HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L94-0085 - PARK PLACE PLAZA - SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTL94 -0085
PARKWAY PLACE
SEPA
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED ETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFI±o.NCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
DEMOLISH OFFICE, CONSTRUCT 150,000 SF RETAIL
PROPONENT:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS: 17501 SOUTHCENTER.PY
PARCEL NO: 262304 -9067
SEC /TWN /RNG:
LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA
FILE., 1.46- :
94 -0085
The City has, determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement :(EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c) . This
decision was made after review of a completed environmental: "'che` cklist
and other information on file with the lead agency. This "informatjon
is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA
Determination are attached.
This DNS, is issued under 197 -11.- 340(2.). Comments must be submitted by
r 2? agency y w il l not act o n'` this
, 1' The lead a enc
proposal; for 15 days from. the,-date below:: .
L. Ric Beeler, Responsible Official_
City of'._:Tukwila, : (206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
You may appeal: this determination to the City Clerk at:'Cityr+Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA :. 98188 no later than :101-days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating the basis ci,f the appeal
for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of
the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals ..are -available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
A F F I D A V I T
i, Sylvia Schnug
Notice of Public Hearing
0 Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of
Packet
jj Board of
Packet
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
O Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I•O N
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
0 Determination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
O Official Notice
O Other
Q Other
"12 -2 -1994
was mailed to eachof - the following addresses on
Mailed to the Following:
DOE- Environmental Review
Applicant
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
City of SeaTac
City Clerk
Mayor
Attached list of surrounding property owners
Name of Project Parkway Place
File Number L94 -0085
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
John W. Rants, A lay(
Rick Beeler, DG ?ctc
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding
a public hearing at 7:00 p.m: on Dec. 15, 1994 locaied at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
•I.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING , •
L94 -0090: Sunshine Ridge - Planned Residential Development
Lyle Kussman .
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for approval
of a planned residential development application for a 28 -unit condominium.
with 59 parking spaces: Residences will be in 2, 3, and 5 -story. structures.
.15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila.
:IL • BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT: • .
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L94 -0078: Sunshine Ridge - Design Review
Lyle Kussman
Board of Architectural Review *approval of the design of the 28 -unit
condominium project.
15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila.
L94 -0084: Parkway Place
'Parkway. Place Partners
' Demolition of a 9 -story office building and construction • of a 150,000 sq.
,ft. retail space.
17501 Southcenter Pkwy., Tukwila:
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing .
at the.public hearing. Infcirination on the above.cases,may *obtained atthe Tukwila Planning
Division. The City encourages .you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe•
would be affected by the above items. .
Published: Seattle Times
December 2, 1994
.Distribution: Mayor, City Clerk, Property • Owners /Applicants, Adjacent .Property
Owners; File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard. Suite #100 • . Tukwila. Washington' 98188 .• 12061 efq 1-467n • x'a . I M) 42 1.RRM
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED _TERMINATION OF NONSIGNIF1 .,,NCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
DEMOLISH OFFICE, CONSTRUCT 150,000 SF RETAIL
PROPONENT:
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
17501 SOUTIiCEN:TER4:P�1'. °`'tom
262304 - 906:7'.: �.�
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO:
SEC /TWN /RNG: r•rar.:M -r
LEAD AGENCY: J CrITY.;OF;.
,n;%rj;r, TUKW;ILA f,, r {f: $ �gFyILE N�:, 694 -008'5
The• City has14,deter mi'nved,t tha,tn' the p,rop1osa 1 does ilipt fla�ve a4 pr•04b 1 e
s i gn i f i can teiad`vers"e i mpact on th'e.;':en'y i onment . ,Nn, en,v i r;onr en.ta;l, impact
statement) is not requir,e under RCW 43.21c.03Q(2Y p( This
decision ;i'as`' made after rev'i &w;'of; a comp°1 eted env i ronlnenta � �'chefck°1 i st
and other,jnformation "on file wit'h.,,th,e' lead agency. Tfais1' i„nt'orma,tion
is avail�a,tile;1;to; thefL'pub1ic. on request:-.,._ The conditions <<to th;iss' SE,PA
Determination are a:.ttached -.... ....�... ��
i r t�:l
r" fir# ; r.: a ,_;.tom 1 �. f%"'''b ^1, .,
This DNS is i ssu ,d ru.nlder ~1,97- 1;'�;� ,340 (�2„)•. j��omments
Y h .- -''..4,T h e\, 1 e a d a g e n c y—w l )r1 1
propos�a,lf for.x1�5 dayS.,fro ,:lthe td'a•'te bel�or+._.v
r'. �� 4
L. R c Beil7j.r`�Responsible Officials
City • of 1 ikw,i�lpa e'206) 431 -3680 y
6300. So ,t'hceq,•ter• Bou �,evard • 0 L•c4
Tukwila,MIP. 98188 f.� '( / e• "fr{
ti "I �r�1 r`re
All 0
You may appe.al���thi�s* determi'na,t on to the City°C1erk at'` Cit, � a11, 6200
Southcenter B o,uhlevard Tukwila, WA:�a98�1:8'8r no later,'thanl.�'1O:�days from the
above signature�da,e by written appeal stating the basj of the appeal
for .specific factual: objections:- CormIRDe requiredi�o ear some of• the expenses for. an;3pp;eal. fa .,edir0
Copies of the proceduresf.'o "t��SERA;a_�r� .eals�w�i'he av" ble with the City
Clerk and Department of Common •iLt y_;De,v ^e,;o.,pment.
i? �,'1
�• F
0
d
must be subm ttesd by
ct
not a on "tihis
•
MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL •
Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non- significance for•this project is appropriate,
as no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment can be foreseen as a result
of this project. The following mitigation measures are required as a part of this project: •
1. . New easements must be provided and .recorded.for storm, water and sewer lines that .
are for public or mutual .use. New easements must be provided for all utilities that
are relocated in conjunction with. this project. New easements. must include
• abandonment of existing easements where applicable.
2. The peer review consultant retained by the City, .Shannon & Wilson, reviewed the
geotechnical report.for the project. Specific recommendations by Shannon & Wilson
with respect to wall design for hillside stability will be followed in .conjunction with
• . applicable permits. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of a tied -back soldier
pile.wall, three -foot minimum . freeboard, and concrete.facing-over wood lagging on
the wall (verbal recommendation from Paul Grant, 11-29-94);
3. • • The conditions established by the City ,Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schuli,, and,
.documented in his letter of November 28,• 1994, .will be followed with .respect' to
. implementation of the City tree regulations (TMC .18.54) and Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (TMC 18.45) in conjunction with .applicable permits. •
4. Storm water drainage will be accommodated ' . per recommendation of the City
Department of Public Works.
•
5. The transit stop and shelter adjacent to the, project must be retained.
6. The ability: to comply with City noise and nuisance.ordinances (TMC 8.22 and 8.28)
must be demonstrated for planned grading, demolition, 'crushing and construction • .
activities. • .
7. • The ability to comply with City ordinances . governing. asbestos • removal must
• demonstrated for planned asbestos removal. • •
It must be demonstrated that construction of the new 48" storm sewer will not
undermine the stability of the retaining wall in conjunction .with applicable permits..
•
CASTELLO LAND CO INC
4730 32ND AVE S.
SEATTLE, WA 98118
LEVITZ FURNITURE CORP
212 HIGH ST
POTTSTOWN, PA 19464
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIF IC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PAR ;WAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3 RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEA' 'TLE, WA 98104
HAROLD R IVERSON
1252 GREEN LANE
BURLINGTON, WA 98233
MIKAMI MASAO
PO BOX 256
DUBLIN, OH 43017
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
'LEVITZ FURNITURE CORP
.212 HIGH ST
POTTSTOWN, PA 19464
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
A F F I D A V I T
0 Notice of Public Hearing
fJ Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of
Packet
fl Board of
Packet
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
J Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
O Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N '
hereby declare that:
fl Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
f Determination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
[Notice of Action
O Official Notice
0 Other
Q Other
was AaTligi to each of the following addresses on f2' -1 -4/4'
-VI/1ms' erks-y 0/0-711`e,(4-t
Name of Project 12(&kk OMB Signature
File Number Lq`C 00 1K�7
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED TERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFI'
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
DEMOLISH OFFICE, CONSTRUCT 150,000 SF RETAIL
PROPONENT:
ICE (MDNS)
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS : 17501 SOU THCEN:TER; PAY,`. :!:
PARCEL' NO: 262304- 9O6.Z��:'::::�?'"-- -'. + "'"'
',
SEC /TWN /RNG: l
.x'r r,
LEAD AGENCY: ,�;y:;�CrITY• OF,;�YT;UKW'ILA A V UPIL.E> NO:
f I (. * 6�
4,,' ../ *;-p t.;, 1 +i S'd fig
The City hasjjdeterinined that ,the p,roprpsai doee'ot ha�re,�
significant{ adver.-s�e im act on the'eirvpronment. Ari> envi ,on
statement �� EIS) is nbtorequir *ed4under R=CgW 43.21�c.03Q(2Z)t( '
decision was made after rev�i;e.�wk�af( a completed environpenta
and otherC 11nfo4rm:ation'� on f lfe wi thr the'` 1 ead agency. TI�i
is avai lfa;ble to.;,�t�he�;pub1 icon request The conditions to
Determi n.a`ir i on are attached:-.-----,—.4,4
�.+� 1 ,y, ,
This DUNS is is °su `d under `197 -41,341.4.41 i lC�omme, ,ts
_ _ 4 _ �. ,, 7r-- --'.--- ',,,The\ 1 e a d' a g efic ..1 11 •
propose. for ti1�5 days;�from the d�a\te be1.o �„.
. 7j \
i
L. Ric B e \l..e•r Responsible Official' gat
City of T- %kwic•la,'1 C'206) 431 -3680
6300 Southcen:t l �
em. Bou evard I L �0
Tukwila, \NA 98188 k ,
�y }. r c
b94 -0085
prO\b1e
enTaj impact
WtheW ist
inf'o rM on
this S A
0000
subm`i tie
o't 7
0
must be
not act
0
y
You may appe`a�1:,thilti{ determi`nap on to the C4,110C1erk gait +City 4 a11, 6200
above�s i tnatur�eiaGedb Twrwtten �aWAea98s+tat stating the n t'`�thesa from
ea appeal
the
g �.,,f �, Y appeal y.�; 9 ,/ , pp
for •specific fa ctu :a ,,ob j ect i onsL:�• �� You' $y be requ i re, t'o,,'bear some of
the expenses for an; a'ppea1 . ' „,,,1 ;s ;;"�`�r ,--,:d64,,,57
ti. . �1 `'.`• 'vs, Yew' ' :
s
Copies of the procedure- f;;oryPA „j;,t EaRpea,l �# e .aval l ab l e with the City.
Clerk and Department of Commumi,ty_; De,vehopme'rrt.
