows and durations were matched the one-half of the 2- through the 50-year storm events. E. Water Quality System The water quality system for this project is wet ponds below the detention volume in the storm ponds. Water quality volumes are based on the 2005 KCWSWDM and the equation listed for wet pond. A basic pond size was used. 12567 001.doc pre - 6J.,Cva�,xd gc---)/,I /I ;� l a !;67 70Z . QcC5h re, Flow Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Series File :prea.tsf Mean= -0.621 StdDev= 0,226 Project Location:Sea-Tac Skew = -C.056 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----F:ow Frequency Analysis------- F1ow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Pew rn Prob (CPS) ICES] Period 0.255 19 2/16/49 22:00 0.669 _ 89.50 0.989 0.65E 2 3/03/50 16:00 0.658 2 32.13 0.969 0.498 6 2/09/51 18:00 0.584 3 19.58 3.949 0.184 40 1/30/52 8:00 0.57C 4 14.08 0.92 0.148 44 1/18/53 19:00 0.512 ., 10.99 0.909 0.198 34 12/19/53 19:00 0.498 6 9.01 O.E89 0.325 13 2/07/55 21.:00 0.45E 7.69 0.865 0.321 '_9 12/20/55 17:00 0.428 9 6.63 0.849 0.301 16 12/09/76 14:00 0.427 9 5.86 0.829 0.23E 21 1/16/58 2C:OC 0.4I2 10 5.24 0.809 0.18E 39 1/24/59 2 : 0 , 0.389 11 4.75 0.789 C.427 9 11/20/59 21:00 0.363 12 4.34 0.769 0.199 33 11/24/60 8:03 0.32 13 3.99 C.749 C.133 45 1/02/62 22:00 0.32". 14 3.70 C.729 0.20:) 3_ _2/15/E2 2 00 0. 317 1 3.44 7C9 C.20.3 29 1/01/6� 14:00 0.331 16 3.22 3.690 .,.188 37 11/24/64 8:00 0.292 17 �.03 J.6-19 .;.18E 38 1/O5/66 16:00 0.260 18 2.85 J.650 J.363 12 1/19/67 14:00 0.255 "_9 2.7C ";.63C 3C 2;C3/F.8 22:C0 0.21 .., 2.56 i).6111" 0.21E 27 12/C3/68 17. .. 0.23E 21 2 44 C, 9C 11.2C8 2ti "'_3/70 23:00 0.22 22 2.32 1 , 0.227 t.3 0 G.12 '' 23 2.22 _ 4=,6 2;2£si 2 3:0C ,,.222 24 2._3 0.530 _1 _/'_3i%3 5 OC C.217 25 2.04 0.510 .;.197 35 1/16/"742:DC C.2i6 26 1.96 0.49:; �.389 11 12/26/79 23:OC ;.211 2-' 1.89 0.47;, 21r 26 12/02i75 l0:0^ ,,. 2CE 2 1.82 C.4 ..."i 50 3/241/7 19:00 ,,.203 29 1 75 .4�." �'.2: 2 ,/G2/i_ 19:00 0.202 3n _ .0 ..910 0.115 46 '1/19/78 3:00 0.200 64 G.390 C .292 17 12/15/79 8 : 0 0 0."_99 32 _.59 370 0.227 22 11/21/80 11:00 0,199 33 _ 54 C.350 0.570 4 10/06/81 15:00 0.198 34 1.49 9.330 0.260 i8 1/05/83 8:00 0.197 35 1.45 0.31C 0.191 36 _/03/84 1:CO 0.191 36 1.11 0.291 0.112 _. 6/07/E5 5:C0 0.188 37 1.37 0.27 D.428 8 "-/18/86 16:00 0.188 38 1.33 0.251 0.412 10 11/24/86 4:00 0.186 39 1.30 0.231 0.163 43 1/14/89 12:00 0.184 40 1.27 0.211 0.093 48 11/05/88 I5:00 C.163 41 1.24 0.191 0.669 1/09/90 6:00 0.181 42 1.21 0.171 0.584 3 11/24/90 B:0(, C.163 43 1.18 0.151 C.199 32 1/27/92 17:00 C.146 44 1.:5 0.131 C.181 42 3/22/93 23:00 0.133 45 1.12 0.111 0.076 49 2/17/94 18:00 0.115 46 1.10 0.091 0.251 20 2/19/95 1E:00 0.112 4) 1.08 0.071 0.512 5 2/08/96 10:00 0.093 48 1.05 0.051 0.317 '5 1-/02/97 6:00 0.076 49 1.03 0.031 0.222 24 10/04/97 15:00 0.068 50 _.01 0.0'1 Computed Peaks 0.788 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 0.681 50.00 0.980 C07.uuted Pea:ts 0.590 2.00 C.960 Computed Peaks D.466 10.00 0.900 /D13�o6 A las67 VeI4[Ad A 5/19 857 lr y ✓�avS 7� Flow Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Series ci_e:deva.tsf Mean- 0.201 StdDev= 0.C99 Project Loca tion:Sea-Tac Skew- 0.516 ---Annual Peak Flow Rases--- ----- Flow Frequency Analysis ------- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 1.60 20 2/16/49 21:00 2.65 1 89.50 0.989 2.43 4 3/03/50 16:00 2.57 2 32.13 0.969 1.58 22 2/09/51 2:00 2.47 3 19.53 0.919 1.36 38 10/15/51 13:00 2.43 4 14.08 0.929 1.26 43 3/24/53 15:00 2.35 5 10.99 0.909 1.50 23 12/19/53 19:OC 2.30 6 9.O1 0.889 1.58 23 11/25/54 2:OC 2.11 7.64 C.369 -4 24 11/18/55 15:00 2.08 8 6.63 0.399 -.16 15 12/09/56 19:00 1.93 9 5.36 0.829 -.59 21 12/25/57 16:00 1.90 10 5.24 C.809 '. 21 47 11/18/58 13:00 -.88 1'. 4.75 0.789 1.51 27 11/20/59 5:00 '_.8? 12 4.34 0.769 1.35 39 2/14/61 21;00 i.85 _3 3.99 0.799 1.37 36 -1/22/61 2:CO 1.84 14 3.70 C.729 1.33 40 12/15/62 2:CO 1.76 _- 3.44 0.709 1.53 26 12/311163 23:00 1.7=! iF ?.22 !.69( .38 34 12/2:1/64 -:00 1.73 i7 3.C3 0 h7r� 1.37 37 1/05/66 16:C0 1.68 18 2.85 1.650 2.08 1_/13/66 19:00 1.66 19 2.70 0.63C 2.30 6 8/24/68 16:CC 1.60 20 _._.-, C.6i0 -.24 44 12/03/68 16:00 �.-_ _- 2.44 0.59C 35 1/13/7C22:00 S 8 22 L 32 I.33 41 12/05/70 9:00 ..�., _ ,!.22 0.559 ,.93 12/09i 1 '_8:jO :.':9 24 2._ 1 1.23 46 1/ 3/-,3 2:00 _.54 -5 2.04 0.SLC .93 31 _1 '28/73 9:C0 1.53 26 i.961 ...4 i.85 13 12/25/74 23:C0 1.51 ,.. 1.89 0.970 1.23 95 12/C2/75 20:00 1.50 29 1,82 0.450 1 54 25 8/26/77 2:00 1.95 "° , t �.75 G.930 2.11 9/17/7B 2:00 1.45 3D -.70 0.410 1 .88 li 9/C8/79 15:OC 1.4's 31 1.69 C.390 1.73 17 12/14/;'9 21:CC 1.43 32 1.59 0.37C -.87 12 11/21/8C 11:00 1.42 33 1.54 O.35C 2.57 2 10/06/81 C:00 1.38 34 1.49 0.330 1.90 10 1,)/28/82 16:00 1.33 35 1.45 0.313 1.45 29 1 / C 3/94 1:00 -.37 36 1.41 0.291 1.3' 42 6/06/85 22:00 I.37 37 1.37 0.271 1.68 18 1/18/86 16:00 1.36 38 1.'13 0.251 2.35 5 10/26/86 O:CO 1.35 39 1.30 0.231 1.1C 49 1-/L /87 0:C0 1.33 40 1.2-1 0.211 1.42 33 8/21/89 17:00 1.33 41 1.24 0.19' 2.65 1 1/09/90 6:00 1.31 42 "_.21 0.171 2.47 3 11/24/9C 8:00 1.26 43 1.18 0.15"_ . 43 32 1/27/92 15:02 1.24 44 1.15 0.131 i.01 50 11/01/92 16:00 1.23 45 1.12 1.15 c8 11/30/93 22:00 1.23 46 1.10 0.C91 1.45 30 _1/30/99 4:00 1.21 97 1.08 C.071 1.74 16 2/08/96 10:00 1.:5 48 1.05 0.051 1.66 19 1/02/97 6:00_.10 49 1.03 0.031 1.89 14 10/04/97 15:00 i.01 SC 1.01 0.011 Computed Peaks 2.99 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 2.70 50.00 0.980 Computed Peaks 2.46 25.00 0.960 Computed Peaks 2.I5 10.00 0.900 Ccmputed Peaks 2.09 8.00 0.875 Computed Peaks 1.91 5.00 0,800 Computed Peaks 1.56 2.00 0.500 Computed Peaks 1.33 1.30 0.231 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Pond Side Slope: 3.00 H:1V Pond Bottom Length: 340.00 ft Pond Bottom Width: 73.00 ft Pond Bottom Area: To 24820. sq. ft p Area at 1 ft. Fe: Effective Full Head Pipe Orifice 4 Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (ft) ;in; (CE-S) (in) 1 0.00 1.70 0.147 2 1.84 2.76 0.266 6.0 Top Notch Weir: V-Notch Angie: 90.00 degrees Weir Height: 7.8D ft 0u7flow Rating Curve: None Stage Elevat_on Storage D_scnargc Percolation Surf Area ;ft; (ft) Cu.;ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (Cfs) (sq. ft) O.00 26. 0C C. C.000 O.000 C.0 2482C. 0.02 26.02 497. 0.0'_1 0.010 0.00 24870. 0.04 26.04 995. 0.023 0.015 0.00 24919, 0.05 26.05 1244. 0.029 0.018 C.00 24944. O.C7 26.07 1744. 0.040 O.C21 C.00 24994. C.09 25.09 2249. 0.052 0.023 C.00 25C43. 0.1, 26.11 2745. 0.063 0.026 0.00 25093. 0.12 26.12 2996. 0.069 0.028 0.30 25118. 0.14 26.14 3499. 0.080 0.030 0.00 25168. 0.24 26.24 6028. 0.138 0.039 0.00 25417. 0.34 26.34 8583, 0.197 3.046 0.00 25667. 0.44 26.44 1 1162 . 0.256 0.052 0.03 25 917 . 0.54 26.54 13766. 0.316 0.058 0.00 26i69. 0.64 26.64 16395. 0.376 0.063 0.00 26421. 0.74 26.74 19050. 0.437 0.068 0.00 26673. 0.84 26.84 21730. 0.499 0.072 0.00 26927. 0.94 26. 94 24436. 0.561 0.076 C.00 27181. 1.04 27.04 27166. 0.624 0.080 0.00 27436. 1.14 27.14 29923. O.687 0.084 0.00 27692. 1.24 27.24 32705. 0.751 0.087 0.00 27948. 1.34 27.34 35512. 0.815 0.091 0.00 28205. 1.44 27.44 38346. 0.880 0.094 0.00 28463. i.54 27.54 41205. 0.946 0.097 0.00 28721. 1.64 27.64 44090. 1.012 0.100 0.00 28981. 1.74 27.74 47001. 1.079 0.103 0.00 29241. 1.84 27.84 49938. 1.146 0.'_06 0.00 29501. 1.81 27,87 50825. 1.167 0.109 0.00 29560. 1.90 27.90 51713. 1.187 0.116 0.00 29658. 1.93 27.93 52604. 1.208 0.126 0.00 29737, 1.95 27.95 53199. 1.221 0.140 0.00 29789, 1.9E 27.98 54094. 1.242 0.158 0.00 29866. 2.01 28.01 54991. 1.262 0.1 /8 0.00 29946. 2.04 28.04 55891. 1.283 0.203 0.00 30025. 2.07 28.07 56793. 1.304 0.212 0.00 30104. 2.10 28.10 57697. 1.325 0.219 O.00 301B3. 2.20 28.20 60729. 1.394 0.240 0.00 3C446. 2.30 28.30 63786. 1.464 0.259 0.00 3C710. 2.40 28.40 6687"_. 1.535 0.276 0.00 30975. 2.50 28.50 69981. 1.607 0.292 0.00 31240. 2.60 28.60 73L19. 1.679 0.306 0.00 31506. 2.70 2B.'70 76283. 1.751 0.320 0.00 31773. 2.80 28.80 79473. 1.824 0.334 0.00 32041. 2.90 28.90 82691. 1.898 0.354 0.00 32309. 3.00 29.00 85935. 1.973 0.404 0.00 32578. 3.10 29.10 89206. 2.C48 C.497 0,00 22848. 3.20 29.2C 92505. 2.124 0.642 0.00 33118. 3.30 29.3C 95830. 2.200 0.848 0.00 33389. 3.40 29.40 99182. 2.277 1.120 0.00 33661. 3.50 29.50 102562. 2.355 1.470 0.0C 33934. 3.60 29.60 105959. 2.433 1,890 O.CO 3420i. 3.70 29.70 1094C4. 2.512 2.400 0.CO 344E1. 3.90 29.80 112866. 2.591 3.000 0.70 34756. 3.90 29.90 116355. 2.671 3.690 0.00 35032. 4.00 30.00 119872. 2.752 1 470 C.00 353CE. 4._11 30.10 123417. 2.833 4.950 0.00 35585. 4.20 30.20 1269E9. 2.915 5.800 0.00 35B63. 4.30 30.30 130589. 2.998 6.900 0.00 3614"_. 4.40 30.4C 134217. 3.081 8.200 0.00 36420. 4 .50 30.50 137873. 3.165 9.68C 0.00 36700. 4.60 30.60 14 1557 . 3.250 11.12C 0.00 36961. �.70 30.70 145269. 3.335 11.650 0.00 37262. 4.80 30.80 149010. 3.421 12.150 0.00 37544. 4.90 30.90 152778. 3.5C7 12.620 0.00 37827. 5.00 31.00 156575. 3.594 13.070 0.00 38110. 5.10 31,10 1-60400. 3.682 13,490 C.00 38394. 5.20 31.20 164254, 3.771 13,890 0.00 38679. 5.30 31.30 1681-36. 3.860 14.280 0.00 38965, 5.40 31.40 172047. 3.950 :4.650 0.00 39251. 5.50 31_50 175986. 4.040 15.020 0.00 39538. 5.60 31.60 179954. 4.131 15.360 0.00 39826. 5.70 31.70 183951. 4,223 15.700 0.00 40114. 1.80 31.80 187971. 4.315 16.330 MO 40403. 5.90 31.90 192332. 4.40E 16.350 0.00 40693. 6.00 32.00 196116. 4.5C2 16.66C 0.00 40984. Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Storage Target :alc Stage 61ev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 1.58 0.79 0.62 3.18 29.1E 9'_990. 2.112 2 1.74 ******* 0.58 3.16 29.16 91_040. 2.090 3 2.65 ******* 0.52 3.11 29.11 89642, 2.058 4 1.71 ******* C.36 2.90 28.90 82837, 1.902 5 2.57 ******* 0.33 2.75 28.75 77978. 1.790 6 1.66 ****** 0.31 2.64 28.64 74306. 1.706 7 1.C2 ****#** 0.20 2,04 28.04 55923. 