A F F I D A V I T
I, Sylvia Schnug
]Notice of Public Hearing
f Notice of Public Meeting
LI Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
[]Board of Appeals Agenda
Packet
[]Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N '
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
Determination of Non -
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
fl Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
0 Notice of Action
O Official Notice
O Other
Q Other
was,Bla,k-nd to each of the following addresses on 12 -1 -94
FAXED TO THE FOLLOWING:
Roy Bennion, Parkway Place - 325 -4954
Dale Morimoto, WSDOT - 440 -4805
Bob Kimmerling, WSDOT - 586 -4611
Doug Johnson, METRO - 684 -1860
Name of Project QO ( IN P(i2(J. signature
File Number IM If 00%
A F F I D A V I T
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice of Public Meeting
O Board of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
Board of Appeals Agenda
. Packet
Planning Commission Agenda
Packet
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O F D I S T R I B U T I O N
hereby declare that:
ONotice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
[]Shoreline Management Permit
[]Determination of Non -
significance
0 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
❑ Notice of Action
0 Official Notice
0 Other
Q Other
Fcmc
was ed to each of the followin addresses on 12- --/- cl
�a� g �[
l 0 ) 2 —Z -- q
vvq.
Name of Project FilVi14.-PA44 Pia Signature
File Number r,q (( V-t
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
City of Tukwila
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the City of Tukwila Board of Architectural Review will be holding
a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Dec. 15, 1994 located at 6200 Southcenter Blvd. to discuss the
following:
I.
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
R.
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
L94 -0090: Sunshine Ridge - Planned Residential Development
Lyle Kussman
Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council for approval
of a planned residential development application for a 28 -unit condominium
with 59 parking spaces. Residences will be in 2, 3, and 5 -story structures.
15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila.
BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
CASE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
L94 -0078: Sunshine Ridge - Design Review
Lyle Kussman
Board of Architectural Review approval of the design of the 28 -unit
condominium project.
15200 Macadam Rd. S., Tukwila.
L94 -0084: Parkway Place
Parkway Place Partners
Demolition of a 9 -story office building and construction of a 150,000 sq.
ft. retail space.
17501 Southcenter Pkwy., Tukwila.
Persons wishing to comment on the above cases may do so by written statement or by appearing
at the public hearing. Information on the above cases may be obtained at the Tukwila Planning
Division. The City encourages you to notify your neighbors and other persons you believe
would be affected by the above items.
Published:
Distribution:
Seattle Times
December 2, 1994
Mayor, City Clerk, Property Owners /Applicants, Adjacent Property
Owners, File.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington' 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
July 24, 1995
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Mr. Roy Bennion
Park Place Partners
800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 3700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Re Park Place Geotechnical Addendum
Dear Roy:
I have reviewed the most recent letter from your geotechnical engineer regarding a change
in building technology for a portion of the retaining wall on this project. I note that the
grading of the slope for this portion of the wall must be revised to a slope of 3H:1V, rather
than the 1.75H:1V as previously planned.
Please note that this additional graded area must be revegetated before final inspection
takes place on this portion of the project. This requirement is from our Sensitive Areas
ordinance, TMC 18.45.080(e)(3)(B):
Where any portion of an area of potential geologic instability is cleared for
development, a landscaping plan for the site shall include tree replanting with an
equal mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, preferably native, and approved by the
Director DCD. Replacement vegetation shall be sufficient to provide erosion and
stabilization protection.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/*/z77—
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
cc Joanna Spencer
Duane Griffin
Jack Pace
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
Geo Pi Engineers
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Stephen Lancaster, Director
JJuly`21, 1995':
d4'E �''. ra _ ..
J�
[4 ; t
�v��r,.•:�,
DEVELOP! N J
Consulting Engineers
and Geoscientists
Offices in Washington,
Oregon, and Alaska
Sensitive Areas Disclosures
Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 18.45
Park Place Project
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 3944- 004 -RO1
This letter is intended to meet part of the requirements of Tukwila Municipal Code
Chapter 18.45, which includes a letter from the project geotechnical engineer that addresses
sensitive areas on the project site. These requirements were outlined in a letter to Mr. Roy
Bennion from the city of Tukwila Department of Community Development dated July 19, 1995.
Based on our participation in the project during the design phase and in the portion of the
project constructed to date, it is our opinion that the portion of the plans and specifications which
address the geotechnical elements of the project does conform to the recommendations we
provided in our report dated November 10, 1994, two addenda to that report dated March 6 and
May 1, 1995, and consultations on various geotechnical design issues which were summarized
in various memoranda and letters. It is our opinion also that the risk of damage to the
development site from soil instability (namely, the hillside in the western portion of the site) will
be minimal, subject to the recommendations we provided in the various correspondence items
referenced above. And finally, it is our opinion that the development will not increase the
potential for soil movement related to the hillside.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861 -6000
Fax (206) 861 -6050
Pr(nted on iecyoled!paper
tWor
ufo 1' rye:.`.' 1 . ���.. 2+ r�'. %i6'm"w' +?'Yriv'�kiC';'ss`�, #.. �5 '•'�'sp.�
City of Tukwila (
July 21, 1995
Page 2
A field design change has been made for the south portion of the retaining wall which
extends partially across the south ravine which flanks the hillside. This design change is
described in our memorandum dated July 14, 1995 and has been reviewed and approved by
WSDOT and the city's geotechnical review consultant for this project, Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
• O ■
We trust that this information will meet your present needs. If additional information
concerning sensitive area issues is required, please contact us.
HRP:JKT:cms
Document ID: 3944004.SEN
cc: Park Place Partners
800 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104
Attn: Mr. Roy Bennion
Turner & Associates Architects
18420 - 24th Pl. N.E.
Seattle, WA 98155
Attn: Mr. Howard Turner
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
a_ ,4.41"4,4,_
Herbert R. Pschunder, P.E.
Senior Engineer
aLL-
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3944- 004 -R01
TURNER & ASSOCIATES
,; July 21;1995
Mr Steve Lancaster
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA. 98188
Attn:
Ms Diana Painter
Associate Planner
RE. Park Place
Tukwila, WA
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone
TMC 18.45.080(e)(5)
Dear Steve,
18420 24th Place N.E., Seattle, WA 98155 (206) 365 -7431
JUL. t 'I )99'
DEVELOPMZ.
Per your request dated July 19, 1995 and the requirements of the above referenced TMC
section, I am submitting this letter of notation regarding the design drawings, along with the
enclosed letters from the geotechnical engineer and the owner.
I have reviewed the geotechnical report, understand its recommendations, have explained the
risks of loss due to slides on the site, and have included in the design measures to reduce the
risk of injiury or damage, to a degree reflacting the common practices represented by the
codes in force and common industry practices, that might be caused by any earth movement
on the site.
Sincerely,
Howard R. Turner, AIA
cc: Roy Bennion, GeoEngineers
encl: letters from GeoEngineers and P3
P- 3/PARKWAY, L.L.C.
800 FIFTH AVENUE • SUITE 3700 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 -3122 • (206) 682 -6868 • (FAX) 682 -1040
i,20'July=1995
Mr. Steven Lancaster
Director, Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Lancaster:
,,itt 211995
This letter is notice to you that the owners of the Park Place Retail Center, P- 3/Parkway,
LLC agree to and will comply with the provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter
18.45, specifically, that we understand and accept the risks of development in an area with
potentially unstable soils and that we will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of
the site of the slide potential of the area.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely
P- A ' ., AY, LLC
Bennion
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
July 19, 1995
Mr. Roy Bennion
Park Place Partners
800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104
Re Park Place
Dear Roy:
According to our Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (TMC Chapter 18.45),
certain assurances are required of applicants for developments with
sensitive areas on the site. The following letters must be on file
prior to issuance of a building permit for projects with sensitive
areas (see TMC 18.45.080(e)(5)).
1. Submit a letter from the geotechnical engineer who prepared
the geotechnical report stating that in his judgement, the
plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the
geotechnical report; the risk of damage to the proposed
development site from soil instability will be minimal subject
to the conditions set forth in the report; and the development
will not increase the potential for soil movement.
(Note: Further recommendations signed and sealed by the
geotechnical engineer shall be provided should there be
additions or exceptions to the original recommendations based
on the plans, site conditions or other supporting data.)
2. The architect or structural engineer shall submit a letter of
notation on the design drawings that he or she has reviewed
the geotechnical report, understands its recommendations, has
explained or has had explained to the owner the risks of loss
due to slides on the side, and has incorporated into the
design the recommendations of the report and established
measures to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that
might be caused by any earth movement on the site.
3. The applicant /owner shall submit a letter to the City stating
that he understands and accepts the risk of development in an
area with potentially unstable soils and that he will advise,
in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site of the
slide potential of the area.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Prior to final inspection, a covenant, running with the land, shall
be executed by the owner. The City will file the covenant with
King County, The covenant shall include those items listed in
18.45.080(e)(5)(E).
In the case of this project, we also require a letter on file from
Washington State Department of Transportation stating that they
have also reviewed plans and specifications and understand the
risks associated with project development. The letters we have
received to date from WSDOT will suffice for this requirement.
Once items 1,2 and 3 are submitted to found to be satisfactory, the
Planning Division will sign off on the building permits and pass
them on to Public Works for their review. If you have any
questions, please give me a call at 431 -3661.
Sincerely,
R14 &ffi-tx
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
cc Howard Turner
Steve Lancaster
Jack Pace
•b' /iibi96
=ta Washiington State
TI' Department of Transportation
Date: July.18, 995
From: T. M. Allen/R.. E. Kimmerling
OSC Materials Laboratory, 47365
Geotecluzical Services Branch
!
Phone: 360 -586 -7659
(FAX 360 -586 -4611)
To: R. I. Bennion
P- 3/1'arkway, L.L.C.
8001!ifth Avenue, Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104
1
We have reviewed the re- design of
pile 22 as submitted by GeoEngine
reconfiguration of the wall appears
geometry is consistent with the desi
if you have questions or require
Kinunerling at 360 -586 -7659.
{
TMA :rek
• 2 u•I PIFi I CK 1 1-4L6 'LHE
REK
cc: Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila
Bert Pschuuder, GeoEngineers
Post -It• Fax Note 7671
Subject: P
e segment of
s dated July 1
ppropriate so 1
n assumption
er information
To Rem/ r.ffrwieO &
Co./Dopler,. 0 / (% (i)%
Phone 11
�FaxM 2O 11/- 366S
Gv
Memprandum
1
. RECEIVED
JUL 181995
I
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
kway Place Retaining Wall'
11 Re- design South of,Pile 22
•
ie subject wall south or soldier
1995. ;The proposed
ng as the final backslope
f'3H:1V maximum.
please contact Robert
Date. /��� /G$ gaQO.�
Froth es Xi:erner-/.' g
n l
Phon. NZO "OP'. 74SI/
Fas M 36 `".761 -F
City of Tukwila
John W Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
`,.:°June 64 1995:: <, :
Mr. Roy Bennion
Park Place Associates
800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 3700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Steve Lancaster, Director
Dear Roy:
This is to remind you that we need a letter from WSDOT confirming
that they have no issues with the design of the retaining wall on
the Parkway Place project before we can issue the building permit
for the wall and land altering permit for grading the hillside.
Please note that WSDOT must have the current copy of plans and
specifications that have preliminary approval by Tukwila's
Department of Public Works, along with associated geotechnical
materials, in order to make this determination.
If you have any questions, please contact Ron Cameron or Joanna
Spencer at 433 -0179.
Sincerely,
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
cc Ron Cameron
Joanna Spencer
Duane Griffin
Jack Pace
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 41313665
Addendum to Report • -
Geotechnical Engineering ,Services
• Proposed Park Place
•
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, Washington, •
:March 6, 1995.
' �..