1.284 8 1.06 0.10 1.76 27,76 47538, 1.091 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:deva.tsf Outflow Time Series File:rdoutA Inflow/Outf-ow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 2.65 CFS at 6:00 on Jan 9 in 1990 Peak outflow Discharge: 0.639 CFS at 19:00 on Feb 9 in 1951 Peak Reservoir Stage: 3.20 Ft Peak Reservoir Elev: 29.20 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 9243C. Cu-Ft 2.122 Ac-Ft Flew Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Series File:rdouta.tsf Mean- -0.718 StdDev- 0.236 Project Location:Sea-Tac Skew= 0,169 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (C55) 0.100 42 2/22/49 6:00 0.235 19 3/OS/50 6:00 0.639 - 2/09/51 19:00 0.091 48 2/04/52 6:OC 0,199 28 1/18/53 21:OC 0.176 30 1/06/54 8:00 0.154 34 2/08/55 4:OC 0.277 i2 1/06/56 10:00 0.155 33 2/26/57 3:00 0.225 21 1/16/58 23:00 C.102 40 1/24/59_0:00 0.421 4 11/21/59 2:00 3.263 16 11/24/60 10:00 0.092 47 12/24/61 5:00 0.196 29 11/26/62 10:00 0.228 20 11/19/63 16:00 0,272 14 12/01/64 2:00 0.120 35 1/07/66 3:00 0.245 18 12/13/66 9:)0 0.163 32 1/20/68 19:00 0.106 37 12/11/68 7 : 0 0 0.205 25 1/27/70 3:00 0.214 24 ,2/07/70 5:00 0.319 8 3/06/72 22:00 0.279 12/26/72 6:00 0.215 22 1/16/74 18:00 0.118 36 12/27/74 7:00 0.199 27 12/04/75 1:00 0,095 45 8/26/77 6:00 0.245 17 12/'_5/77 18:00 0.087 49 2/12/79 17;00 0.319 9 12/17/79 20:00 0.111 31 12/30/80 16:00 0.342 7 10/06/81 18:00 -----Flow Frequency Analysis - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (ft) Period 0.639 3.20 1 89.50 0.989 G .578 3.16 2 32.13 0.969 0.516 3.11 i.9.59 0.949 C.421 3.02 4 :4.08 C.929 C.391 2.97 5 :11.99 C.909 C.356 2.90 6 9.01 0.889 0.342 2.64 _ 7.64 C, 869 C.3_9 2.69 8 6.63 0.849 0.3_9 2.69 9 5.86 -,.829 C.3'_1 2.69 10 5.24 0.809 C .297 2.53 ll 4.75 ,,.789 0.277 2.41 12 4.34 0.769 C.274 2.39 13 3.99 0.794 0.272 2.38 14 3.70 0.729 0.267 2.35 15 3.44 0.709 0.263 2.32 16 3.22 0.69C 0.245 2.23 17 3.03 0.67C 0.245 2.23 18 2.85 0,651, 0.235 2.17 19 2.�O 0.63C 0.228 2.14 20 2.56 0.61C 0.225 2.13 21 2.44 0.215 2.08 22 2.32 0.57C 0.214 2.08 23 2.22 0.55C 0.214 2,08 24 2.13 0.53C C.205 2.05 25 2.04 0.51C 0.203 2.04 26 1.96 0.49C 0.199 2.34 27 1.89 0.47C 0.199 2.03 28 1.82 0.45C 0.196 2.03 29 1.75 0,43C 0.176 2.01 30 1.70 0.41C C.171. 2.00 31 1.69 0.39C C.163 1.99 32 1.59 0.37C 0.155 1.98 33 1.54 0.35( 0.154 1.9'7 34 1.49 0.33C 0.203 26 1/05/83 15:00 0.120 1.91 35 1.45 0.310 0.C96 44 12/10/93 18:00 0.118 1.91 36 1.41 0.291 0.103 39 1 7/04 /84 0:00 0.106 1.83 37 1.37 0.271 0.297 11 1/18/86 23:00 0.104 1.77 38 1.33 0.25 0.391 5 11/24/86 7:00 0.103 1.75 39 1.30 0.231 0.104 38 12/09/87 21:00 0.102 1.72 40 1.27 0.211 0.101 41 11/05/88 21:OC 0.101 - 67 41 1.24 0.191 0.5-6 3 1/09/90 11:00 0.100 '_.64 42 1.21 0.171 0.356 6 4/C5/91 6:00 0.099 1.59 43 1.18 0.151 0.214 23 1/31/92 6:00 0.096 1.49 44 1.15 0.131 0.099 46 1/26/93 3:00 0.093 1.49 45 1.12 0.111 0.086 50 2/17/94 21:00 0.094 1.43 46 1.10 0.091 0.267 15 12/27/94 6:00 C.092 1.38 47 1.09 0.071 0.578 2 2/09/96 3:00 0.091 1.35 48 1.05 0.051 0.311 10 1/02/97 12:00 0.087 1.25 49 1.03 C.031 0.099 43 13/30/97 10:00 0.086 1.20 50 1.01 C.Oil Computed Peaks 0.726 3.24 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 0.614 3.18 50.00 3.980 Compared Peaks C.512 3.11 25.00 0.960 Computed Peaks C.388 2.97 10.00 J.900 CoR.pUted 2caKs 0.364 2.92 8.00 O.8 Computed 9eaks 0.301 2.56 5.00 0.800 Ccrmuted Peaks 0.189 2.02 2.00 O.SOC Computed Peaks 0.126 1.93 :.30 0.231 Flow Darat_o❑ from. lime Series Ei 1. e: r_douta. tsf Cutoff Court Frequency CDEExceedence_ P-obabiliry CFS 0.009 228552 52.181 .52.181 47.819 0.478E+00 0.02'1 55514 12.674 64.855 35.145 0.351E+00 0.045 56197 '_2.830 ".686 22.31.1 0.223E-00 0.063 43313 9.H 9 87.514 12.426 0.124E-00 0.081 30102 6.873 94.447 5.553 0.555E-0 G.099 16891 3.856 98.303 _.697 0.170E-01 0.117 4893 1.111 99.421 0.579 0.579E-02 0.135 516 0.118 99.538 0.462 0.462E-02 0.153 302 0.069 99.607 0.393 0.393E-02 0.171 243 0.055 99.663 0.337 0.337E-02 0.189 158 0.036 99.699 0.301 0.301E-02 0.207 156 0.036 99.734 0.266 0.266E-02 0.225 275 0.063 99.797 C.203 0.203E-02 0.243 207 0.047 99.845 3.155 0.155E-02 0.261 168 0.038 99.883 0.117 0.1117E-C2 0.278 165 C.038 99.921 0.079 0.792E-03 0.296 90 C.321 99.941 0.059 0.587E-03 0.3'_4 84 0.019 99.961 0.039 0.395E-03 0.332 72 0.016 99.977 0.023 0.231E-03 0.30 32 0.007 99.984 0.016 0.158E-03 0.368 19 0.004 99.989 0.011 0.114E-C3 0.386 11 0.003 99.991 0.009 0.890E-04 0.404 11 0.003 99.994 0.006 0.639E-04 0.422 3 0.001 99.994 0.006 0.571E-04 0.440 3 0.001 99.995 0.005 0.502E-04 0.458 2 0.000 99.995 0.005 0.457E-04 0.476 4 C.001 99.996 0.004 0.365E-OS 0.494 2 0.000 99.997 0.003 0.320E-04 0.512 4 0.001 99.998 0.002 0.228E-04 0.530 1 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.205E-04 0.548 2 0.000 99.998 0.002 0.160E-04 0.566 2 0.000 99.999 0.001 G.114E-04 0.584 2 0.000 99.999 0.001 0.685E-05 0.602 1 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.457E-05 0.620 0 0.000 100.000 O.000 C.457E-05 0.636 1 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.228E-05 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: prea.tsf New File: rdouta.tsf Cutoff Units: Discnarge in CFS -----Fraction of Time- -----Check of Tolerance Cutoff Base New Khange Crohabili'y Base New .-,Change 0.121 1 0.87E-02 0.53E-02 -38.4 1 0.87E-02 0.121 0.105 -13.2 0.164 0.40E-02 0.35E-02 -10.9 1 0.40E-02 0.164 0.151 -7.9 0.206 0.20E-02 0.27E-02 34.9 1 0.20E-02 0.206 0.226 1C.0 0.248 0.11E-02 0.14E-02 3'.6 1 0.11E-02 0.248 0.265 6.7 0.290 1 0.62E-03 0.65E-03 4.6 1 0.62E-03 0.290 0.294 1.1 0.333 0.39E-03 0.23E-03 -40.9 1 0.39E-03 0.333 0.315 -5.4 0.375 0.22E-03 0.11E-03 -52.6 1 0.22E-03 0.375 0.334 -10.8 0.417 0.87E-04 0.59E-04 -3_.6 1 C.87E-04 0.417 0.389 -6.6 0.459 1 0.48E-J4 0.46E-04 -4.8 1 0.48E-04 0.459 0.450 -2.0 0.501 ).2LF.-04 0.27E-04 33.3 1 0.21E-04 0.501 C.530 5.8 0.544 0.:6E-04 0.16E,-04 0.0 0.16E-04 C.544 0.552 1.S 0.586 0._1E-04 0.68E-OS -40.0 0.11E-04 0.586 0.519 -1.4 0.625 0.68E-03 0.46E-05 -33.3 1 0.(�E-05 0.628 0.586 -6.7 Maximum posiLive excursion = 0.020 cfs ( 1).4=) occurring aL C.193 cfs on the Base Data:prea.tsf ana at 0.213 cfs cri the New Data:rdouta.tsf Maximum negative excursion - 0.02 cfs occurring at 0.137 cfs on t.ne Base Dsta:prea.tsf and a`_ 0.112 cfs cn the New Data:rdouLa.tsf Pond A Elevation Area Sum Area Volume Sum. Volume Cell 1 Cell 2 22 3333 2053 5386 0 0 23 4193 2575 6768 6077 6077 24 5105 3149 8254 7511 13588 25 0 10138 10138 9196 22784 26 11669 11669 10903.5 33687.5 .4 32,720 Cf- a7 f d. Detention Elevation Area Volume Sum. Volume 26 24850 0 0 27 27280 26065 26065 28 29767 28523.5 54588.5 29 32311 31039 85627.5 30 34911 33611 119238.5 �Q-- %Y� la. $ •• 02 31 38078 36494.5 155733 n VI(IMA. #�12567 pre - dtvtly" zajir, 6 g ac. ` Ia51vre Flew Frequency Analysis LogPearson =II Coefficients Time Series File:preb.tsf Mean- -0.563 Std-ev= 0.22E Protect Location:Sea-Tac Skew= -0.055 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- -----=1ow Frequency Analysis------- F1ow Rate Rank Time of Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CFS) (CFS) Period 0.292 19 2/16/49 22:OC 0.765 1 89.50 0.989 0.752 2 3/03/50 16:00 0.752 2 32.13 C.969 0.568 6 2/09/51 18:00 C.668 3 19.58 C.949 C.210 4C 1/30/52 8:00 0.651 4 14.C8 C.929 0.170 44 1/18/53 19:00 0.585 5 10.99 0.909 0.227 34 12/19/53 19:00 0.568 6 9.01 0.869 0.372 13 2/07/55 2':00 0.52i 1 7.64 0.869 0.367 14 12/20/55 17:00 C.490 8 6.63 0.849 C.345 16 12/09/56 14:00 C.987 9 5.86 0.829 0.270 21 1/'_6/58.20:CO 0.471 10 5.24 0.809 C.2-3 39 1/24/59 6:CO 0.445 11 4.75 0.789 0.487 9 11/20/59 21:C0 J.415 12 4.34 0.769 0 .221 33 11/24/60 8:Cu 0.3i2 13 3.99 C. 749 :;.152 1/02/62 22:00 0.367 1c 3.70 0.729 0.228 31 12/lb/62 2:00 0.363 1c, 3.44 n.,.709 0.231 29 11C,'/64 14:00 0.345 16 3.�2 C.690 0.215 3a 1./24i64 R:00 0.339 3.03 C.670 0.215 _ 1/C5/66 16:00 C.297 18 2.85 C.650 0.415 12 -/19/67 14:00 0.292 _9 1.70 J.63C 0.23- :'s0 2/03/68 22:OC 0.287 2G 2.., C. 61C 0.242 27 1!/03/E.8 1 :uC 0.270 21 2.44 .. 9''' C.237 28 ./13/7C 23:OC 0.260 22 2.32 C.259 23 12/06/70 8:00 0.259 2? 2.22 0. 6;7 u.52i 2/28/72 3:00 0.254 24 2.13 J.53J 0.210 4i 1/13i 73 ::00 J.24%1 25 2.04 0.5-0 G.225 3: 1J 15i 74 2:ii0 0.24 26 1.96 0. 4'_iO 7.445 11 12/26/79 23:0 C.242 27 i. 6 4-!0 C.24, 26 12/02i75 20:00 ,,.23- 2c 1.72 452 C.C-'8 50 3i 24 1?: 00 C,231 29 1.75 0.93p C .246 25 9i22/-,'a 1ti:C0 C.231 30 1 /:) D.41C 0.132 46 11/-9/78 3:C0 C.228 3- 1.64 u.390 0.334 .;_2/"_5i79 8:00 J.228 32 1.59 C.370 J.260 22 -1/2'_/80 =1:C0 0.227 33 1.54 0.350 0.651 4 1O/O6/81 -5:CC 3.227 34 1.49 G.330 0.297 18 1/C5/83 8:00 0.225 35 1.45 C.31C 0.218 36 "-/03/84 1 : 3 0 0,218 36 1.41 0.291 0.-28 47 6/07/85 5:00 0.215 37 1.37 0.271 0.490 8 1/18/86 16:00 0.215 38 1.33 C.251 0.471 10 11/29/86 9:OC 0.213 39 1.3C C.231 0.186 43 1/14/88 12:OC 0.2i0 40 1.27 C.211 0.106 48 11/05/88 15:00 0.210 41 1.24 0.191 C.765 1 1/09/90 6 : 0 0 C.207 42 -.21 0.171 J.668 3 11/24/90 8:00 0.186 43 1.18 0.151 0.228 32 1/27/92 17:00 0.170 44 -.75 .131 0.207 42 3/22/93 23:03 0.152 45 1.12 O.ill 0.086 49 2/-7/94 18:00 0.132 46 1.1C O.C91 0.287 20 2/19/95 18:00 0.128 47 1.08 0.071 0,585 5 2/O8/96 1 0 : 0 0 0.106 48 1.05 3.C51 0.363 15 1/02/97 6:00 C.086 49 1.03 O.C31 0.254 24 10/04/97 '5:00 C.078 50 1.01 O.C-1 Computed Peaks 11.90C 10C.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 0.786 5C.00 0,980 Computed Peaks C.675 25.00 0.960 Computed Peaks 0.532 1C.0C 0.900 &113/0 b D,t,'t,�,l 6,-,Jl/) 6 Z I v,6os Flow Frequency Analysis LogPearson III Coefficients Time Ser_es File:deub.tsf Mean- 0.259 StdDec= 0.103 Project LocatiOn:Sea-Tac Skew- 0.513 ---Annual Peak Flow Rates--- ----- Flow Frequency Analysis Flow Rate Rank Time cf Peak - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob (CPS) (CFS) Period 1.83 20 2/16/49 21:00 3.03 1 89.50 0.989 2.78 4 3/03/50 16:00 2.93 2 32.13 0.969 1.80 22 2/09/51 2:00 2.82 3 19.5E 0.949 1.56 38 10/15/51 13:00 2.78 4 -4.08 0.929 1.44 43 3/24/53 15:00 2.68 5 -0.99 0.909 1.72 28 12/19/53 19:00 2.63 6 9.01 0.889 1.80 23 11/25/54 2:00 2.41 7 7.64 0.869 1.76 24 11/le/55 15:CO 2.37 8 6.63 0. 84 9 2.02 15 12/09/56 14:00 2.20 9 5.86 0.829 -.82 21 12/25/57 16:00 2.17 10 �.24 0.8C9 1.38 47 11/lE/58 13:00 2.15 1- 4.75 C.789 .73 27 11/20/59 5:00 2.14 12 4.34 C.769 i.54 39 2/14/61 21:00 2"11 13 3.99 9./99 i.57 36 11/22/6' 2:OC 2.10 14 _.70 0.729 1.52 40 12/15/62 2:OC 2.02 _5 3"4c 0.709 1. 74 26 2/31/63 2 3 : 0 0 1.98 -6 3.22 0. 690 1.58 34 12/21/69 4:0C ..98 3.03 0.67J 1.S6 37 1i05/66 16:00 1.92 18 __ 2.nS Jp . i0 2.37 8 11/13/66 19:00 1.9C 19 -1.70 C.630 2.63 ., e/24/6°, 1E:00 1.c3 20 2.56 0.610 1.42 44 12/03/69 '. 6:00 1.E2 21 2.:_4 1.Sy(; 1.57 .._ i/-3/':J 22:00 _.B:i 22 7.32 C'570 �S2 41 12/05/70 9:C0 _.8J 23 2.i,. C.55G 2.20 9 12/0'c 1 1E O -,-7 24 2.13 530 _.41 46 '/13/13 2:00 _.75 2, 2.C4 .,.510 '.64 31 11/2E/73 9:00 1.�4 26 1.96 ,;.49C 2.11 13 12/261/ 23:00 :.73 27 1.89 ..- , _ i.41 41: 12/02/7s 20:CC 1.72 28 1.82 _._-, 1."75 2"-" 8 26/7, 2:OC 1.r'.6 29 1.75 0.430 2.4': - 9/17/78 2:0C 1.66 30 1.70 0.410 2.15 -1 9/08/79 15:00 1.64 31 1.64 0.390 1.98 _. i2/14/79 21:03 1.63 32 1-9 0.3�O 2.14 12 11/21/P,C 11:03 1.62 33 1.54 0.350 2.93 2 10/06/81 0:00 1.58 34 1.49 0.330 2.17 1 10/26/82 16:00 1.57 35 1.45 0.310 1.66 29 '/03/84 1:00 1.57 36 1.47 0.291 -.50 42 6/06/85 2 2 : 0 0 1.56 37 -.37 C.27- i.92 18 1/18./86 16:CO 1.56 38 '_.33 C.25- 2.68 10/26/86 0:00 1.59 39 1.30 0.231 1.25 49 11/11/87 0:00 1.52 40 1.27 3.211 1.62 33 8/21/89 17:00 1.52 4- 1.24 C.191 3.03 1 1/09/90 6:30 _.50 42 1.21 0.171 2.82 3 11/24/90 8:OC i.44 43 1.1E 0.