• G e o.E n g'i n e e r. s•
PERMIT CENTER
File No: 3944-003=801
Geo O Engineers
Park Place Partners
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700
Seattle, Washington 98104 -3122
Attention: Mr. Roy Bennion
March 6, 1995
Geotechnical,
Geoenvironmental and
Geologic Services
Addendum to Report
Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Park Place
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, Washington
GEI File No. 3944 - 003 -R01
INTRODUCTION
This letter is an addendum to our "Report, of Geotechnical Engineering Services," dated
November 10, 1994, for this project. The information in this letter is supplemental to and, in
some cases, updates the information presented in our November 10 report. In any instances
where our recommendations have been modified from those presented previously, the
recommendations in this letter supersede those in our report.
The primary purpose of this letter is to present an expanded scenario of the demolition and
various phases of construction which involve significant earthwork activities. These phases are
addressed in the following paragraphs.
BUILDING DEMOLITION
The existing nine -story building will be demolished and the structural elements crushed for
subsequent use as select fill. Prior to demolition of the structural frame, all finishing materials
such as carpet, floor tile, sheetrock, etc. will be removed. The portions of the structure which
will be crushed for use as fill will be limited to concrete, brick and glass. The primary
elements of the demolition, as they relate to site preparation and reuse of materials are described
below.
• Detnolition of the building columns, shear walls and interior walls down to the basement
floor slab level will be accomplished throughout the building area. Removal of perimeter
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
'telephone (206) 861-6000
Fax (206) 861 -6050
Panted on recycled paper
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 2
basement walls down to at least 5 feet below the base of any wall or column foundation
locations for the new building will be accomplished. In other areas, the existing basement
walls will be cut down to permit at least two feet of structural fill between the top of the
remaining wall sections and the bottom of the new floor slab.
• Remove the resulting demolition rubble from the basement area and process by crushing
to 11/2-inch minus. The processed material will have the characteristics of a sand and
gravel mixture with a fines content of about five to ten percent. The material will be
stockpiled on -site until needed for use in select portions of the structural fill. Standard
erosion and sediment control measures will be used to contain any migration of fines from
the pile. A silt fence will be installed and maintained to accomplish this sediment control.
• Mechanically break the basement floor slab in pieces with a maximum dimension of about
24 inches. Leave broken slab in place.
• Maintain and operate existing dewatering well during and following demolition work and
until backfilling of basement area is completed to the level of the existing surrounding
grade.
UTILITY (RELOCATED STORM DRAIN) INSTALLATION
The 48 -inch storm drain which is presently aligned between the existing building and the
toe of the slope to the west will be rerouted to an alignment to the east of the new building
(building "B /C /D "). A new connection to the 66 -inch diameter pipe which traverses the site to
the south of the existing building will be made. Normal construction techniques will apply to the
installation of the new 48 -inch pipe. Geotechnical elements of installation are as follows.
• Place bedding around all sides of pipes as recommended in our November 10, 1994 report.
• Glacial soils excavated from trench can be used as backfill over the pipe provided that
prevailing weather conditions are favorable for placement and compaction, that no standing
water is present in the trench, and that the soil can be properly moisture- conditioned for
compaction.
• Alluvial soils (i.e., soft silt, peat and sandy silts) excavated from the trench should not be
used as structural backfill but can be used in landscaped areas. Excess material of this type
will need to be wasted off site.
RETAINING WALL EXCAVATION
Installation of the retaining wall along the west side of the construction area will proceed
as soon as demolition of the building is essentially complete. The soil excavated from the hillside
as the wall is installed will be used as structural fill in grading the site within the limits described
in our November 10, 1994 report and below.
• Glacial soils excavated from toe of slope as the retaining wall is constructed can be used
as structural fill to raise the grade in the basement area and for building pads, provided that
• e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3944- 003 -RO1
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 3
prevailing weather conditions are favorable for placement and compaction, that the soil is
not placed in areas where standing water is present, that the soil can be properly moisture -
conditioned for compaction, and that the completed fill is properly protected from saturation
and subsequent softening during wet weather.
• If soils excavated from hillside cannot be effectively and efficiently moisture conditioned,
stabilization using fly ash, kiln dust or portland cement should be accomplished to achieve
satisfactory compaction and maintain the subsequent stability of structural fills. If weather
conditions are too adverse to allow either moisture conditioning or stabilization treatment
of these soils for compaction, it could become necessary to remove this soil from the site
and import granular fill with a low enough fines content to achieve the specified compaction
criteria.
RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION
Monitoring of construction of the permanent retaining wall will be provided by
GeoEngineers, Inc. The nature of these services will be as follows:
• Drilling operations for the soldier piles will be monitored to observe and maintain a record
of the soils being penetrated and to provide consultation on modifications should the soil
conditions encountered vary from those revealed in the borings drilled near the wall
al ignment.
• Periodic examinations of the soils exposed as the slope is cut back will be made before
shotcrete is placed.
• We will monitor the proof and performance testing of all tieback anchors for conformance
with deflection and load carrying criteria.
BUILDING "A" FOOTINGS AND FILL PAD
For the most part, the footprint of building "A" is expected to be underlain by glacially
consolidated soil which was exposed when the adjoining hillside was cut back to the present
configuration in the 1960s.
• Support all column and wall footings on hard silt or on compacted structural fill extending
down to hard silt. It may be necessary to excavate loose or soft existing fill or alluvial soils
in localized areas to accomplish this. Use crushed building rubble or imported clean
granular soil as structural fill below footing grades in these areas.
• Use crushed building debris or free - draining fill material as the capillary break, base course
layer on which the floor slab will be constructed.
• Remainder of any structural fill required for the building "A" pad can consist of on -site
glacial soils, with the same provisions for use, placement, and compaction of these soils as
discussed above and. in our November 10, 1994 report.
G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3944- 003 -ROl
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 4
BUILDING "B /C /D" BASEMENT AREA, FILL PAD AND FOOTINGS
The majority of the footprint of this structure will be located over an area of glacially
consolidated soils which were exposed when the hillside slope to the west was cut back in the
1960s. A zone of alluvially deposited soils may be encountered at the southerly end of the
building area and along the east building wall near the north end. If these conditions are
encountered, the alluvial soils are to be excavated and replaced with structural fill as described
below. This fill should consist of either crushed building debris or imported clean sand and
gravel compacted to at least 95 percent (ASTM D- 1557). Other elements of the earthwork
procedures for this structure are as follows:
• The existing dewatering well on the northwesterly side of the present building is to be kept
operating until the basement area fill is brought to a grade even with the general
surrounding area (about Elevation 30).
• Initial filling in the basement area shall consist of placing and compacting, in lifts not
exceeding 10 inches loose thickness, at least 18 inches of crushed building rubble or clean
(less than five (5) percent fines) granular soil directly on the broken basement slab.
• The remainder of basement area fill, with the exception of fill directly below footings, can
consist of on -site glacial soils excavated from the hillside during retaining wall construction,
again with the provisions described above for use of these soils. Place and compact this
soil in layers to the criteria recommended in our November 10, 1994 report for structural
fill.
• At column and wall footing locations within the area of the existing basement, place and
thoroughly compact crushed building rubble to provide a supporting zone extending a
minimum of two (2) feet below footing grade. If there is an insufficient quantity of
processed debris, imported clean sand and gravel should be used for this zone. This fill
is to be placed in layers not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness. These zones of crushed
building rubble or granular fill are to extend two feet beyond the edges of footings.
• Some column and wall footings will be located over the existing 48 -inch diameter storm
drain which is to be abandoned in- place. Where column footings will be located within an
area defined by a line drawn upward at a slope of 1H:1V from the edges of the pipe
starting at the invert elevation, we recommend that the pipe in this area either be removed
and the resulting excavation backfilled with structural fill meeting the requirements
presented in our November 10, 1994 report or the section of pipe within an area defined
by a 1H: I V slope drawn downward from the edges of the footing footprint be filled with
grout. At locations where the pipe underlies the wall footing alignment, either of the above
treatments can be used. Alternatively, the pipe can be spanned by extending a section of
the wall footing on each side of the pipe down so that the bottom of footing grade lies
below a line drawn upward at a slope of 1H:1V from the invert of the pipe. The
GeoEngineers File No. 3944-003-R01
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 5
intervening distance between these two deepened footings would then be spanned with a
grade beam.
• Support all footings for building "B /C /D" (outside of the filled basement) on undisturbed
native glacial soils or on a zone of compacted crushed building rubble or imported clean
granular structural fill in any areas where alluvial soils are encountered at footing grades.
The alluvial soils are to be excavated down to the surface of the underlying more competent
soils before placing the crushed rubble or clean granular fill. The lateral extent of the zone
of fill is to be as described for building A.
• Use a layer of 6 inches of crushed building debris or free- draining granular soil as base
course and capillary break for support of all floor slabs.
• Remainder of pad for building "B /C /D" can consist of compacted on -site glacial soils with
same provisions as above.
FILL TESTING
Sufficient monitoring and testing of the earthwork activities is an integral part of the
geotechnical engineering services for a project such as this. These services will be directed to
assessing the extent to which conditions encountered are consistent with those revealed by the
explorations which have been completed and provide an opportunity to modify procedures and /or
recommendations to the extent that this may be appropriate if changed conditions are encountered.
The basic components of our activities related to fill placement on the Park Place project will
include:
• Compaction of crushed building rubble will be evaluated on the basis of visual observation
of the behavior of the material as it is being compacted.
• Compaction of native on -site borrow and imported pit run fill soil will be evaluated on the
basis of visual observation, probing and nuclear gauge moisture and density tests on the
insitu fill.
• Observations and testing will be accomplished by a representative of GeoEngineers, Inc.
on a regular basis during earthwork, utility installation and subgrade /subbase preparations.
The frequency of site visits will be dependent on the contractor's rate of progress and will
be coordinated with other aspects of the project which we will be monitoring.
OTHER SITE WORK
GENERAL
Additional elements of work that apply to the site in general include the disposition of
asphalt concrete pavement in building areas where fill will be placed to raise the grade, general
stabilization of structural fills comprised of the on -site borrow to minimize disturbance by
construction activities, and a modification of pavement design criteria in those areas where fill
stabilization has been done. These are addressed in the following paragraphs.
• e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3944-003 -R01
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 6
ASPHALT CONCRETE LEFT IN PLACE
Existing asphalt concrete pavement can be left in place in the new building areas if its
presence will not interfere with installation of footings and utilities and provided that it will be
covered by at least 1 foot of structural fill and base course beneath the finished floor slab. All
paving left in place is to be broken into relatively small pieces (less than 24 -inch maximum
dimension) as necessary to promote drainage. Asphalt concrete pavement that will be removed
for construction of new facilities can be recycled for use in the lower portions of structural fill
pads, provided that it is broken into pieces that are less than 4 inches in maximum dimension and
that it is mixed with sufficient imported or on -site soil so that no open voids are left when placed
as fill.
SURFICIAL STABILIZATION OF STRUCTURAL FILLS
Structural fills of the native silty soils excavated from the adjacent slope will be subject to
disturbance if left exposed to rainfall, particularly if subjected to construction traffic. To
minimize this impact, we recommend that the surface of such fills be stabilized with portland
cement. Stabilization is to be achieved by spreading portland cement at a rate of 10 pounds per
square foot, thoroughly and uniformly mixing the cement with the native soils by tilling to a
depth of not less than 9 or more than 12 inches, and compacting this layer to the required
density. This stabilization should be done by placing the final loose layer of fill, adding the
cement and tilling before this layer is compacted rather than completing the fill and reworking
the upper portion. The finished surface should be graded to a uniform smooth surface with
sufficient slope to prevent ponding in the area. Construction traffic on stabilized areas should
be minimized. In areas where heavy traffic will be imposed on the stabilized fill, it may be
necessary to place a protective layer of crushed rock or small (four -inch minus) quarry spall to
support loads such as cranes, concrete trucks and similar equipment.
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN
The base course requirement in areas where fill stabilization has been accomplished as
described above can be reduced to a thickness of no less than 3 inches. Minimum asphalt
concrete thicknesses of 2 and 3 inches for areas of automobile and truck traffic, respectively, are
still applicable.
• O ■
G e o Engineers File No. .3944-003 -RO1
Park Place Partners
March 6, 1995
Page 7
Separate closure reports summarizing the construction work described above will be
prepared for the retaining wall installation and for the other aspects of site preparation and
earthwork respectively upon completion of the these phases of the work.
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
JKT:wd
Document ID: 3944003.ADN
Two copies submitted
cc: City of Tukwila Public Works
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100
Seattle, WA 98155
Attn: Mr. Duane Griffin
Mr. Howard Turner, Architect (three copies)
Turner & Associates
18420 - 24th Pl. NE
Seattle, WA 98155
Mr. Jack R. Bennett
20206 72nd Ave. SE
Kent, WA 98032
Bush, Roed, Hitchings
2009 Minor Ave. E
Seattle, WA 98102 -3513
Attn: Mr. John Anderson
Foushee Associates
3260 118th Ave. SE, Ste 1000
P.O. Box 3767
Bellevue, WA 98009
Attn: Mr. Jeff Foushee
G e oE n g i n e e r s
`EXPIRES /0 AL/ 17h
File No. 3944 - 003 -R01
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all
governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal
before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be
prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the
quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal
(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and
to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instruction for Applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information
about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the
environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring
preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise
information known, or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your
knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from
your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts.
If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to
your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers
to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning,
shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can.
If you have problems, the City staff can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you
plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land
Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or
its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or
provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there
may be significant adverse impact.
Use of checklist for non project proposals:
Non project proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a
single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and
programs.
Complete this checklist for non project proposals, even though questions may
be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet
for non project actions (part D).
For non project actions, the references in the checklist to the words
"project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal,"
"proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively.
Control No.
Epic File No.
Fee $225.00 Receipt No.
NOV 1 0 1994
DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Parkway Place Retail Center
2. Name of applicant:
Shidler/West Finance Partners III
800 Fifth Ave
Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104 -3122
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Turner & Associates
18420 28th P1. N.E.
Seattle , WA 98155
Phone (206) 365 -7431
4. Date checklist prepared:
November 10, 1994
5. Agency requesting Checklist:
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Grading of the hillside, the building site and demolition of the existing building is anticipated
to start in the early part of 1995, and the construction and ongoing site improvements
could be complete by fall of 1995. Timing would depend on the City's review
process.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further
activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No. The project would not be extended beyond the project site and is
submitted as a "stand alone" retail use intended to meet the City of
Tukwila development standards. However, it is expected that a
proposal for tenant improvements for the buildings as
retail stores will be filed as soon as leases are completed and tenant improvement plans are
p1epm'e
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been
prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
- Preliminary Report for BAR review and drawings, dated 11/10/94, Bush Roed and Hitchings, Inc.
-Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services, dated 11/10/94, GeoEngineers
-Traffic Impact Study, dated 9/15/94, Transportation,Planning, and Engineering, Inc.
- Midday Trip Generation Memo, dated 11/9/94, Transportation,Planning, and Engineering, Inc.
- Sensitive Areas Study Report, dated 11/10/94, by Talasaea Consultants
- Design Review Application and drawings, dated 9/15/94, revised 11/10/94 Turner & Associates.
-Survey by Michael Chadwick
-Tree permit and landscape drawings, dated 11/10/94, by Landplan, PS, Shawn Parsons
- Letters re demolition, from R.W.Rhine, Inc, dated September 23 and November 7, 1994
-Phase II limit subsurface Investigation, by Envirobusiness, dated November 12, 1993
- Environmental baseline Assessment, by Arthur D Little, dated April 29, 1993
-Letter re Tree Permit, by Landplan, PS, Shawn Parsons, dated 11/10/94
-Letter re tree permit exception, by Roy Bennion, dated 11/10/94
-Title report and easement descriptions, Chicago title Co.
— Release and quitclaim on railroad easement from Union Pacific dated November 1, 1994.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approval
of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your
proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Board of Architectural Review Approval
Building and Rack Permits
Demolition Permit
Land Altering Permit
Miscellaneous Public Works Permits, eg. hauling street use, water meter, etc.
Tree Permit
11, Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the
proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several
questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain
aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on
this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives
and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here.
The proposed retail outlet would house 4 retail stores where general retail
merchandise is sold. A portion of the adjacent hillside is to be altered.
See the attached architectural drawings for building sizes.
See the attached studies for site size and characteristics.
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
17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA
See attached sheet Al for Legal Description.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan map as environmentally sensitive?
The project lies within sensitive areas. Class 3 slopes extend
east to the toe of the hillside along the railroad bed and west to the western property
line. A Class II wetland exists at the south end of the property, and a Type 2
Stream runs near the north boundary. See the attached report
by Talasaea Consultants.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General • : = • tion of the site (circle one):
hilly, eep slope , mountainous, other.
rolling,
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
Steep scopes up to 1 3/4: 1 exists on site, and unstable slopes
exist 3/4 of a mile away along the same hillside. The attached report by
GeoEngineers identifies the hillside as stable, and therefore not
requiring buffers. The attached report by Bush, Roed and Hitching
describes the required erosion control measures proposed during construction.
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.
Glacial and interglacial deposit underlie the site.
See the attached report by GeoEngineers.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
The hillside is defined as stable, see the attached report by
GeoEngineers.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Between 8- 10,000 cyds of soil from the hillside are to be removed and placed as
fill under the proposed building and paving on the level
portions of the site. See the attached report and drawings
by Bush, Roed and Hitchings and survey by Michael Chadwick
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe.
Yes, soil erosion could occur in connection with the proposed
development since a portion of the site will be stripped
of building and asphalt during the construction phase and the
hillside is being altered. Erosion could occur during rain and/or
wind storms that occur during the construction phase of the
project. To minimize this potential for soil erosion, site
preparation techniques would include temporary detention ponds
and filter fences to reduce the impact of water runoff on the
surface soil. When construction has been completed
landscaping will have been placed on all surfaces not
covered with impervious materials. No significant erosion is
expected. See the attached report and drawings by
Bush, Roed and Hitchings, and survey by Michael Chadwick.
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)?
72.6 %, see the attached report and drawings by Bush, Roed and Hitching.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
The alterations to the hillside is to be accomplished with soldier piles.
This process involves slope stabilization prior to earth removal and
gradual removal of soil as lagging is installed. Erosion
control measures can be integrated with the soldier pile construction
to minimize soil runoff and sliding. See drawings and report by BR&H.
Earthwork activities should be done during periods of dry or intermittently
wet weather. Erosion and sedimentation controls such as
interceptor swales, straw bale barriers, silt fences and straw
mulch for temporary erosion protection of exposed soils should
be applied during construction. Stabilized construction
entrances and wash pads should be installed at the beginning of
construction and maintained for the duration of the project.
All erosion and sedimentation control measures shall be
installed and maintained in accordance with City of Tukwila
requirements. During periods of intermittent wet weather, care
should be taken to cover moisture sensitive soils with granular fill.
New buildings are being located in areas of the site less prone
to settlement; however, an acceptable amount of compression
is expected. See the attached report by GeoEngineers.
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.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity
of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, salt-
water, lakes, ponds, and wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it
flows into.
Watercourse 26 -1, a Type 2 stream exists on site. The watercourse
flows from west to east and is open to the air
at the west side of the site. It goes into a pipe and underground prior
to coming close to the level portion of the site. A Type II wetland,
primarily located off-site, is located in the southwest corner of the site
adjacent to an abandoned railroad bed. No other wetland areas were found. See attached
report by Talasaea Consultants.
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.
Grading of the hillside and construction of the retaining structure
will occur down hill and within 70' of steam 26 -1. Buffers and mitigations are discussed in
the attached report by Talasae Consultants.
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.
Not applicable.
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diver-
? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known.
No. Storm water runoff from the site will be
discharged at the existing locations.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
Not Applicable
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to
surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and antici-
pated volume of discharge.
No, see the attached report and drawings by BR&H.
Development of the site, as proposed, would not result in any
significant impacts to existing air quality. The primary impacts
from development of the purposed project are related to
construction activities and future vehicle traffic. Dust
generated from grading, demolition, and construction activity would
be a temporary nuisance in the general area.
Grading of the hillside will occur gradually in the method described
in the attached report by GeoEngineers. Dust will effect the hillside,
wetland, and stream areas for a short time. The process is expected to
take a month.
Demolition of the building will occur in the method described in the
attached letters from Rhine, Inc.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
No.
.c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any:
Transport of materials on local streets should be controlled
to minimize congestion during peak travel times. This would
minimize secondary air quality impacts caused by reduced
travel times.
Dust produced by construction and demolition can be reduced by using a number
of techniques. Areas of exposed soils such as storage yards could be sprayed
with water, oils, or chemical dust suppressants. Areas that might be exposed for
prolonged periods of time should be covered with suitable ground cover to
prevent wind erosion. Soil carried out of the construction
area by trucks could be minimized by: use of a sawdust mat as
a transition zone from the construction site; wheel washing;
washing or brushing truck undercarriages; and covering dusty
truck loads. For soils that do escape the constructions site
on trucks, a daily cleaning program for truck routes would help minimize dust.
Dust from the demolition of the building and grading of the hillside
is minimized by the use of fog nozzles
and misting devices as discussed in the attached letter from Rhine, Inc. A large
proportion of the demolished building is to be left on site and used as fill
material ( +/- 20,000 cyds), lessening the impact on offsite roads. Salvage of metals
will be the major cause of trucking trips ( appox. 100) offsite. The entire demolition
process is expect to take two months.
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
no, see the attached report and drawings by BR&H.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example:
Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemi-
cals:; 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.
See the attached report by BR&H.
c. Water runoff (including storm water) :
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and the
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.
See the attached report and drawings by BR&H.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
No, see the attached report and drawings by BR&H.
d.Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff
water impacts, if any:
Oil water separators are being added to the storm system.
See the attached report and drawings by BR&H.
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
✓ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
7 wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
_ skunk cabbage, other
_ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Small areas of landscaping located near the existing building
or at the new building will be replaced by similar materials in
similar quantities in adjacent new landscape planters. Vegetation
on the sloped hillside behind the proposed retail building will be
removed during the construction of the retaining structure, and replaced
per the city's tree ordinance, see attached landscape drawings and
report by Talasaea Consultants.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the
site.
None known.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
See attached landscape drawings and report by Talasaea consultants.
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: (haw eron, eagle, . s ngbir a , other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, . • er, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No birds are known to use the site as part of a migratory
pattern.
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
Electrical energy would be used for lighting and power
for HVAC, refrigeration, and miscellaneous power equipment.
Some heating will be reclaimed heat from refrigeration
compressors. Supplemental energy for heat will be natural gas.