-51 1.63 32 1/27/92 15:OC 1.42 44 1.15 0.131 1.15 °1 11/01/92 16:00 1.4- 45 1.12 0.-11 1.32 48 11/30/93 22:00 1 . 4 ' 46 1.10 0.091 1.66 30 11/30/94 4:03 1.38 47 1.08 0.0-/1 1.98 16 2/08/96 10:00 1.32 48 1.05 0.051 _.90 19 1/02/97 6:00 1.25 49 1.03 0.031 2.10 14 10/04/97 i5:00 1.15 50 1.01 0.011 Computed Peaks 3.37 100.0C 0.990 Computed Peaks 3.09 50.00 0.980 Computed Peaks 2.81 25.0C 0.960 Computed Peaks 2.46 IO.00 0.900 Retention/Detention Facility Type of Facility Side Slope: Pond 3cttom. Length: Pond Bottom Width: Ford Bottom Area: 'Pop Area at 1 ft. FB: Effective Storage Depth: Stage 0 Elevation: Storage Volume: Riser Head Riser diameter Number of orifices Detention Pond 3.00 H:1V 300.00 ft 78.00 ft 23400. sq. ft 36167. sq. ft 0.830 acres 4.20 ft 26.03 f� 119173. cu. ft 2.736 ac-ft 4.20 fc 24.00 'inches 2 7u-1 Eead Pipe Orifice t Height Diameter Discharge Diameter (_`t; (in; (CFS) (in; 1 0.00 1.82 0.184 2 1.97 2.35 0.224 6.0 Top Notch Weir: Rectangular -ength: 3.00 in Heir He-.ght: 3.00 ft Outflow Rating Curve: None Stage E1eva7ion Storage Discharge Percoiatior. Surf Area (fL; (ft) (cu. ft) (ac- ft) (cfs) (cfs) (sq. ft) C.00 26.00 C. 0.000 C.000 O.00 23400. 0.02 26.02 969. C.011 C.Oi2 0.0C 23440. O.1)4 26.04 938. 0.022 0.)17 0.00 2349'. C.06 26.06 1408. 0.032 0.021 0.00 23536. C.08 26.38 1879. 0.043 0.025 C.30 23582. 0.09 26.09 2115. 0.049 0.028 C.00 23604. 0.11 26.11 2588. 0.059 0.030 0.0G 23650. 0.13 26.13 3061. 0.073 3.033 0.0G 23695. 0.15 26.15 3536. 0.081 0.035 C.00 23741. 0.17 26.17 4011. 0.092 0.037 C.00 23787. 3.27 26.27 6401. 0.14'7 0.047 0.00 24015. 0.37 26.37 8814. 0.202 0.055 0.00 24244. 0.47 26.47 11250. 0.258 0.062 0.00 24474. 0.57 26.57 13709. 0.315 0.066 0.00 24704. 0.67 26, 67 16191. 0.372 0.074 0.00 21936. 0.77 26.`/-% 18696. 0.429 0.079 0.00 251 68 . 0.87 26.87 21224. 0.487 0.084 0.00 25400. 0.97 26.97 23776. 0.546 0.089 0.03 25634. 1.07 27.07 26351. 0.605 0.093 0.00 25868. i.17 27.17 28950. 0.665 0.097 0.00 26103. 1.27 21.27 31572. 0.725 0.101 0.00 26338. 1.37 21.37 34217. 0.786 0.105 0.00 26575. 1.47 27.47 36887. 0.847 0.109 0.00 268''2. 1.57 27.57 39580. 0.909 0.113 0.00 27049. 1.67 27.67 42297. 0.9'/1 0.116 0.00 27288. 1.77 27.77 45037. 1.034 0.120 0.00 27527. 1.87 27.87 47802. 1.097 0.123 0.00 27767. i.97 27.97 50591. 1.161 0.126 0.00 28008. 1.99 27.99 51151. 1.174 0.128 0.00 28056. 2.02 28.02 51994. 1,194 0.133 0.00 28128. 2.04 28.04 52557. 1.207 0.141 0.00 28177, 2.C7 28.07 53404. 1.226 0.152 C.00 28249. 2.09 28.09 53969, 1.239 C.165 C.00 28297. 2.12 28.12 54819, 1.258 0.180 0.00 2837C. 2.14 28.14 55387._.272 0.193 0.00 28418. 2.17 28.17 56241. '.291 0.199 0.00 28491. 2.19 28.:9 56811. -.304 0.203 0.00 28540. 2.29 28.29 59677, _.370 0.221 0.00 28783. 2.39 28.39 62567, 1_.436 0.236 0.00 29026. 2.49 28.49 65482. 1.303 0.250 0.00 292 71 . 2.59 28.59 68421. L.571 0.263 0.00 29516. 2.69 28.69 11385. 1.639 0.275 0.00 29761. 2.79 28.79 74374. 1.707 0.266 0.00 30008. 2_89 28.89 77387. 1.777 0.296 0.00 30255. 2.99 28.99 80426. 1.846 0.307 0.00 30503. 3.00 29.00 80730. 1.853 0.308 0.00 30528. 3.10 29.10 6379b. 1.924 C.341 O.CO 30777. 3.20 29.20 86885. 1.995 C.389 0.00 31026. 3.30 29.30 90001. 2.366 0.439 0.GO 31276, 3.40 29,40 93141. 2.138 C.488 0.CIO 31527. 3.50 29,50 96306. 2.21'_ C.53C 0.00 31779. 3.60 29.60 9949-1 ?.213 595 0.00 3203'i. 3.70 29.70 102-12. 2.358 J.665 0.00 32284. 3.8C 29.80 105953. , . 4 3 2 45 0.00 32538. 3.90 29.90 109220. 2.507 0.00 32793. 4.00 30.GO 112512. 2.583 C.9C4 0.00 33048. 4.10 -M .10 115830. 2.659 C.992 0.30 33304. 9.20 30.20 119173. 2.736 1.08E 0.30 33661. 4.30 'O.30 122542. 2.813 C.00 33818. 4.40 30.40 1259-16. 2.891 2.840 0.00 34076. 4.50 30.50 129357. 2.970 4.310 0.30 34335. 4.60 3C.60 132803. 3.049 6.040 0.00 34595. 9 .70 30.70 136276. 3.128 8.010 0.00 34855. 9 .80 30.80 1397"/4. 3.209 10 .180 0.00 35116. 4.90 30.90 143299. 3.290 12.540 0.00 35378. 5.00 3_.00 46850. 3.371 14.670 C.00 35640. 5.1C 3'_.10 15C427. 3.453 15.500 0.00 35903. 5.2C 31.20 i54031. 3.536 16.280 C.00 36167. 5.30 31.30 �57661. 3.619 17.020 0.00 36432. 5.40 31.40 161317. 3.703 17.730 0.00 36697. 5.5G 31.50 165000. 3.788 18.420 0.00 36963. 3.60 31.6C 168710. 3.873 19.070 0.00 37230. 5.70 31.70 172446. 3.959 19.710 0.00 37497. 5.80 31.80 176209. 4.045 20.320 0.00 37765. 5.90 31.9C 179999. 4.132 20.920 0.00 38034. 6.00 32.00 183816, 4.220 21.490 0.00 38304. 6.10 32.=0 187660. 4.308 22.060 0.00 38574. 6.20 32.20 191531, 4.397 22.600 0.00 36845. Hyd Inflow Ou-flow Peak Srorage Target Calc Stage E1ev (Cu-Ft) (Ac-Ft) 1 1.80 C.64 0.66 3.69 29.69 102407. 2.351 2 1.98 0.63 3.65 29.65 i0i173. 2.323 3 3.03 ****-** 0.59 3.59 29.39 99329. 2.280 4 1.95 ******* 0.48 3.39 29.39 92812. 2.131 5 2.93 *" *`*° 0.40 3.23 29.23 8771i. 2.014 1.90 0.33 3.07 29.07 82893. 1.9C3 1.63 0.22 2.31 28.31 60216. 1.382 8 1.18 ***'°*° 0.13 1.96 27.96 50190. 1.152 ---------------------------------- Route Time Series through Facility Inflow Time Series File:devb.ts` Outflow Time Series File.:rdout nf'_ow/Outflow Analysis Peak Inflow Discharge: 3.03 CE'S at 6:CC on Jan 9 in 1990 Peak Oa7.flow Discharge: 0.661 Cf'S at 2r:C0 on Feb 9 in 1951 Peak Reservoir Stage: 3.69 Ft Peak Reservoir Flev: 29.69 Ft Peak Reservoir Storage: 102547. Co -Ft 2.354 Ac-FL Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:rdeut.tsf Pro-ecL Lc�ation:Sea-Tac ---Annaa- leak Flow Rates--- Flcw Rate Rank Time of leak (CFS) 0.121 2/22/43 6:00 0.241 2C7 3/05/50 6:00 0.661 1 2/09/51 20:OC 0.=IC 2/04/52 7:00 0.198 35 1/18/53 21:00 0.222 27 1i06/S4 :00 0.220 28 2/08/5.'; 1:0C 0.274 13 1/06/56 1i:00 0.208 39 2/26/57 3:00 0.242 19 1/17/58 7:00 0.126 39 _0/19/58 10:00 0.528 4 _1/21/59 2:00 0.259 16 11/24/60 1`_:03 O.i11 47 12/24/61 5:00 0.212 29 11/26/62 10:00 0.226 24 !1/-9/63 16:00 0.276 12 12/01/64 2:00 0.118 36 12/28/65 17:00 0.252 17 12/13/66 11:00 0.202 34 1/20/68 19:00 0.127 38 12/11/68 7:00 0.2C7 31 1/27/7C 3:00 0.23C 23 12/07/7C 7:00 0.334 9 3/06/72 22:00 0.271 14 12/26/72 6:00 0.233 22 1/16/74 18:00 0.2C4 32 12/27/74 7:00 0.226 23 12/C4/75 1:00 0.118 41, 8/26/77 6:00 0.249 18 12/15/77 18:00 LogPearsor_ II- Coefficients Mean= -0.654 SLJDev= 0.218 Skew= 0.375 ----Flew Frequency Analysis ------- - - Peaks - - Rank Return Prob ;CFs l,fti Period C.6E- 3.69 0.989 C.63: 3.65 2 32.13 0.969 C.592 3.59 3 19.58 C.949 C.528 3.50 4 14.08 C.929 C.502 3.43 10.99 C.9C9 0.483 3.39 _ 9.01 C.889 0.437 3.30 - 7.64 C.869 C.404 3.23 8 6.63 C.849 C.334 3.08 9 5.86 C.929 C.33_ 3.07 10 5.24 C.SC9 C.306 2.98 11 4.75 0.789 C.276 2.70 12 4.34 0.769 C.274 2.68 13 3.99 C.749 0.271 2.66 14 3.70 C.729 C.266 2.62 15 3.44 C.709 C.259 2.56 16 3.22 0.690 0.252 2.51 1-/ 3.03 0.670 C.249 2.49 18 2.85 0.650 0.242 2.43 19 2.7C 0.630 0.241 2.42 20 2.56 C.610 0.231 2.36 21 2.44 0.590 0.230 2.35 22 2.32 C.570 0.230 2.35 23 2.22 C.550 0.226 2.32 24 2.13 0.530 0.226 2.32 25 2.34 0.510 0.224 2.31 26 1.96 C.490 C.222 2.30 27 1.89 C.470 0.220 2.28 28 1.82 0.450 C.212 2.24 29 1.73 0.430 0.208 2.22 30 1.70 0.410 0.107 49 2/12/79 17:00 0.207 2.21 31 1.69 0.390 0.404 8 12/17/79 20:00 0.204 2.19 32 1.59 0.370 0.203 33 12/30/80 16:00 0.2C3 2.19 33 1.54 0.350 0.437 7 10/06/81 17:00 0.2G2 2.18 34 1.49 C.330 0.231 21 1/05/83 15:00 0.198 2.16 35 1.45 C.310 0.118 45 12/10/83 18:00 0.178 2.12 36 1.41 0.291 0.140 37 11/04/84 0:00 0.140 2.04 37 1.37 0.271 0.306 11 1/18/86 23:00 0.127 1.98 38 1.33 0.251 0.502 5 11/24/86 7:00 0.126 1.96 39 1.30 3.231 0.125 40 12/09/87 21:00 0.125 1.95 40 1.27 0.211 0.124 41 11/05/88 20:00 0.124 1.91 41 1.24 0.191 0.592 3 1/09/90 11:00 0.123 1.88 42 1.21 0.171 0.483 6 4/05/91 4:00 0.121 1_62 43 1.18 0.151 0.229 26 _/31/92 6:00 0.116 1.72 44 1.15 0.'31 0.115 46 3/23/93 6:00 O.11B 1.71 45 1.12 0.111. 0.105 50 2/17/94 21:00 0.115 1.64 46 1.10 0.C91 0.266 15 12/27/94 7:00 0.111 1.51 47 1.08 0.071 0.631 2 2/09/96 3:00 0.110 1.50 48 1.C5 0.651 0.331 10 1/02/9-1 _2:00 0.10� 1.42 49 1.03 0.031 0.123 42 10/30/97 10:00 0.105 1.37 50 1.01 0.011 Computed Peaks 0.819 3.90 100.00 0.990 Computed Peaks 0.687 3.73 53.00 0.9801 Cnmouted Peaks 0.569 3.56 25.00 0.96C Computed Peaks 0.430 3.28 1G.00 0.900 Computed Peaks 0.404 3.23 8.00 0.875 comwuted Peaks 0.335 3.08 S.CO 0.8UC ComoaLed Peaks 0.215 2.26 2.00 0.i,00 Comoc.tad teaks 0.-i50 2.C7 1.30 0.211 Flow Durat_on from Time Series File:rdout.tsf CuLofi Count Frequency CDE Exceedecce Probability CFS - C.009 234466 53.532 53.';32 46.468 0.463Ei-00 C.028 44200 10.091 63.623 36.377 D.364L�00 0.047 49464 '_1.293 74.916 25.OB4 0.251E+00 0.065 40780 9.311 84.226 15.77d 0.158E+00 0.084 30872 7.04E 91.275 8.725 0.873E-01 G.102 20126 4.595 95.870 4.'_3C 0.413E-01 0.121 11639 2.65' 98.527 1.473 0.147E-01 0.14C 3237 0.739 99.266 0.734 0.734E-02 0.i58 557 0.12'7 99.393 0.607 0.6C7E-02 0.177 317 0.072 99.466 O.E34 0.534E-02 3.i95 289 0.066 99.532 0.468 0.468E-02 0.214 561 0.12E 99.660 0.340 0.340E-02 0.233 443 0.10S 99.761 0.239 0.239E-02 0.251 284 0.065 99.826 0.-_74 0.174E-02 0.270 225 0.051 99.877 0.'23 0.123E-02 0.288 185 0.042 99.919 0.031 0.806E-03 0.307 121 0.028 99.947 0.053 0.530E-03 0.326 47 0.011 99.95E 0.042 0.422F.-03 0.344 30 0.007 99.965 0.035 0.354E-03 0.363 19 0.004 99.969 0.031 0.311E-03 0.381 21 0.005 99.974 0.026 0.263E-03 0.400 19 0.004 99.978 0.022 0.219E-03 0.419 11 0.003 99.981 0.019 0.194E-03 0.437 13 0.003 99.984 0.C16 0.164E-03 0.456 10 0.002 99.986 0.C14 0.142E-03 0.474 8 0.002 99.988 0.012 0.123E-03 0.493 71 0.003 99.990 0.010 C.982E-04 0.-512 14 0.003 99.993 0.007 0.662E-04 0.530 6 3.001 99.995 0.00.5 0.525E-04 0.549 3 0.001 99.995 0.005 0.457E-04 0,567 4 0.021 99.996 G.004 0.365E-04 0.586 4 0.001 99.997 0.003 0.274E-04 0.005 4 0.001 99.998 C.002 0.183E-04 0.623 4 0.001 99.999 0.001 0,913E-05 0.642 2 0.000 100.000 0.000 0.457E-05 0.660 1 0.000 100.000 0.000 0,228E-05 Duration Comparison Anaylsis Base File: oreb.tsf New File: rdout.tsf Cutoff Units: Discharge in CFS -----Fraction of Time ----- ---------Check of 'i'olerance------- Cutoff Base New Change Probability Base New xChanQe 0.'37 1 0.89E-02 0.75F,-02 -_-5.2 6.89E-02 0.137 0,128 -7.1 0.186 0.4:E-02 0.57F,-02 24,2 G.91F-02 0.186 0.203 9.6 0.234 C.20E-02 0.23E-02 16.0 C.20E-02 0.234 0.243 4,0 0.282 0.11E-02 0,94E-03 -13.6 C.11E-02 0.282 0.275 -2.5 0.330 ',.63E-03 0,40E-03 -36.7 1 0.63E-03 C.330 0.299 -9.! C.379 0.39E-03 0,26E-03 -32.9 0.39E-03 0.379 0.331 -12.6 0.427 1 0.2:3 C3 3,18E-03 -22.8 0.23E-03 0.427 C.395 -7.6 0.975 0.87E-C4 0,12ES-03 42.1 I 0 87E-04 0.475 C.502 .,.] 