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:
For the retail portions of the building , energy conservation
would consist of an insulated building envelope, HVAC with heat
recovery features, automatic energy management system, airlock
entrances, energy efficient light fixtures, and minimal use of
glass. The State of Washington has adopted model conservation
standards for new commercial buildings. Provided the City of
Tukwila has adopted these standards, or has no standards
conflicting there within, the future development would be
consistent with these model standards.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to
toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous
waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, des-
cribe.
No special environmental hazards are known to exist on the
site besides asbestos in the floor tiles of the existing building.
See attached reports by Arthur D Little and Envirobusiness
and for abatement.
The new retail tenants proposed at this time use no solvents
and chemicals which are considered hazardous.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
Fire, police, and ambulance services would be required on
a basis consistent with any four commercial retail stores totaling
154,300 square feet . No special services would be required.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Not Applicable
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic from adjacent streets may be heard from the
interior of the site but will not affect the commercial
operations proposed.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or assoc-
ciated with the project on a short-term or long -term basis
(for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)?
Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
During demolition, noise levels will be higher than
normally experienced on a construction site due to the
crushing & recycling of the existing 9 story office building.
The demolition phase is expected to last 2 months.
Sources of noise identified for the development and
operation of the retail project are as
follows: construction related noise for approximately
throe months from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, six days per week;
normal traffic generated noise associated with a
commercial retail store and warehouse operation
seven days per week; including several large truck
deliveries per day.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
During demolition, noise will be controlled by careful
placement of crushing and compacting equipment
away from the public right of way and adjacent buildings.
Noisy demolition will be accomplished
only during business hours
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site of the proposed retail project is currently occupied
by a 216,000 square foot office building .
The surrounding area is generally developed with a mixture of
light industrial and retail uses.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No. Not in the recent past.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
A 216,000 square foot nine story office building now
occupies the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The office building will be demolished.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The current zoning classification of the site is C2 Regional Retail.
The proposed uses are allowed outright.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Retail
g. If applicable- what is the current shoreline master program desig-
nation of the site?
Not applicable as the site is located more than 200' from the Green River.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify.
There are environmentally sensitive areas on site.
including steep slopes, a wetland, and a stream.
See the attached report by Talasaea Consultants.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
100 workers.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
The office building is currently vacant. When occupied, 2200 workers.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
L Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with exist-
ing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The proposed is a concrete tilt -up structure that is similar in
size, design, and scale of the other industrial, warehouse, and
commercial buildings north, south, east, and west of the site. The
proposed structure would be setback from Southcenter Parkway.
The type of use proposed is also consistent with land uses adjacent to
the site and in the surrounding area.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing?
Not applicable.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing.
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
Not applicable.
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 entry portions of building would be 48 feet in height.
The remaining building elevations of the proposed structure
would be approximately 31 feet in height. The principle
exterior building material would be pre -cast concrete tilt -up
panels with a series of offsets and entries built out of stucco.
See the attached architectural drawings by Turner & Associates.
A 5' - 30" high concrete retaining wall is proposed against the hillside.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or ob-
structed?
The view of the lower portion of the hillside from Southcenter Parkway
will be more blocked in part by the new building. Other views are not being altered
A 25' tall retaining wall against the hillside will be largely hidden by the building.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
A landscaping/sidewalk strip along the public right of way,
interior parking lot landscaping, and perimeter landscaping
consisting of trees, shrubs and ground cover are proposed.
The proposed retaining wall is to be covered with landscaping
& is almost totally hidden,by the proposed building
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time
of day would it mainly occur?
Exterior lighting for the improvements resulting from the
proposed bulk retail development would consist of wall
lighting, parking lot lighting with non -glare fixtures, and
signage. Any glare that may occur would happen at night.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard
or interfere with views?
No safety hazards from lighting would occur.
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your
proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,
if any:
All outdoor lighting would be shielded and directed downward to
minimize potential intrusion on neighboring properties.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
No recreational facilities are in the vicinity of the project site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses
If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, in-
cluding recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or
applicant, if any:
None.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,
national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on
or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None.
b. Generally describe any landinarks or evidence of historic, arch -
eaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or
next to the site.
Not applicable.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
Mitigation measures are not required.
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.
Southcenter Parkway runs north south adjacent to the site.
See attached traffic report by TP &E & attached site plans.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what
is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Meto bus routes stop on Southcenter Parkway, but not in front of property.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How
many would the project eliminate?
The proposal includes 754 stalls,some of them compact.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improve-
ments to existing roads or streets, not including driveways?
If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).
No, see attached traffic report.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)
water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.
The proposal would not require the use of water, rail, or air transportation
to provide goods and services to the site.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the com-
pleted project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
No new trips per day or during the AM,Noon, or PM peaks are expected
See attached traffic report by TP &E.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if
any:
No mitigations are proposed. See attached traffic report.
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 similarity in the proposed uses in the area
indicate that there will be little increase. The site should experience a
decrease from the prior use.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public
services, if any.
No mitigation is required.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the util-
ity providing the service, and the general construction activities
on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Sewer: City of Tukwila
Water: City of Tukwila
Telephone: GTNW
Power: Puget Sound Power and Light
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge.
I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its
decision.
Signature:
Date Resubmitted: 11/10/94
APE
VICTOR H BISHOP P E . President
DAVID H ENGER. P E . Vice President
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Mr Roy Bennion
800 5th Ave. Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98104
RE: Parkway Place Boeing Site
Midday Trip Generation
Dear Mr. Bennion:
2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 - BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98004
TELEPHONE (206) 455 -5320
FACSIMILE (206) 453 -7180
November 9, 1994
tant ' 5 1994
li4'r .
DEVEL.Oi ='i> E:e'.r .l.
Per your request we are pleased to present this letter identifying the midday trip
generation for the .proposed 167,500 sq. ft. retail project. The Parkway Place Trip
Generation Study prepared by us dated September 15, 1994, identified that during the
AM and PM peak hours and on an average daily basis the proposed retail project will
generate less traffic than the Boeing Office building did.
According to Table 3 (attached), Page 1232, in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition retail activities occur between 10:00 A.M. and
10:00 P.M. with the peak eight hours occurring between 12:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M. Of
these eight hours the highest peak occurs during the 5:00 - 6:00 P.M. time period and
the second highest during the 12:00 - 1:00 P.M. time period. According to Table 3,
out of the 4,792 average weekday driveway trips 426 (8.9 %) of them occur during the
P.M. peak hour (5:00 - 6:00 P.M.) and 417 (8.7 %) occur during the noon peak hour
(12:00 - 1:00 P.M.). The Trip Generation does not contain specific hourly data for
office trip generation. However, we believe that a sizeable number of the office
employees choose to eat out or run noon time errands, thus generating significant
traffic volumes. The Boeing office project employed 2,227 employees. If just 10% of
these employees were to eat out or run errands at lunch, they would generate 445
trips, which is higher than the noontime retail project generated trips.
As identified on page 3, second paragraph•of the Parkway Place Trip
Generation Study letter additional retail activity is not likely to generate substantial new
trips to the area. This is due to the fact that shoppers are already in the area and
tend to shop at multiple centers, thus adding driveway trips but not new trips to the
system.
T0816A.94
Mr Roy Bennion
November 9, 1994
Page - 2 -
APE
In conclusion a retail project in an area built up with other retailing services will
have substantially Tess traffic impacts than the Boeing Office building which employed
2,227 employees.
If you have any questions, please call me.
MJJ:es
Very truly yours,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
& ENGINEERING, INC.
Mark J. s, P.E.
Project Manager
;
Table 2
Hourly Variation in Shopping Center Traffic
Under 100,000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area
Time
Average Weekday°
Average
% of 24 Hour
Entering
Saturdayb
% of 24 Hour
Exiting
% of 24 Hour
Entering
% of 24 Hour
Exiting
10 -11 A.M.
7.6
6.5
6.8
5.8
11 -12 Noon
7.6
8.4
,?, Oo 8.8
1"-),7 - • 8.9
12- 1 P.M.
7.6
(r 8.2
9 o 9.4
IA.'? y 8.8
1-2 P.M.
6.9
g . 7:5
?.
.CC 10.0
2a,I 2, 10.1
2 -3 P.M.
9.0
11' 7.8
J. yo 9.7
le, I (/c 8.4
3 -4 P.M.
9.6
3 9.5
7.5-C 10.3
Mil 9.6
4 -5 P.M.
9.7
Z 10.4
/o -osr- 10.7
i.`f- f 10.7
5 -6 P.M.
10.3
t 11.0
/0.NS'' 9.4
I6,1 (,, /c 8.7
6 -7 P.M.
7.4
7- 8.3
'z, 2(5- 7.3
IS,r,. q 8.3
7 -8 P.M.
5.4
5.3
5.0
5.7
8 -9 P.M.
4.2
4.3
3.2
3.9
9 -10 P.M.
1.9
1.8
2.0
3.3
a Source numbers - 95, 124; based on tour studies.
b Source numbers - 95, 124; based on tour studies.
Table 3
Hourly Variation in Shopping Center Traffic
Over 300,000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area
Time
Average Weekday'
Average Saturdayb
Average Sunday'
% of 24 Hr.
Entering
% of 24 Hr.
Exiting
% of 24 Hr.
Entering
% of 24 Hr.
Exiting
% of 24 Hr.
Entering
% of 24 Hr.
Exiting
10 -11 A.M.
' 7.5
3.7
1 • 8.3
4.3
3.5
1.7
11 -12 Noon
8.6
5.9
: 10.9
6.9
9.4
3.5
12- 1 P.M.
4s .0 9.5
2 7.9
11.9
8.9
15.3
6.3
1 -2 P.M.
8-0ys 8.7
q 8.2
12.5
10.4
17.3
11.0
2 -3 P.M.
g•3 s' 7.9
s 8.8
12.4
12.0
16.4
14.4
3 -4 P.M.
g-.3 0 7.7
t.; 8.9
11.2
12.9
13.8
16.2
4 -5 P.M.
8.6 S. 8.2
3 9.1
9.2
13.4
9.8
16.8
5 -6 P.M.
-.50 8.3
i 9.5'
5.2
12.7
5.5
15.7
6 -7 P.M.
`3•. `/S•" 7.8.
'.7. 7.7
2.9
8.0
2.2
6.1
7 -8 P.M.
'. . -vr 8.4
, ' 7.0
. 1.9
2.1
1.3
1.9
8 -9 P.M.
4.7
7.7
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.1
9 -10 P.M.
1.8
9.1
2.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
° Source numbers - 48, 73, 88, 124; based on seven studies.
b Source numbers - 73, 88; based on three studies.
'Source numbers - 88; based on two studies.
Trip Generation, January 1991 . 1232 Institute of Transportation Engineers
RECE VF_
I w v 1 0 1994
DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR BAR REVIEW
PARKWAY PLACE REDEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST.
SEATTLE, WA 98102
PHONE:(206) 323 -4144
CONTACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, P.E.
November 10, 1994
Parkway Place is a 15.54 acre site as delineated on the architect's
site plan. The project is located along Southcenter Boulevard in
Tukwila, Washington. Located on the site is a 9 story office
building which was occupied by Boeing. The tenant has moved out of
the facility and the owner is looking to find a more viable use for
the property. This proposal would demolish the existing building
and construct approximately 3.5 acres of retail space on the
property.
There are several existing utility lines and easements across the
site. We have used an ALTA survey and topographic information
prepared by Chadwick Surveying and Engineering to determine how the
utility lines would be routed through the site under the new
layout. A new section has been added to this report to discuss the
exiting utilities in more detail. This section has been added in
response to the City of Tukwila letter dated October 31, 1994.
The existing site is generally flat. A steep slope rises on the
west side of the property to Interstate 5. The slope is covered
with trees and thick underbrush. A railroad easement is located
along the toe of slope. It is my understanding that the railroad
easement vacation process is nearly completed. The 9 story
building is located approximately midway between the railroad
easement and Southcenter Boulevard. The existing building has a
footprint of approximately 24,981 square feet. The remainder of
the site is covered by asphalt parking and landscaping. Detailed
surface area coverage calculation have been prepared and are shown
on page 4 of this report.
Two other building share the existing parking and access points to
Southcenter Boulevard. Each of the buildings are located on
segregated parcels and have not been included in the area count for
the Parkway Place project. These structures are to be remain after
the completion of the shopping center. Some grading of the parking
area between the two building may be necessary for the construction
of the new retail building. Final design will also require
coordination of utility connections for the sewer and water main
relocation. This subject will be discussed in more detail in the
new section of the report.
Redevelopment of this site will include the construction of two
retail buildings. A 32,370 square foot building in the southwest
corner and a 133,143 square foot building along the western
boundary of the slope. The 133,143 square foot building will cover
the area occupied by the existing 9 story office building. Some of
the existing utility lines serving the site will have to be routed
around the new buildings. This includes extending a water main
loop around the west side of the new buildings, relocation of an
existing 48 inch storm pipe and routing the existing sanitary sewer
main around the east side of the buildings. The new buildings have
been located so that the existing 66 and 54 inch storm drainage
pipes from the southern off -site areas do not have to be relocated.
Existing parking areas will the retained to the greatest possible
extent. Some additional parking will be gained along the west side
of the 133,143 square foot building with the relinquishment of the
railroad easement. The new building has been located further west
than the existing 9 story building. This will require construction
of a retaining wall along the western margin of the site plan.
Discussions with the owner have included using a solder pile wall
or a soil nailed wall. The advantage of using this type of
retaining structure is that it can be constructed with minimal
disturbance to the areas above the top of wall.
There is a public storm drainage system servicing the site from
Southcenter Boulevard. Storm water will be collected in catch
basins and conveyed using underground pipe. Much of the existing
storm system in the vicinity of the existing building will be
abandon. The site has been graded so that finished grade
elevations around the new buildings are higher than the existing
grade. Therefore the storm water will sheet flow to the existing
catch basins located in the eastern parking areas. Loading docks
on the western side of the buildings are the only locations where
a new storm collection system will have to be installed.
The proposed site plan reduces the net parking area by
approximately 1.5 acres. Since the area subject to vehicular
traffic will be reduce, there should be a corresponding improvement
in storm water quality discharged to the downstream system.
Oil /water separator vaults with coalescing chambers and high flow
bypasses will also be installed to improve water quality prior to
discharge to the downstream system.
The site is served by public sewer. Redevelopment of the site to
a retail center will significantly reduce the sanitary sewer
discharge. The 9 story office building contained approximately
214,600 square feet of floor space and supported a population of
approximately 2,230 people. The proposed 165,513 square feet of
retail space will reduce the sewer discharge by approximately
31,650 gpd based on the D.O.E. Table No. 2 for new system design.
Therefore redevelopment of this site to a retail facility will
benefit the existing sewer system.
SURFACE AREA COVERAGE
Existing site: 676,948 SF
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE
(15.54 AC)
= 24,981 SF (0.57 AC)
= 383,677 SF (8.81 AC)
• 26,136 SF (0.6 AC)
88,807 SF (2.04 AC)
• 153,347 SF (3.52 AC)
Redeveloped site: 676,948 SF. (15.
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE
54 AC)
• 165,513 SF
318,344 SF
• O AC
= 57,967 SF
135,124 SF
(3.80 AC)
(7.31 AC)
(0.0 AC)
(1.33 AC)
(3.10 AC)
3
ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION
Storm Drainage System:
There are two major drainage courses draining beneath the
Interstate 5 and conveyed through the site. The most northerly
course discharges from a 48 inch culvert approximately 70 feet west
of the northwest property corner. At the discharge point, a
concrete energy dissipator with "V" notched weirs on the bottom
side has been installed. Storm water flows east from the discharge
in a 15 foot wide grass lined ditch to a 48 inch concrete culvert
located approximately 20 feet east of the northwest property
corner. The grass lined ditch area has been classified as a Class
4 steam. All work related to the Parkway Place project will occur
outside the stream area. There is a concrete box inlet with a
heavy steel trash rack at the 48 inch intake. From this point the
storm water is conveyed in the 48 inch culvert approximately 145
feet to a 45 degree bend in the line. The bend directs the flow in
a southeasterly direction toward a manhole located within the drive
lane of the Parkway Place parking lot.
An 11 foot wide concrete spillway has been constructed above the 48
inch culvert between the intake and 45 degree bend. The spillway
directs the overflow to 2 -30 inch CMP culvert inlets located at the
edge of parking, approximately 60 feet north of the northwest
property line. The overflow lines convey the storm water easterly
to Southcenter Boulevard and then northward in the street system.
Therefore, once the inlet capacity of the 48 inch culvert is
exceeded, the flow is routed to a separate storm system.
Storm water flow in the 48 inch culvert is turned southward at the
most northern manhole. John Howard, with the City of Tukwila,
opened the manhole structure for my observation. The manhole has
a round lid at the asphalt paving surface which covers a locking
lid on the pipe. It is my understanding that the locking lid is
required because the 48 inch pipe flows under pressure during
heavier rainfall events or when the river is at a higher elevation.
At the time of my observation, there was approximately 6 inches of
water flowing in the pipe. Stones with a diameter of approximately
one foot were also observed at the bottom of the pipe.
From the manhole the 48 inch pipe conveys the storm water
approximately 850 south. The pipe is deflected 21 degrees two the
west approximately 570 feet south of the manhole. Approximately
180 feet south of the bend, the pipe is deflected 64 degrees to the
east. The 48 inch pipe then extends 90 feet where it connects to
a 66 inch culvert. Connection to the 66 inch pipe is accomplished
using a wye. The 66 inch culvert then conveys the storm water
easterly to Southcenter Boulevard.
The second off -site drainage course discharges from an arched
culvert on the east side 1 -5 located near the southwest property
corner. The discharge flows into a fenced pool area. The pool
flows into a 54 inch culvert which conveys the storm water
easterly. The culvert is located just south of the southwest
property line. There is an asphalt maintenance road above the
culvert between the Parkway Place parking lot and the pool area.
The 54 inch pipe is connected to the 66 inch culvert which also
conveys the storm water from the 48 inch pipe discussed above. It
does not appear that any manholes exist along the 54 inch pipe
between the pool and 66 inch pipe.
48" Storm Relocation:
The existing 48 inch storm pipe will have to be abandon because the
new buildings will be located over the line. The new line will be
located approximately 30 west of the existing location. The only
other gravity line on the west side of the project is a 12 inch
sanitary sewer main. The sewer main will be relocated to the east
side of the new building, and therefore will not present a problem.
Since the new storm line will be located further west, the
connection at the north end will be made at a higher elevation.
The new pipe can therefore be installed with a greater slope than
provided by the existing. This will increase the gravity flow
capacity of the 48 inch pipe.
The new line will be constructed so that access points do not
exceed 400 feet. Details of the access point will have to be
worked out with the city. It is anticipated that a bolt down lid,
similar to the existing, will be provided.
Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will not alter the basin
characteristics. The new line will remain a conveyance system for
off -site flows only. No catch basin for on -site drainage will be
connected to the new line. Therefore drainage from the site will
not enter the pipe during or after construction.
The abandon section of 48 inch pipe will either be filled with
control density backfill or dug up and crushed. Economics will
determine which method of abandonment will used. This issue will
be reviewed more closely during the preparation of construction
documents.
to
Sanitary Sewer System:
The sanitary sewer main enters the site from the south near the
southeast property corner. In the southern driveway, the sewer
main is turned west and extends approximately 675 feet to a manhole
located west of the asphalt parking lot. The sewer then angles
northward to the loading dock area on the west side of the existing
9 story building. The manhole for the building connection is
approximately 17 feet deep. There is an electronic flap gate on
the building service line to prevent sewer from flowing into the
building line. From this manhole the sewer main .continues
northward approximately 640 feet to a manhole located in the
northwest corner of the site. This manhole also collects flows
from areas north of the Parkway Place site. From the manhole in
the northwest corner of the site, the flow is turned eastward
toward Southcenter Boulevard. The sewer main crosses beneath
Southcenter Boulevard and then turns northward.
It appears the primary reason the sewer was extended to the west
side of the Parkway site was to provide a future connection point
for property to the west. Since the main was extended the longest
possible route, it became relatively deep along the western side
of the project. The existing 9 story building required a deep
building sewer service to the basement and therefore the additional
depth was justifiable.
The new site plan locates a building over the existing sewer main.
Therefore the sewer will have to be relocated. A deep sewer is not
required since the new building will be slab on grade.. This allows
a greater flexibility in determining a new location for the sewer
main.
Finished grades on the east side of the site are 3 to 4 feet lower
than on the west side. Locating the sewer main on the east side of
the new building would take advantage of the lower finished grades.
A sewer main located on the east side of the building would extend
a shorter distance than the existing line. The shorter distance
between existing flow line grades means the new section will have
a greater slope than the existing pipe. Finished grade elevations
will be significantly higher for any developments west of the
Parkway Place project. Therefore a deep sewer connection depth is
not required for the future areas. A new sewer stub can be
extended to the west property line at a shallower depth. It
appears the logical location for the new sewer main is on the east .
side of the new buildings.
The existing sewer main will have to remain in operation during
construction of the new main. This can be accomplished by setting
a new manhole structure on the existing main at the lower
connection point. The existing pipe will extend through the new
structure and continue to convey the flow. From the manhole, new
sewer pipe will be installed southward to the existing main. Anew
manhole will be set over the existing main at the higher connection
point. Again the existing pipe will extend through the new manhole
conveying the flow to the existing downstream pipes. The new sewer.
run will be tested and approved prior to routing the flows into
them. Once approved, the existing pipe within the manhole will be
removed and the manhole bottoms channeled to direct the flow into
the new sewer pipe.
Water Service:
A dead end 10 inch water main currently serves the Parkway Place
site. The dead end line also appears to be the only service for
the adjacent properties on the north and south side of Parkway
Place. The water main enters the site from Southcenter Boulevard,
just north of the center driveway. The water main has a pressure
of approximately 150 psi, and therefore fire flow is not in
question.
The water main will be looped around the new buildings. This is
necessary to adequately provide the fire hydrant spacing. The
existing dead end water main will have to be connected to another
main so that the loop has two sources. This will allow sections of
the main to be isolated for maintenance without shutting down the
water supply for the entire system. A second feed will also be
required by the fire marshal. The new connection could be made to
the main in Southcenter Boulevard. It is my understanding that a
water main has been extended to the west side of Southcenter
Boulevard south of the Parkway Place project. This also maybe a
location for a second connection. Viability of this connection
will depend on the distance south and the willingness of the
adjacent property owners to allow a water main extension across
their property. The location of the second connection will be
determined during the preparation of the construction documents.
The connection to the Southcenter Boulevard main would require
boring. Therefore we would like to pursue the connection to the
main on the west side of the street first.