0,524 0.48E-C4 0.55E-04 14.3 C.48E-04 0.524 .;.545 9.0 0,572 1 7.21E-C4 0.32E-C4 55.6 0.21E-04 2 C.593 3.7 0.620 1 0."_6E-04 0.11E-04 -28.6 1 0.16E-04 3.620 C.6-4 -l.0 C.668 1 0.11E-04 0.00E+00 -100.0 0,11E-04 0.668 C.620 -7.2 I 0.68E-05 O.003+CO -_00.0 0.6EE-05 0.111 C.637 -1i.2 C .765 1 0.23E-05 O.00B+CO -lOC.0 0.23E-05 0. -55 C.661 -13.6 Maximum positive excursion = 0.019 cfs occurring at 0,175 cfs on the lase Cata:preb.tsf acd at C.194 cfs on the Now Data:rdcut.tsf Maximum negative excursion = C.1C4 cfs (-13.6=) occurring at 0.765 cfs on the Base Data:preb.tsf and at 0.66;. cfs on the New Data:rdout.tsf Pond B Elevation Area Sum Area Volume Sum. Volume Cell 1 Cell 2 22 2081 3923 6004 0 0 23 2702 4647 7349 6676.5 6676.5 24 3392 5428 8820 8084.5 14761 25 10803 10803 9811.5 24572.5 26 12242 12242 11522.5 36095 6-- 32, 7.11 26 23416 0 27 26017 24716.5 24716.5 28 28661 27339 52055.5 29 31365 30013 82068.5 30 34128 32746.5 114815 - - mom( ((�,5. �✓Q.2 31 36952 35540 150355 Vof um� = 119, 173 BARGHAUSEN DATE: 16hL PAGE-LOF CONSULTING ENGINEER ENGINEERS, INC. PROJECT#: 1250 PROJECT/SUBJECT: �45sv,�r►e ppond ecc;✓es rvn� am 8' - ,657. i tnvtous I i i !•2 azws lan sc;i I = 31i basic 4 it-) Vr 4-6.251(!•2ac))X o.039 V r _ 161167 c l vb yr 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The conveyance system will be designed pursuant to City of Renton standards and the 2005 KCWSWDM when the site plan has been finalized and construction drawings have been prepared. 12567 00 Ld- 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following special reports and studies are included: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations prepared by Hart & Crowser (included within the Level 1 Downstream Analysis) Level 1 Off -Site Drainage Analysis (Section 3.0) t 2567 00 ] .doe 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 7.0 OTHER PERMITS Fire Marshal / Fire Hydrant Locations Approval Construction Stormwater General Permit (Department of Ecology) 12567 00I.doc 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.0 ESC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) analysis and design complies with the KCSWDM. The TESC elements are addressed as follows: Clearing Limits: The clearing limits are on the engineering plans and will be flagged in the field. Cover Measures: Cover measures are added in the TESC notes on the engineering plans. Perimeter Protection: Perimeter protection is shown on the engineering plans (silt fencing). Traffic Area Stabilization: A stabilized gravel construction entrance is shown on the engineering plans. Sediment Retention: A temporary sediment pond is proposed on site at the low point in the topography. Surface Water Control: Interceptor ditches with checked dams are shown on the engineering plans and will be implemented during construction if needed. Dust Control: Dust control by sprinklering will be utilized if needed. Wet Season Construction: Construction will be conducted according to the King County's standards during the wet season. Construction Within Sensitive Areas and Buffers: No construction is proposed within sensitive areas or buffers. Maintenance: Maintenance requirements are detailed in the TESC notes on the engineering plans. Final Stabilization: Upon completion of the project, all disturbed areas will be stabilized and Best Management Practices removed if appropriate. 12567 00 Ldm 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATIONS OF COVENANT 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 12567 00 I .doc 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL An Operations and Maintenance Manual will be prepared in conjunction with the construction drawings once the site plan has been finalized. 12567 001.doc RV an HARTMOWS[R October 5, 2006 Dave Bennitt PACCAR Inc. 777 - 106th Avenue NE Belleuve, WA 98004 Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations '?Aei.a2 Parts Distribution Center Renton, Washington 1 7322-00 Dear Mr. Bennitt: REVF�� A F R I'X tNG oci 31 VIA This letter report presents our preliminary conclusions and recommendations with respect to foundation design for the new P:gcc4*-,�i Parts Distribution Center in Renton, Washington. Site Description The project site is located at the PACCAR facility in Renton at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Fourth Street and Garden Avenue North (Figure 1). The site is within the Cedar River valley, with ground surface elevations ranging between 31 and 36 feet. Figure 2 shows the PACCAR site and the proposed Distribution Center. The Distribution Center will be roughly square in plan with a footprint area of approximately 250,000 square feet. Subsurface Conditions To date, two shallow and two deep geotechnical explorations have been completed and evaluated for the proposed building site. In addition, three cone penetrometer probes were also advanced. Locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the explorations and corresponding field and lab data are provided in Appendices A and B, respectively. Additionally, we have developed a generalized subsurface cross section that cuts diagonally through the site (Figure 3). The location of the cross section is indicated on Figure 2. As expected, subsurface conditions at the site are typical for this part of the valley. Our explorations encountered alluvial soils to depths approaching 80 to 95 feet. This alluvium consists of highly variable and interlayered silt, clay, gravel, and sand. At depth, we encountered very dense WE rur PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 2 glacial soils that represent the lower boundary of compressible soils that would control foundation design. Of particular interest is the presence of layers of organic peat soils interlayered within the sand and silt layers. The organic soil is of particular interest because peat will tend to exhibit very large consolidation settlement, and this settlement will tend to continue over long periods of time. There does not appear to be a single or multiple discrete layers of peat. Rather, we observed the peat typically in flinch -thick lenses. Based on the frequency of encountering organic material in the essentially continuous CPT probes, we estimate an accumulated thickness of peat of about 2 feet in the upper 50 feet across the building site. In addition to our deep boring B-3 in the northeast corner of the proposed building, we also advanced two additional shallow explorations in this area to assess the thickness of "stabilized soil" in this area where the building footprint overlaps one of the stabilized soil cells. There is a thin soil cover over the cement -stabilized material and the depth to the bottom of this stabilized material ranged from 7 to 8 feet below existing grade. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 17 feet below ground surface in the higher northern portion of the site and 14 feet in the southern lower portion of the site. Previous borings and monitoring wells indicate that the groundwater table fluctuates considerably depending on seasonal conditions. The groundwater levels observed in our borings appear to be representative of low groundwater conditions associated with dry seasons. Based on previous borings and monitoring wells, we recommend that a groundwater level at an elevation of 22 feet in the southwest corner of the property, and 26 feet in the northeast corner of the property be used for preliminary planning and design purposes. The above description is based on the subsurface information currently available. In our opinion, the borings performed at this stage of the project are not enough to provide final design recommendations given the size and variability of the site. As mentioned in our proposal, several additional explorations are recommended for the geotechnical design study that would help us evaluate the subsurface conditions. The proposed locations of the additional explorations are shown on Figure 2. Nevertheless, the nature and extent of variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of our borings and across the site may not become evident until construction. If significant variations in the next phase or during construction appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendations that are presented subsequently in this letter report. LI PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 FOUNDATION CONSIDERATIONS 17322-00 Page 3 Although foundation loads have not yet been established, we understand that the building will be predominantly steel frame construction with perimeter concrete stem walls about 10 feet in height. Therefore, wall loads are expected to be quite light. Interior column loads have not yet been established but we have assumed typical column loads on the order of 100 to 125 kips. Floor loads have not yet been finalized; however, based on conversations with the design team, we have assumed that the design floor load would not exceed 500 psf. Site Pretreatment In our opinion, based on the assumed building loads, shallow foundations and slabs -on -grade could be used for support of the building provided that the site is treated to accommodate settlement. We recommend that a preload and surcharge program be implemented to precompress the site soils. Preloading works by temporarily placing a weight of soil in the building area that is approximately equal to the weight of the building such that the underlying site soils are pre -compressed under this temporary load. The preload fill is allowed to stay in place long enough for the underlying soils to fully consolidate. Based on explorations from this preliminary phase and our previous experience in the area, we estimate this primary consolidation (i.e., preload duration) would take 4 to 8 weeks. In addition to preloading to accommodate the building, we will also need to accommodate the long-term, time -dependent portion of settlement related to the organic and fine-grained soils at the site. Peat soils will tend to continue to consolidate and settle over time. This time -dependent portion of settlement can be reduced by placing additional preload weight on the building area for some period of time. This additional weight is generally referred to as a "surcharge." Given the loads cited above and an assumed in -place fill density of 125 pcf, we anticipate a preload height