Temporary Erosion Control and Grading:
One of the first tasks will be the demolition of the existing
building. It is my understanding that the building will be
demolished using a crane and wrecking ball. This process will
require a relatively small area for stock piling the material and
moving the construction equipment around the existing structure.
During this phase, most of the existing asphalt paving will be
retained. An area will dedicated for stock piling the material.
The area will be enclosed with filter fabric fence to prevent silt
laden storm water run -off from entering the existing storm system.
Since the material will consist of crushed brick and concrete,
siltation should not be a significant problem.
A wetland exists in the southwest corner, just outside the parking
lot area. The wetland has been delineated by a wetland specialist
and located by a field survey crew. Since the existing parking lot
drains from west to east, storm water run -off control should not be
a problem during construction. The new site plan has been design
so that new paving will not extend beyond the existing pavement in
the vicinity of the wetland. A filter fabric fence should be
installed prior to starting demolition so that the wetland can be
clearly identified. The filter fabric fence will also prevent silt
laden storm water from entering the wetland during construction.
The next phase will be intensive grading for the preparation of
building pads and construction of the retaining wall along the
western side of the project. The retaining wall will be
constructed from the top -down. Therefore the slope above the wall
will not have to be cut back for construction. This will help
minimize the disturbance to the slope above the wall. Material
excavated from the slope during the retaining wall construction
will be placed directly on the building pads and compacted in
lifts.
There is an existing ditch along the western edge of paving which
conveys the hillside drainage to the north and south. The section
which drains to the south flows into the wetland. Construction of
the retaining wall and building pads will destroy the existing
ditch. An interceptor swale will be constructed at the top of wall
to convey the hillside drainage north and south. The interceptor
swale will prevent storm water from flowing over the top of wall
during construction and after the wall is completed. The section of
swale draining southward will be tied back into the wetland,
preserving the existing wetland hydrology.
Filter fabric fence will be installed along the eastern limit of
clearing. An interceptor swale will be constructed along the
western side of filter fence. The swale will convey storm water
run -off from the disturbed areas to sediment traps. This system
should provide adequate protection for the downstream system.
Crushed material from the existing building will be used to cap the
building pads and graded parking areas. The crushed material will
provide a surface which is resistant to erosion.
Other Best Management Practices will also be implemented to reduce
the impacts to off -site areas. These include wetting the
demolition materials being crushed and graded areas to reduce dust,
installing filter fabric material in catch basin grates, sweeping
parking lot and road surfaces, delineating limits of clearing on
the plans and installation of a rock construction entrance. Site
grade will be established to produce a balanced earthwork volume.
This will help reduce truck traffic outside the project area during
construction. These measures represent the minimum requirements
which will be shown on the construction documents.
Final Drainage System:
The off -site drainage tightline system will retain the same
function as the existing site. Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will
not change the flow characteristics of the system. If the northern
48 inch pipe system inlet capacity is exceeded, then the storm
water will follow the existing overflow route. The new building
has been located so that the north face does not extend into the
existing overflow route. If there is a failure of the overflow
route, storm water will flow overland to the Southcenter Boulevard
system. The building will not be flooded if this occurs.
Buildings have also been located outside the overflow route for the
southern 54 inch pipe system. If the inlet capacity of the 54 inch
pipe is exceeded, or there is a failure, storm water will flow
overland to the wetland area. This is the same route followed
under the existing site plan. The building will not be flooded if
this situation occurs.
A swale will be constructed along the top of retaining wall at the
western slope. From the retaining wall high point, the swale will
convey storm water north and south along the top. At the point
where the retaining wall is no longer required, the swales will be
connected into the existing ditches. Therefore the existing
drainage courses will be preserved. This is critical for the
southern drainage course since it supplies water to the wetland.
Drainage from the new parking lot will be collected by the existing
catch basins. Underground pipe from the new catch basins at the
loading docks will convey the storm water to the existing storm
drainage system. The existing storm drainage system discharges
untreated storm water directly into the Southcenter Boulevard
system. Since this is no longer an acceptable practice, oil /water
separation vaults with a coalescing chamber will be installed at
the existing discharge points. This method of water quality
improvement is widely accepted for existing storm system retrofit
in urban areas. The water quality vaults will be sized for a 6
month -24 hour storm event according to
Standards. Storm water flows greater
event will be routed around the vault
assures the oils and sediment trapped
flushed to the downstream system.
D.O.E. Storm Water Design
than the 6 month -24 hour
in a bypass system. This,
within the vault are not
proposed Parkway Place !.
1.75.01 Southcenter Parkway
e, o E n g i n e- e_ r: s i l �' File'No:, 3944-0021-R01/111094
Geo ..: Engineers
November 10, 1994
Mr. Roy Bennion
800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3700
Seattle, Washington 98104 -3122
Dear Mr. Bennion:
Geotechnical,
Geoenvironmental and
Geologic Services
GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit three copies of our "Report of Geotechnical
Engineering Services, Proposed Parkway Place, 17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila,
Washington." The scope of our services is described in our proposal dated October 20, 1994.
Mr. Roy Bennion provided verbal authorization of our services on October 28, 1994.
Preliminary information has been provided to you and other members of the design team as our
findings were developed.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions
regarding the contents of this report or need additional information, please contact us. We look
forward to assisting you during the construction phase of this project.
Yours very truly,
ineers, Inc.
UJ7
K. Tuttle, P.E.
rincipal
HRP:JKT:cros
Document ID: 3944002.R
cc: ✓Turner and Associates (three copies)
18420 - 24th Place N.E.
Seattle, WA 98155
Attn: Mr. Howard Turner
File No. 3944 - 002 -ROl
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861 -6000
Fax (206) 861 -6050
k.
CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
SCOPE OF SERVICES 2
SITE DESCRIPTION 4
SITE HISTORY 4
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4
SURFACE CONDITIONS 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6
Level Portion of Site 6
Hillside Portion of Site 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
GENERAL 8
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 8
FOUNDATION SUPPORT 11
FLOOR SLABS 12
SLOPE RETENTION 13
SLOPE STABILITY 15
SURFACE DRAINAGE 16
PAVEMENTS 16
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES 16
LIMITATIONS 17
FIGURES Figure No.
Vicinity Map and Street Map 1
Site Plan 2
Generalized Subsurface Cross Section A -A' 3
APPENDICES Page No.
Appendix A - Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing A -1
Field Explorations A -1
Laboratory Testing A -2
GeoEngineers I File No. 3944-002-R01/111094
CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX A FIGURES
Soil Classification System
Key to Boring Log Symbols
Logs of Borings
Logs of Test Pits
Moisture Content Data
Gradation Curves
Direct Shear Test Data
Appendix B - Slope Stability Analysis Results
Figure No.
A -1
A -2
A -3 ... A -10
A -11 ... A -13
A -14
A -15
A -16
G e o E n g in ee r.s
File No. 3944-002-R01/111094
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROPOSED PARKWAY PLACE
17501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
MR. ROY BENNION
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed
Parkway Place development at 17501 Southcenter Parkway in Tukwila, Washington. The site
location is shown on the Vicinity and Street Map, Figure 1.
These services are a continuation of our involvement on the project, which includes
geotechnical consultation services summarized in our letter dated September 15, 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The planned project will create a retail store development similar in nature to other
developments in the immediate area. This development will include the demolition of an existing
nine -story office building and construction of four new buildings, three of which will be located
in approximately the same area as the existing building.
Three of the buildings (Buildings B, C and D) will be combined into a complex, while the
fourth building (Building A) will be located in the southwest portion of the site, adjacent to an
existing furniture store. The buildings will each be two stories in height, based on architectural
plans prepared by Turner and Associates, Architects. Building A will measure roughly 187 feet
by 166 feet, while the three building complex will measure roughly 590 feet long by 210 feet
wide. The buildings will be located to avoid construction over weak, compressible soils
encountered in previous explorations at the site.
The existing nine -story office building will be demolished and the resulting rubble crushed
to a gradation satisfactory for use as structural fill in the depression remaining after demolition
and for support of building floor slabs. This will eliminate a major waste disposal problem.
A truck access and fire lane will be located along the west side of all four buildings. This
will require excavation into the adjacent hillside and construction of a retaining wall. Based on
the most recent site plan made available to us, we understand that the wall will be up to 600 feet
long and about 25 feet high. Other site improvements include modifications to the existing
asphalt paved areas, and relocation of existing and installation of new utility lines.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our previous consultation addressed the general site history and subsurface conditions based
on the results of previous explorations by others on and in the immediate vicinity of the site,
G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
personal experience of our staff during the design and construction of the existing office building,
and consultation for The Boeing Company as tenants of this building regarding dewatering
requirements to maintain a dry basement level. The results of this consultation were presented
in our September 15, 1994 letter. The services provided for this current study are intended to
develop sufficient additional subsurface information for use in geotechnical design of the various
elements of the project. The major portion of our study is directed to defining subsurface
conditions in the vicinity of the proposed retaining wall and accomplishing analyses to define
design parameters for the retaining wall. Supporting analytical information is included in this
report to facilitate the review of our conclusions and recommendations by the city of Tukwila and
WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). Our specific scope of services
includes the following tasks:
1. Review available geotechnical information prepared for past development activity at the site
and also by WSDOT for construction of the I -5 corridor at the top of the hillside.
2. Explore subsurface conditions in portions of the site not covered by previous explorations,
including portions of the four building sites and along the general alignment of the retaining
wall. A total of seven borings and three test pits were made.
3. Accomplish laboratory tests on representative samples obtained from the explorations,
including moisture, dry density, gradation and strength tests.
4. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, including processing of
building demolition debris for use as fill, use of on -site soils as structural fill, criteria for
imported soils to be used as fill, fill placement and compaction criteria, and allowable
temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes.
5. Develop recommendations for foundation support of the new buildings, including allowable
bearing pressures, minimum footing sizes and embedment depths, settlement estimates, and
subgrade preparation procedures
6. Provide recommendations for the retaining structure west of the three- building complex,
including wall type, active and passive pressure values, backfill criteria and drainage
requirements.
7. Evaluate the overall stability of the slope for static and seismic conditions after design and
construction of the retaining wall in accordance with our recommendations.
8. Provide recommendations for site drainage, including control of seepage during retaining
wall construction and surface drainage adjacent to buildings and in parking areas.
9. Present our findings, conclusions and recommendations, with supporting field and
laboratory data, in a written report.
10. Attend design consultation meetings prior to starting our field exploration program and
following submission of our report to assist in application of our recommendations and
preparation of responses to reviewing agencies if and as appropriate.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No. 3944-002 - 801/111094
SITE DESCRIPTION
SITE HISTORY
The site has been substantially modified from the natural terrain that existed prior to the
mid- 1960s. The west wall of the Green River valley was cut back to the present configuration
in the mid -1960s exposing glacially consolidated soils in the area of the existing nine -story
building and in the area of the existing furniture store located just south of the site. The depth
of cut exceeded 100 feet in portions of the site. This material was used as borrow for retail
developments located on the east side of Southcenter Parkway. After extensive analysis of
varying slope configurations for the reshaped hillside, a cut slope of 13/4 H:1 V (horizontal to
vertical) was recommended and the slopes were graded to this inclination. The 30 years of
satisfactory performance of these cut slopes indicates that the chosen slope configuration is
appropriate.