corresponding to 4-1/2 feet (i.e., 4 feet of preload and an additional 1/2 foot to account for the settlement that will occur under the weight of the preload). We also anticipate the need for a surcharge of about 4-1/2 feet to account for the time -dependent portion of settlement that would occur over the design life of the structure, which is assumed to be 40 years. The magnitude of the time -dependent portion of settlement is estimated as 9 to 10 inches. Residual settlements (occurring beyond the design life) are estimated as 1 to 2 inches. Differential settlements are estimated to be half of the residual settlement. The height of the preload and surcharge results in a ' total height of fill of about 9 feet measured from Zrnishedfloor elevation (preload height is equal to the weight of soil removed and not the weight placed). For example, in the southern portion of the site, 4 feet of fill are required to reach the finished floor elevation; therefore, a total of 13 feet of fill will be required. PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 4 The preload and surcharge fill should extend outward at its full height at least 5 feet laterally from the edge of the building. To avoid undesirable settlements of existing structures and utilities, it is recommended that the toe of the preload/surcharge is placed no closer than 25 feet to these existing features. Given the size of this building, the preload and surcharge fill will represent a substantial amount of material. At this stage of design, we understand that the preload and surcharge fill will need to be placed at one time. If the schedule changes, it may be possible to economize on the amount of fill needed by phasing the preload and surcharge operation. For example, we could preload/surcharge one half of the building and then move the fill to the other half after the appropriate consolidation time. This could also be done in thirds. This type of operation is typically referred to as a "rolling surcharge." SETTLEMENT MONITORING PROGRAM To assess the performance of the preload/surcharge fill, a settlement monitoring program will be necessary. Without settlement monitoring, the surcharges must be left in place the full time planned, and predicted post -construction building settlement would still be regarded as approximate at best. With proper instrumentation, the settlement progress can be more closely monitored, future settlements predicted with more confidence, and the basis of the design verified. Through analysis of the monitoring data, we can implement design revisions, if necessary, or remove the surcharge early, if possible. An early removal or design revision decision would be based on the settlement rate, the construction benefits, and the residual settlements predicted for the building. For the settlement monitoring program, we recommend the following steps: ■ Install settlement plates at strategic locations, including settlement plates throughout the building footprint. ■ A surveyor should obtain initial settlement plate elevations immediately after placement of the plates and r� for to placement of any fill. Obtain readings by standard differential leveling to the nearest 0.01 foot. ■ During fill placement, the settlement plate rods will need to be extended by coupling pipes together. A survey reading should be made immediately before and after the pipe extension is installed. ry MrN PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 5 ■ The surveyors must establish a series of benchmarks that will be outside the area of settlement influence; we estimate that a minimum distance of 300 feet is sufficiently far away from the preload site to obtain reliable survey readings. ■ Utilities sensitive to settlement located within 25 feet of the toe of the preload fill should be incorporated into the monitoring program. Based on survey readings, preload/surcharge may need to be removed upon the recommendation from the geotechnical engineer. ■ During the first two weeks, obtain readings three times per week. After the first two weeks, the frequency may be reduced to twice per week. After four weeks, the frequency may be reduced further, to once per week, but only upon the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer reviewing the survey data. ■ Retain Hart Crowser to review the settlement plate data on a regular basis as they are obtained. This will allow us to make recommendations regarding placement of additional fill and preload duration. Foundations Once preloading has been completed, the building can be founded on shallow footings and slabs - on -grade. We recommend the following design parameters: ■ Footings can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure equal to 2,000 psf. ■ All footings should have a minimum width equal to 24 inches and the bottoms of the footings should be at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. ■ The upper soils at the site are very loose and may be unsuitable for direct support of the footings. We recommend providing an allowance for overexcavation below the footings and replacement with densely compacted fill. Two feet of overexcavation and backfill should be allowed for in all areas for all footings. The actual required depth will depend on conditions encountered and, therefore, the need for overexcavation should be assessed in the field on a footing by footing basis. ■ Slabs -on -grade can be used for support of the floor slab provided the upper 24 inches of subgrade have been recompacted to 95 percent of the maximum modified Proctor dry density. This may require some overexcavation and some moisture conditioning and recompacting of the site soils. This earthwork will be greatly simplified by conducting these operations during extended periods of dry weather. >A Y PACCAR Inc. 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Page 6 ■ Slabs can be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction equal to 250 pci (based on a 1- by 1-foot plate). ■ Slabs should be underlain by at least 6 inches of free -draining sand to act as a capillary break. Site Preparation and Grading We understand that proposed grading plans calls for up to 4 feet of fill to be placed above existing grades on one half of the site. Before fill is placed, subgrade preparation should include stripping and grubbing of deleterious fills or soil, surficial topsoil, and tree/brush roots or debris. Grasses with minimal roots do not require removal before grading. The existing building foundations and pavement along the southern portion of the site can be broken up and compacted into the lower portion of the fill, no closer than 2 feet from any footings or slabs. Cut and Fill Slopes We recommend the temporary or finished grade for well constructed slopes be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Slopes should be protected both during and after construction from erosion, and drainage should not be allowed to occur over the face of slopes. Structural Fill During wet weather, structural fills should consist of well graded, durable, granular material (sand or sand and gravel) that does not contain more than 5 percent material by weight passing the No. 200 sieve (based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction). In addition, it is usually desirable to limit this material to a maximum diameter of 6 inches for ease of compaction and future utility installation. During dry weather, any non -organic, sand or gravel soil that can be compacted in accordance with the subsequent recommendations of this report can be used. Structural fill should be placed and compacted according to the following recommendations: Control the moisture content of the fill within 2 percent of the optimum moisture. Optimum moisture is the moisture content corresponding to its maximum Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557); Compact to a minimum of 90 and 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (as determined by ASTM D 1557 test procedure), within 2 feet of footings and slabs, respectively; Place and compact all structural fill in lifts with a loose thickness no greater than 10 inches. If small, hand -operated compaction equipment is used to compact structural fill, fill lifts should not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness; and PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 7 ■ Structural fill used to backfill utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. The contractor should be responsible to have the necessary compaction equipment on site to meet the compaction specifications. The compacted densities of fill lifts should be verified by testing following compaction. Before fill control can begin, the compaction characteristics of the fill material must be determined from representative samples of the proposed structural fill. A study of compaction characteristics should include determination of maximum dry density, gradation, and optimum and natural moisture contents of these soils at the time of placement. Full-time inspection of the contractor's compaction activities should be performed. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In this section we address the design response spectrum and discuss the liquefaction potential at the site. Design Response Spectrum The structural engineer uses the design response spectrum to calculate the seismic -induced base shear of the proposed structure. We assume that the seismic design of this project will be performed in accordance the 2003 International Building Code. The basis of design for this code is two-thirds of the hazard associated with an earthquake with 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year window of time, which corresponds to an average return period of 2,475 years. We obtained the seismic hazard from the United States Geologic Survey 2002 National Seismic Hazard Maps (USGS 2002) for Latitude 47.489 and Longitude-122.199. Below, we provide parameters for seismic design in accordance with this code. These coefficients should provide all of the information required to perform the seismic design in accordance with the IBC 2003. ■ Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, Ss = 1.43 g; ■ Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period, S, _ 0.49 g; and ■ Site Class E (for buildings with periods less than 0.5 seconds). The site contains liquefiable soils, which would be classified as Site Class F and require a site -specific geotechnical investigation and dynamic site response analysis. However, the code permits structures with periods of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second to be analyzed based on the PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 8 Site Class E. The structural engineer should be consulted to verify that this is the case for the proposed warehouse. Liquefaction Liquefaction of saturated granular soils can occur as a result of cyclic shaking and shear deformation during an earthquake. Shaking increases soil pore water pressures, which reduces the strength in the liquefaction zone, potentially causing settlement. Because there are zones of liquefiable material beneath the site, the building area will undergo some level of subsidence as a result of liquefaction. Because the depth to groundwater is on the order of 15 feet the upper soils will not liquefy and will retain their integrity. This means that liquefaction should not result in a catastrophic collapse of the foundations for the building. The effects of liquefaction will manifest themselves in potentially substantial settlement of the building. We have not yet concluded our quantitative analysis of subsidence but 6 to 12 inches is not unrealistic to consider under a severe seismic event. We expect this subsidence to occur over the width of one bay (approximately 40 feet) as differential settlement. The structural engineer will need to consider this movement during design of the structure. PACCAR Inc. October 5, 2006 17322-00 Page 9 For slabs -on -grade, we expect that potentially extensive damage will occur that will require repair or replacement of the slab. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. MATTHEw GIBSON, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 -Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A-Ar Appendix A - Field Explorations Methods and Analysis Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Program cc: Vicki ZumBrunnen, PACCAR Rick Grimes, Freiheit and Ho Architects J:\Jobs\1732200\xenworth Geot Recomm Ur ELH.doc a xoR ro , i 10478 JEMRN 1 o/M q GARRY E. HoRvtrz, P.E. Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer Vicinity Map PACCAR tz(D _ z CD z . - z m m m $ 900 r NE 12th-SF J - NE I _ _ VFawr ;• i o 0 CD _ -W z WE -10i t D D 900E 9tF> -gt- 2 m } m < . 6 ODZ `--- z w V o a a NE-74h CDz ar > - a - v Subject � M ntE soh _ - 2 ntEn-St Property a : > �.— - N 5th S '' , m z E > ' - -ems ugt - _ NE 4i _Si Q - - � � _ -� " en Greo -'N 3Fd -St Memo: r'ad t D 5 J 3 , Park Atit _ a _ S Tobin- — .z : , goo- - Mt Olivet { Cemetery a S=2nd St -= `rX - `�gst� 990 S 4iFr Sf 5 � ton zP) S- W St a' 7th i N-.__r�..cj _i - — Maplewood Source: Based on map prepared from Microsoft Streets and Trips, 2005. �i p ;�M Project Area _— 0 2000 4000 Scale in Feet IN RA Y HARTICAMSM I 17322-0 Figure 1 Site and Exploration Plan PACCAR GPR-2 LB14 ♦ © LW-9 LB15♦ Proposed O GT-60 GPR-1 Proposed O Q,R © LWA1 O e LW-10 Proposed TP LB-20 CPT-1 OB-2 OB B-1 O Proposed Proposed O 9 LW-12 0 CPT-2 O Proposed Proposed O © LW-14S B-4/ CPT-3 P � a TV�e� �w �p N N � Exploration Location and Number O Proposed Hart Crowser, Proposed Explorations S O B-4 Hart Crowser Boring, Current Study 0 9 CPT-2 Hart Crowser Cone Penetrometer, Current Study a O GT-1 Hart Crowser Boring, 1989 Study 6T-1 GT-2 LB-21 LB-23 ♦ GPR-8 N 0 100 200 Scale in Feet LW-12 e Landau Associates Boring, 1986 Study GPR-1 ♦ Hart Crowser Cone Penetrometer,1990 Study LB-14 ♦ Landau Associates Boring A A' L-J Approximate Cross Section Location and Designation Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A -A` PACCAR A 40 30 20 10 00 a� LL m -10 0 C -20 w -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 B-1 (35' N) B-4 Ground Surface CPT-2 (5' N) (45' S) 5015" 5015" SC 5013" 50/5" 5 Sandy SILT 2 a 2 3 ? ? ? ? ? Sandy SILT 2 2 1 Silty SAND ? 1 5 ? ? ? ? -_ ? - ? ? ? ? Silty SAND ? ? 5 2 SILT with Peat Lenses ? 1 Sandy SILT with 4 Peat Lenses ? ? 0 ? ? _ - _ ? - - ? ? ? Silty SAND 78 Sandy GRAVEL SILT/SANb ? ? Sas" ? Sandy SILT Silty SAND Silt SAND Y 12 - 15 - - ? ? ? -- 46 SandyGgAVEL ? ? SAND with Peat - ? - ? - _- C Y with Peat ?A---. ? 6 ? ? ? ? Silty SAND 15 18 ? ? _ � Compressible � with Peat ? 16 6 Sandy SILT and CLAY Layers ? 10 Sandy GRAVEL -47 ? ? __ 11 is Silty SAND to Sandy SILT ? 2 .13 ? 14 56 B-2 (27' N) B-3 (15' S) GT-1 -(16' S) A' LW-10 (5' N) 40 Soil Cement 11 30 35 70 Silty SAND 9 6 20 26 35 24 12 ?. ? - ? - 11 10 19 12 15 � _. 00 14 n 9 -10 15 37 -20 37 13 -30 24 32 ? ? _ 40 30 15 62111" - -60 -70 HC-102 Exploration Number (34.5' E) (Offset Distance and Direction) TExploration Location 9 Standard Penetration Resistance in Blows per Foot A Note: The stratum lines are based upon interpolation between 0 20 40 �L/V�`��y�� explorations and represent our interpretation of subsurface Scale in Feet conditions based on currently available data. 17322-00 10106 Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS Hart Crowser 17322-00 October 5, 2006 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS METHODS AND ANALYSIS This appendix documents the processes Hart Crowser used in determining the nature of the soils underlying the project site addressed by this report. The discussion includes information on the following subjects: ■ Explorations and Their Location; ■ The Use of Auger and Mud Rotary Borings; ■ Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures; ■ Use of Shelby Tubes; and ■ The Use of Cone Penetrometer Probes. Explorations and Their Location Subsurface explorations for this project include four borings (B-1 through B-4) and three Cone Penetrometer Probes (CPT-1 through CPT-3). The exploration logs within this appendix show our interpretation of the drilling, probing, sampling, and testing data. They indicate the depth where the soils change. Note that the change may be gradual. In the field, we classified the samples taken from the explorations according to the methods presented on Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs. This figure also provides a legend explaining the symbols and abbreviations used in the logs. Location of Explorations. Figure 2 shows the location of our explorations, located in the field by hand taping from existing physical features. The ground surface elevation was estimated from known elevations at adjacent sites. The method used determines the accuracy of the location and elevation of the explorations. The Use of Auger and Mud Rotary Borings With depths ranging from 11.5 to 95.0 feet below the ground surface, four hollow -stem auger and/or mud rotary borings, designated B-1 through B-4, were drilled from August 17 to 18, 2006. Specifically, B-1 and B-2 were auger borings; B-3 was drilled hollow -stem auger down to 20 feet then the drilling continued as mud rotary; and B-4 was drilled hollow -stem auger down to 15 feet then the drilling continued as mud rotary. The auger borings used a 3-3/8-inch inside diameter hollow -stem auger and were advanced with a truck -mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The mud rotary boring used a 4-7/8-inch- diameter drag bit and was advanced with a truck -mounted drill rig subcontracted by Hart Crowser. The drilling was continuously observed by a Hart Crowser representative. Detailed field logs were prepared of each boring. Using the Hart Crowser Page A-1 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and thin -walled Shelby tubes, we obtained samples at 2-1/2-to 5-foot-depth intervals. The borings logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-5 at the end of this appendix. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Procedures This test is an approximate measure of soil density and consistency. To be useful, the results must be used with engineering judgment in conjunction with other tests. The SPT (as described in ASTM D 1586) was used to obtain disturbed samples. This test employs a standard 2-inch outside diameter split - spoon sampler. Using a 140-pound hammer, free -falling 30 inches, the sampler is driven into the soil for 18 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches only is the Standard Penetration Resistance. This resistance, or blow count, measures the relative density of granular soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The blow counts are plotted on the boring logs at their respective sample depths. Soil samples are recovered from the split -barrel sampler, field classified, and placed into water -tight jars. They are then taken to Hart Crowser's laboratory for further testing. In the Event of Hard Driving Occasionally very dense materials preclude driving the total 18-inch sample. When this happens, the penetration resistance is entered on logs as follows: Penetration less than 6 inches. The log indicates the total number of blows over the number of inches of penetration. Penetration greater than 6 inches. The blow count noted on the log is the sum of the total number of blows completed after the first 6 inches of penetration. This sum is expressed over the number of inches driven that exceed the first 6 inches. The number of blows needed to drive the first 6 inches are not reported. For example, a blow count series of 12 blows for 6 inches, 30 blows for 6 inches, and 50 (the maximum number of blows counted within a 6-inch increment for SPT) for 3 inches would be recorded as 80/9. Use of Shelby Tubes To obtain a relatively undisturbed sample for classification and testing in fine- grain soils, a 3-inch-diameter thin -walled steel (Shelby) tube sampler was pushed Hart Crowser Page A-2 17322-00 October 5, 2006 hydraulically below the auger (as described in ASTM D 1587). The tubes were sealed in the field and taken to our laboratory for extrusion and classification. The Use of Cone Penetrometer Probes We used a cone penetrometer to probe the subgrade soils for this study. Completed by Northwest Cone Exploration, of Snohomish, the probes, designated CPT-1 through CPT-3, were advanced to depths ranging from 26.1 to 85.0 feet below the ground surface. The system is mounted on a truck which provides the necessary reaction for the applied loads. The cone and its sleeve provide information by which we can interpret the density and consistency of the soils. Correlations exist between the point resistance of the cone and the bearing capacity in the soil. Other correlations exist between the friction registered on the sleeve and the friction characteristics of the soil. We use the penetrometer results in conjunction with the reference "Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice" by T. Lunne, P.K. Robertson, and J.J.M. Powel, 1997. Logs of cone penetrometer probes are presented on Figures A-6 through A-8. J:AiobsV1732200\Kenworth Geot Recomm Ltr ELH.doc Hart Crowser Page A-3 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Key to Exploration Logs Sample Description Classification of soils in this report is based on visual field and laboratory observations which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and Moisture plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field nor laboratory testing Dry Little perceptible moisture unless presented herein. Visual -manual classification methods of ASTM D 2488 Damp Some perceptible moisture, likely below optimum were used as an identification guide. Moist Likely near optimum moisture content Soil descriptions consist of the following: Wet Much perceptible moisture, likely above optimum Density/consistency, moisture, color, minor constituents, MAJOR CONSTITUENT, additional remarks. Density/Consistency Soil density/consistency in borings is related primarily to the Standard Penetration Resistance. Soil density/consistency in test pits is estimated based on visual observation and is presented parenthetically on the test pit logs. SAND or GRAVEL Starl ene Ptration SILT or CLAY Standard AVproxI Ao Penetration Shear strength Density Resletanca (N) Consistency Resistance (N) in TSF In Blowea=got in Blows/Foot Very loose 0 to 4 Very soft 0 to 2 <0.125 Loose 4 to 10 Soft 2 to 4 0.125 to 0.25 Medium dense 10 to30 Medium stiff 4 to 8 0.25 to 0.5 Dense 30 to50 Stiff 8 to 15 0.5 to 1.0 Very dense >50 Very stiff 15 to 30 1.0 to 2.0 Hard >30 >2.0 Sampling Test Symbols ® Split Spoon ® Grab (Jar) m Shelby Tube (Pushed) Bag ® Cuttings Q Core Run SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVELS �'. G„ySAH TUREs, LTTLEOR Ro AND GRAVELLY o Q° GP F NunuREs. uTaE Sol o LS A,T11—N.11-1 COARSE GRAVELS WITH FINES GMgvEL sANp LT rnIxTUREs GRAINED SDILS GIC RAVEL SARI sIE�E ouNTO THIS) vm,x*uREsLS SAND AND CLEANSANDS SW Nos,LmLE aft RO FiNEs Ly MATERIALS SANDY :�.,. SP vsa+I LnLE OR Na FNS R SIDE SOILS LITTLE— ) TRACT" N SANDS WITH FINES SM SAND. SILT ITLI PASS, NI ON RI . sEVE SC e, sA...cuv raoumof FwE I.TUREs ML FINE GRAINED SILTS AND CLAYS LEss TIAN 50 CL LAVS. SILTY cues. SOILS — _ — — OL vsoF Low RLAST�cuv 1, TY E MH s FINE SARI oft E SILTS AND CH vS of RIIH GREATER curs T"A" STlcm off vLASTICITY.oR`SLSILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT In oRcnrvlc CONTEMs TH Minor Constituents Estimated Percentage Trace <5 Slightly (clayey, silty, etc.) 5 - 12 Clayey, silty, sandy, gravelly 12 - 30 Very (clayey, silty, etc.) 30 - 50 Laboratory Test Symbols GS Grain Size Classification CN Consolidation UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial CU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial CD Consolidated Drained Triaxial OU Unconfined Compression IDS Direct Shear K Permeability PP Pocket Penetrometer Approximate Compressive Strength in TSF TV Torvane Approximate Shear Strength in TSF CBR California Bearing Ratio MD Moisture Density Relationship AL Atterberg Limits �•� Water Content in Percent �— Liquid Limit Natural Plastic Limit PID Photoionization Detector Reading CA Chemical Analysis DT In Situ Density in PCF Groundwater Indicators V_ Groundwater Level on Date or (ATD) At Time of Drilling Q Groundwater Seepage z (Test Pits) Sample Key Sample Type Sample Recovery 2 S-1 23 5013" Sample Blows per Number 6-inches HART R0*3ME 17322-00 Figure A-1 Boring Log B-1 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth Class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Drill Equipment: Auger Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 • Water Content in Percent f' AW 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HAR T �' `OMY' 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8106 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-2 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary g with time. Boring Log B-2 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth Class Log Soil Descriptions in Feet Drill Equipment: Auger Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample ♦ Blows per Foot S-1 S-2 S-3 S4 • Water Content in Percent /M LI 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. I IAR CXV WS ME 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8106 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-3 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary 9 with time. Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions Drill Equipment: Auger to 20', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB Depth PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS in Feet Sample • Blaws per Foot SOIL -CEMENT 5 ML Very loose, wet, gray, sandy to very sandy SILT with 1/4-inch fine sand seams. t t ML Soft, wet, gray, slightly sandy to very sandy SILT. 2 �3-inch seam of fine gravel SP-SM: Very loose to loose, wet, gray, slightly silty, 2 fine to medium SAND. ML Soft, wet, gray -brown, very sandy SILT. 3 MH Very soft, wet, gray -brown SILT with some fibrous peat. 3 SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND. 4 ML Medium stiff, wet, light gray SILT. S-1 S-2 i S-3 ATD S-4 s I S-5 S-6 S-7 S-8 I S-9 5-10 e a • Water Content in Percent a- HAR K' M M� 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8106 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-4 1/3 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary g with time. Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions Depth in Feet 45 SM \4 inches of wood/peat Medium dense, wet, gray, silty, fine to medium SAND. '14 inches of wood/peat CL Medium stiff, wet, gray CLAY. ,3-inch interbedded sand lenses and 2-inch peatlayer SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty to very silty, fine SAND with interbedded 4-inch lenses of wood/peat. -3-inch lens of wood/peat ML Stiff, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT. �3-inch lense of wood/peat SM Medium dense, wet, gray, interbedded, slightly silty SAND and sandy SILT. CH Very soft, wet, blue -gray, slightly sandy CLAY. ML Stiff, wet, gray, slightly sandy SILT. Drill Equipment: Auger to 20', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample ♦ Blows per Foot S-11 50 S-12 55 S-13 60 S-14 65 S-15 70 $-16 75 m M. F3] S-17 S-18 S-19 e 5 7 2 7 e 5 60 3 4 6 10 7 4 4 6 0 1 1 • Water Content in Percent f� 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HA " "OWSW 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8106 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-4 2/3 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Boring Log B-3 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 35 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Depth Class Log Soil Descriptions In Feet Drill Equipment: Auger to 20', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot 0 10 20 30 40 50i 21 $-20 M F-� • Water Content in percent fN x% 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. HAK"O*sa? 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8/06 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-4 3/3 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary 9 with time. 6 U o m z Boring Log B-4 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation. 32 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Clans Log Soil Descriptions Drill Equipment: Auger to 15', Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By. A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB Depth PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS in Feet Sample ♦ Blows per Foot ML Loose, moist, brown, slightly gravelly, very sandy SILT. MH Soft, wet, gray SILT. SP-SM : Very loose, wet, gray, silty SAND. ML Medium stiff, wet, gray, sandy SILT. ML Very soft to soft, wet, gray SILT. '11/2 inches of peat ',6 inches of peat ML Medium stiff, wet, gray SILT with 1/2-inch sand interbeds. W-GM Very dense, wet, gray, very sandy GRAVEL with some cobbles and pea -sized, angular gravel. • "Slightly silty 0 4 ATD 5 N R N Ej 11 PP = 0.75, N=01 J I`TV=02 • Water Content in Percent f� � `If " 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. """ C `O WSME 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise 17322-00 8106 supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). Figure A-$ 1/2 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. Boring Log B-4 Location: Refer to Figure 2. Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 32 Feet Horizontal Datum: Local Vertical Datum: NAVD88 USCS Graphic Class Log Soil Descriptions Depth Feel 45 W-G� ML (Medium stiff), wet, gray SILT with some 1111 peat. SM Medium dense, wet, gray, very silty, fine to - medium SAND. GP -GM Dense, wet, gray, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL. SM Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND. ML Medium stiff, wet, gray -brown, sandy SILT with peaty organics. GP Dense, wet, gray -brown, slightly silty, slightly sandy GRAVEL. O O SM - Medium dense, wet, gray, silty SAND. Bottom of Boring at 85.0 Feel. Started 08/18/06. Completed 08118/06. Drill Equipment: Auger to 15% Mud Rotary Hammer Type: Split Spoon Hole Diameter: inches Logged By: A. Goodwin Reviewed By: M. Gibson STANDARD LAB PENETRATION RESISTANCE TESTS Sample • Blows per Foot 5-10 a a 50 ss S-11 z7 55 9 5-12 60 tz 4 6 S-13 65 S-14 70 S-15 75 S-16 80 S-17 85 so 1. Refer to Figure A-1 for explanation of descriptions and symbols. 2. Soil descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive and actual changes may be gradual. 3. USCS designations are based on visual manual classification (ASTM D 2488) unless otherwise supported by laboratory testing (ASTM D 2487). 4. Groundwater level, if indicated, is at time of drilling (ATD) or for date specified. Level may vary with time. H ] 21 • Water Content in percent ft L HAU?"OWSL•R 17322-00 8106 Figure A-5 212 Tip Resistance 0 TSF 0 0 T� Hart Crowser Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 8/17I2006 8:30:08 AM Sounding: CPT-01 Location: Paccar PCF Cone Used: DSA0902 Job Number: 17322-00 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPT N' Fs/Ot (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 350 0 5 -10 50 0 12 0 60 10 I 20 I 40 j_____ _____ ___ ------ _____,__ )epth ". i , 70 80 Depth = 26.08 feet Maximum Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (') ■ 3 clay ■ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ■ 9 sand ■ 12 sand to clayey sand (') Prednlled first 6 feet of gravel fill and backfilled with send Refused at 26 feet due to dense gravel 'Soil Northwest Cone Exploration Figure A-6 behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Hart Crowser Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 8/17/2006 9:19:33 AM Sounding: CPT-02 Location: Paccar PCF Cone Used: DSA0902 Job Number: 17322-00 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type" SPT N' Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 0 360 0 5 -10 50 0 12 0 60 0 s, 10 -- - - - t 20 � t t 30 �y--------------- �sI � , —' , 4o I� - - - ----- - - - - -{ _ --- ,--- - - - -�� - I rl > - : 7a 80 90 Maximum Depth = 84.97 feet Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained 04 silty clay to clay 0 7 silty sand to sandy silt E 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 2 organic material 5 clayey silt to silty clay 8 sand to silty sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (") 3 clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt 09 sand 0 12 sand to clayey sand (") Prednlled flrst foot of asphalt and gravel subbase Northwest Cone Exploration F! UIe A-7 'Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 H Hart Crowser Operator: Brown CPT Date/Time: 8/17/2006 10:20:48 AM Sounding: CPT-03 Location: Paccar PCF Cone Used: DSA0902 Job Number. 17322-00 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type' SPT N' Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 0 350 0 5 -10 50 0 12 0 60 10 I t l 20' - -----� - '- z } 30 l..---- -------- 40 S c _ 2 I _ �,_, J )epth _-----___ 60 ---- --- ----- --- -- ----- -'-- - --- ---- 1 I I � j 7D 80 _ -_ _..__. ----_� 90 � _. _.- Maximum Depth = 41.34 feet Depth Increment = 0.164 feel ■ 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 4 silty clay to clay ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 2 organic material ■ 5 clayey silt to silty Gay ` 8 sand to silty sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (') ■ 3 clay ■ 6 sandy silt to clayey silt ■ 9 sand ■ 12 sand to clayey sand (') Preddlled first Pont of asphalt and gravel subbase Refused at 41 feet due to dense gravel 'Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 Northwest Cone Exploration Figure A-8 I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM Hart Crowser 17322-00 October 5, 2006 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM A laboratory testing program was performed for this study to evaluate the basic index and geotechnical engineering properties of the site soils. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below. Soil Classification Field Observation and Laboratory Analysis. Soil samples from the explorations were visually classified in the field and then taken to our laboratory where the classifications were verified in a relatively controlled laboratory environment. Field and laboratory observations include density/consistency, moisture condition, and grain size and plasticity estimates. The classifications of selected samples were checked by laboratory tests such as Atterberg limits determinations and grain size analyses. Classifications were made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification (USC) System, ASTM D 2487, as presented on Figure B-1. Water Content Determinations Water contents were determined for most samples recovered in the explorations in general accordance with ASTM D 2216, as soon as possible following their arrival in our laboratory. Water contents were not determined for very small samples nor samples where large gravel contents would result in values considered unrepresentative. The results of these tests are plotted at the respective sample depth on the exploration logs. In addition, water contents are routinely determined for samples subjected to other testing. These are also presented on the exploration logs. Grain Size Analysis (GS) Grain size distribution was analyzed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. Wet sieve analysis was used to determine the size distribution greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The size distribution for particles smaller than the No. 200 mesh sieve was determined by the hydrometer method for a selected number of samples. The results of the tests are presented as curves on Figures B-2 through B-4 plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size. Hart Crowser Page B-1 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Atterberg Limits (AL) We determined Atterberg limits for selected fine-grained soil samples. The liquid limit and plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-84. The results of the Atterberg limits analyses and the plasticity characteristics are summarized in the Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report, Figures B-5 and B-6. This relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. The results of the Atterberg limits tests are shown graphically on the boring logs as well as where applicable on figures presenting various other test results. Pocket Penetrometer (PP) and Torvane (Tlq The pocket penetrometer and torvane procedures provide quick approximate tests of the consistency (undrained shear strength) of a cohesive soil sample. The pocket penetrometer device consists of a calibrated spring mechanism which measures penetration resistance of a 1/4-inch-diameter steel tip over a given distance. The penetration resistance is correlated to the unconfined compressive strength of the soil, which is typically twice the undrained shear strength of a saturated, cohesive soil. The torvane device consists of a 1-inch-diameter plate with eight equally spaced and radially arranged 1/4-inch vanes. The vanes are pressed into the soil and the device is rotated. The vanes force a shear failure to take place over the area of plate face. The resistance at failure, as measured by a calibrated spring, correlates to the undrained shear strength of the sample tested. The exploration logs show the results of the pocket penetrometer and torvane tests. )robs\1732200\Kenworth Geot Recomm Ltr ELH.doc Hart Cromer Page B-2 17322-00 October 5, 2006 Unified Soil Classification (USC) System Soil Grain Size - - - — Size of Opening In Inches of N mheh er Inch Mesp - --- Grain Size in Millimetres — -- — -- (1r Standard I - '�I I I III I I I I I III I I l I III'. I I I I l it l i l � i I 8 m m n mW IR V Ng Grain Size in Millimetres COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT and CLAY Coarse -Grained Soils Fine -Grained Soils — Coarse -Grained Soils _ GW GP TM GC SW SP SM SC Clean GRAVEL 15%fines i GRAVEL with >12% fines Clean SAND <5%fines SAND with >12%fines GRAVEL>50% coarse fraction larger than No. 4 SAND >50% coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 Coarse -Grained Soils>50% larger than No. 200 sieve D00>4 for G W (Dso)2 G W and S W'' D >6 for S W & 1 < I -- <_ 3 G P and S P Clean GRAVEL or SAND not meeting 10. D10 X Dfi , requirements for G W and S W G M and S M Atterberg limits below Aline with PI <4 G C and S C Atterberg limits above A Line with PI >7 " Coarse -grained soils with percentage of fines between 5 and 12 are considered borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols. D10, D30, and D60 are the particles diameter of which 10, 30, and 60 percent, respectively, of the soil weight are finer. Fine -Grained Soils ML CL OL MH CH OH Pt SILT CLAY Organic SILT CLAY Organic Highly --- Organic Soils with Liquid Limit <50% Soils with Liquid Limit >50 % Soils Fine -Grained Soils >50% smaller than No. 200 sieve I 60 50 40 a 30 m a 20 10 0 0 CH C L Pere M H I H CL-ML ML orOL 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Liquid Limit 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 IM as HdRTCfQMVS 17322-00 8106 Figure B-1 Particle Size Distribution Test Report - - - - - ; 8 8 100 90 80 70 Q LU 60 Z tL h Z 50 LL U 0- 40 30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 M GRAIN SIZE - mm COBBLE %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY • 0.0 11.8 50.6 37.6 ■ 0.0 0.8 47.7 51.5 ♦ 0.0 0.0 43.2 56.8 LL D85 D, D5a D,a D15 D10 C. C. • 0.6 0.324 n].577 01 0.095 ♦ 86 0.083 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS NAT. MOIST. • Slightly gravelly, very silty SAND ■ Very sandy SILT ♦ Very sandy Sa T SM ML NIL 22.3% 29.4% 29.8% Remarks: • ■ Project: PACCAR PFC Client: • Source: B-1 Sample No.: S-4 Depth: 10.0 to 11.5 ■ Source: B-3 Sample No.: S-2 Depth: 8.5 to 10.0 ♦ Source: B-3 Sample No.: S-6 Depth: 28.5 to 30.0 y 17322-W HAR VSVIIMR Figure B-2 Particle Size Distribution Test Report 100 so e0 70 W 60 z z z so w U d 40 30 01 20 -4 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.0 GRAIN SIZE - mm COBBLE %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY • 0.0 0.0 75.9 24.1 ■ 0.0 0.0 34.6 65.4 • 0.0 51.2 41.3 7.5 LL PI D• D50 D50L30 D15 D10 C� C • 0.33 0.186 0.1530.166 • 24.435 9.049 5,085 0.302 0.131 L42 68.88 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION USCS NAT. MOIST. • Silty, medium to fine SAND ■ Very sandy SILT • Slightly silty, very sandy GRAVEL SM ML GW-GM 19.3% 25.5% 7.2% Remarks: • • Project: PACCAR PFC Client: • Source: B-3 Sample No.: S-20 Depth: 93.5 to 95.0 ■ Source: B4 Sample No.: S-1 Depth: 3.5 to 5.0 • Source: B-4 Sample No.: S-8 Depth: 38.5 to 40.0 A a 17322-00 QWSM Figure 8�3 i® W z u- z z w U tL IL IL Particle Size Distribution Test Report lU l U.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm % GRAVEL % SAND 0.0 73.0 U.UI U.UI %SILT %CLAY 27.0 101 1 1 0.292 0.183 1 0.157 1 0.083 1 1 1 1 1 MATERIAL • Very silty, fine SAND Remarks: Project: PACCAR PFC Client: • Source: B-4 USCS NAT. MOIST. SM 30.3 % Sample No.: S-10 Depth: 48.5 to 50.0 rA V 17322-W HARTCWWR Figure B-4 Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report so Oe Dashed line indicates the approximate Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report 60 Dashed line indicates the approximate Anchorage www-hartcrowser-com 2600 Cordova Street, Suite 110 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2745 Fax 907.276.2104 Tel 907.276.7475 Edmonds 120 Third Avenue South, Suite 110 Edmonds, Washington 98020-8411 Fax 425.778.9417 Tel 425.775.4682 Portland Five Centerpointe Drive, Suite 240 Cake Oswego, Oregon 97035-8652 Fax 503.620.6918 Tel 503.620.7284 Seattle 1910 Fairview Avenue East Seattle, Washington 98102-3699 Fax 206-328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 jPrinted on a minimum ]0% recycled past -consumer fiber