Construction of Interstate 5 also took place in the 1960s. The segment of freeway west of
the site and north of the South 178th Street undercrossing involved construction of a significant
cut through the east -west trending ridge and significant fill embankments over deep ravines
flanking the north and south sides of this ridge. Large diameter storm drains extending down the
axes of the these ravines were apparently constructed prior to placing the fill embankments.
The regrading of the hillside in the vicinity of the site exposed competent glacially
consolidated soils on which both the furniture store and the nine -story office building have been
successfully supported on shallow spread foundations. The excavation for the office building
extended below the static ground water table necessitating dewatering for foundation construction
and to maintain a stable subgrade for the basement floor slab. Subsequent to building completion
(which occurred sometime after 1979), it was necessary to install two permanent dewatering wells
to maintain a dry basement slab since gravity flow in the slab underdrain system was not
adequate.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The geologic conditions at the site are largely the result of deposition and erosion during
and following the most recent episodes of glaciation in the Puget Sound region. Glacial and
interglacial deposits underlying the hillside in the western portion of the site include primarily
pre - Vashon fine- grained lacustrine deposits that were later overridden by several thousand feet
of glacial ice. Geologic maps dating back to the early 1960s indicate that the hillside that existed
prior to grading was underlain by kame terrace deposits that were left behind by glacial melt
water flowing along the edge of the ice that filled the Green River valley near the end of the
Vashon glaciation. These deposits apparently have been completely removed from the lower
portion of the hillside which includes this property. The upper portion of the valley wall
probably is underlain by glacial till, a very dense, unsorted deposit of silt, sand, gravel and
cobbles. The glacial deposits possess high strength and low compressibility characteristics.
GeoEngineers 4 File No. 3944-002-R01/111094
During early post - glacial time the area of the present Green River valley was a marine inlet,
which was subsequently filled by sediment from the river. Throughout postglacial time the
glacial deposits in the west valley wall have been subject to weathering and erosion, resulting in
deposition of sediment at the base of the valley wall. The ravines which flank the hillside in the
western portion of the site are examples of such erosional features. The deposits at the mouth
of these ravines and in the eastern portion of the site include alluvial soils with generally high
compressibility and low strength. Figure 2 shows the approximate limits of the compressible
alluvial soils within the site. These soils generally include loose sand, soft silt and peat, although
more competent alluvial soils, primarily medium dense sand, occur closer to the mouths of the
ravines.
Considerable change has occurred within and adjacent to the site within the past 30 years.
These changes include the extensive grading of the hillside, placement of the fill embankments
for Interstate 5 across the upper portions of the ravines and placement of general site fill over
areas underlain by alluvial soils.
The city of Tukwila geologic hazards maps designate the majority of the hillside as a Class
3 landslide hazard area. This designation includes all areas sloping more steeply than 40 percent.
Class 4 areas, which include areas of known mappable landslide deposits, do not occur within
or near the site. Also, the subsurface conditions approximately 3/4 mile north of the site where
major instability of the slopes near the I- 405/1 -5 interchange was experienced do not occur at the
subject site.
SURFACE CONDITIONS
The majority of the site is level and surfaced with asphalt concrete pavement. Ground
surface elevations within the pavement area are generally between Elevation 30 and 35 feet (1929
NGVD datum). The existing nine -story office building occupies the central portion of the site.
Numerous landscaped "islands" exist within the asphalt -paved areas. A satellite dish with related
facilities is located on the south side of the nine -story building. An abandoned rail spur extends
along the base of the hillside; this spur is depressed about 2 to 3 feet below general pavement
grade.
The hillside extends from the abandoned rail spur up to the end of an east -west trending
ridge at the western property line. The hillside is generally inclined at about 1.75:1 (horizontal
to vertical). From the westerly property line, the ridge extends about 300 feet to the edge of
northbound Interstate 5. The crest of the ridge is at about Elevation 220 feet. A cut of about
10 feet was made through the ridge for the northbound lanes. The topographic form of the
hillside can be described as pyramidal, with the east - facing side including the graded slope above
the site flanked on both the north and south by the deep natural ravines. As described above, the
ravines are crossed by extensive fill embankments placed for Interstate 5.
The hillside facing the site includes at least two benches that are the result of grading. One
bench is at approximate Elevation 50 to 55 feet, while the second bench is about 50 feet higher.
These benches extend the full width of the slope. A third bench is located at about Elevation
G e o E n g i n e e r s 5 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
140 feet, near the western property line; this bench is also probably the result of grading.
Vegetation on the hillside consists primarily of deciduous trees with dense underbrush and
scattered evergreen trees. Some of the deciduous trees are leaning in a downhill direction, which
in a natural slope might be indicative of shallow soil creep. In our opinion, however, the trees
are leaning primarily a result of seeking light rather than soil creep, since hard and dense soils
underlie the slope at shallow depths.
Numerous underground utilities exist within and near the site. Major storm drain lines
carrying flow from the area of Interstate 5 extend down both ravines. These lines tie into a
48 -inch storm drain which extends in a north -south direction beneath the western portion of the
future three - building complex. The storm drain turns to the east near the southwest corner of the
proposed three- building complex and continues to the east outside of the south edge of the
complex area. A 12 -inch sanitary sewer also exists in the same general location. Both of these
lines will be relocated during project construction. Other utility lines include water, power and
natural gas lines which serve the existing nine -story building. These lines approach the building
from the east.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions near the base of the hillside and in portions of the four building
areas were explored by drilling seven borings and excavating three test pits at the locations shown
in Figure 2. Also shown in Figure 2 are locations of previous explorations accomplished by
others for various phases of past site development, including borings drilled for the nine -story
building. A description of the field and laboratory testing programs along with the logs of our
current explorations and boring A from a previous study are presented in Appendix A. We also
reviewed available boring logs on file with WSDOT for the Interstate 5 corridor in the vicinity
of the upper portion of the hillside. Subsurface conditions for the level portion and the hillside
portion of the site are discussed separately below.
Level Portion of Site
Subsurface conditions in the vicinity of proposed building A consist of 1.5 to 2.5 inches of
asphalt concrete pavement underlain by a 1- foot -thick layer of gravel with sand fill. The fill is
underlain to a depth of 4.5 feet below the existing ground surface by medium stiff to stiff silt.
Hard silt with scattered organic zones and very dense sand underlies the medium stiff to stiff silt.
No ground water was encountered during the drilling of these two borings. Previous test pits
excavated near the building location encountered similar soils at depth, although the original
surficial soils were probably removed during initial site development. Slight ground water
seepage was encountered in test pit 2 for a previous study at depths of 1, 9 and 11 feet below the
former ground surface.
Subsurface conditions within the proposed three - building complex area were evaluated
primarily by reviewing the logs of previous borings and test pits in the vicinity and by drilling
borings B -6 and B -7 to fill in gaps between the previous explorations. In general, the planned
G e o E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 3944 - 002- R01/111094
complex avoids the identified areas of weak, compressible alluvial soils indicated in Figure 2.
Our recent borings indicate that the building footprint outside of the existing nine -story building
is surfaced with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement and underlain by 1.5 to 3 feet of granular
fill consisting primarily of medium dense silty sand and gravel fill. The fill possibly extends to
a depth of 11 feet below the pavement in boring B -6. The previous borings for the nine -story
building also encountered fill to depths ranging from 2 to over 10 feet below the former ground
surface.
The test pits excavated for a study accomplished in the mid -1970s indicate that dense sand
and silty sand and hard silt underlie the three building complex at relatively shallow (within a few
feet) of the ground surface that existed prior to initial filling of the site. These soils were
encountered at depths of 11 and 7.5 feet in our current borings, respectively.
The ground water level in the area of the existing building has been observed to be on the
order of 8 feet below existing pavement grade, although there are apparently seasonal variations
of a few feet due to fluctuations in the amount of recharge coming from the hillside to the west.
Ground water seepage was also observed in the previous explorations in the vicinity of the three -
building complex area; however, the placement of fill over the ground surface after these
explorations were accomplished makes only a rough estimate of the depth to ground water in
these areas possible. In general, the depth at which ground water was encountered in our current
explorations appears to correlate with the 8 -foot depth noted above. Our current boring B -6
encountered ground water at a depth of 4.5 feet.
Hillside Portion of Site
Generalized subsurface conditions within the hillside are depicted in Figure 3. The soils
which underlie the hillside consist primarily of strata of hard silt with varying amounts of sand
and clay. As noted above, these strata have been overridden by glacial ice, probably on at least
two occasions. Borings B -1, B -2 and B -3, along with the associated test pits TP -1, TP -2 and
TP -3 encountered fairly uniform conditions. The combination of a test pit and a boring at each
location on the lowest bench provided a stratigraphic record over a total vertical distance of about
70 feet, with a corresponding range of from 10 feet above the planned top of retaining wall to
about 35 feet below the planned base of cut.
The test pits encountered less than 1 foot of loose or soft surficial soil with organic matter.
The majority of the soils encountered in the test pits and borings consist of silt, sandy silt and
silt with clay, with occasional layers and lenses of silty sand and sand. Some of the upper 10 feet
of silt underlying the slope exhibits some fractures which might be the result of stress relief
following excavation of the original hillside within the last 30 years. Our observations of the
samples obtained from the explorations indicates that no movement has taken place along these
fractures
The log of boring A drilled in 1964 indicates that the hard and dense glacial consolidated
soils extended up to at least Elevation 150 feet in the hillside. This boring was located in an area
where the hillside was cut to near the present level grade. No borings were apparently drilled
G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 3944 - 002- R01/111094
within the Interstate 5 corridor where it crosses the east -west trending ridge above the hillside;
however, nearby borings indicate that glacial till with a thickness on the order of a few tens of
feet caps the upper portion of the valley wall in the general vicinity of the site, as indicated in
Figure 3.
Ground water was encountered in each of the three hillside borings during drilling and also
measured a few days after drilling in piezometers installed in the borings. Observed and
measured ground water levels ranged from 23 feet to 31 feet below the bench level. These levels
generally correlate with the ground water level observed in the vicinity of the existing nine -story
building.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
We conclude that the site can be satisfactorily developed for the proposed retail buildings,
provided that proper design and construction procedures are used to minimize the potential for
destabilizing the hillside. The proposed buildings can be supported on shallow foundations
bearing either on undisturbed hard or dense native soils, or on compacted structural fill. This
fill can consist of crushed concrete, brick and glass created by demolition of the existing nine-
story building. Some measures to control inflow of ground water into the depression resulting
from demolition as it is being filled may be needed.
Site preparation and earthwork should take place during periods of dry weather because of
the moisture - sensitivity of the on -site soils, particularly if the soils excavated from the toe of the
hillside are to be used as structural fill for the building pads. If these activities take place during
wet weather, it might be necessary to use more imported granular soil instead of on -site soils for
structural fill. Care should be taken during construction of the retaining wall to keep disturbance
of the slope above the wall to a minimum.
A detailed discussion of our recommendations for site preparation and earthwork,
foundation and floor slab support, retaining wall design and construction, slope stability, drainage
and other considerations is presented in the following sections.
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
Demolition of the existing nine -story office building will result in a depression where the
basement is now located. This depression will be filled to establish floor grades for the three -
building complex. In addition, the depressed grade of the existing abandoned rail spur along the
toe of the hillside will be raised. Present plans call for using crushed concrete, glass and brick
from the existing building for portions of this fill. In our opinion, this is a feasible plan. It also
might be desirable to break up the asphalt concrete from areas of pavement to be removed for
use as fill.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
Demolition of the building columns, shear walls and interior walls down to the basement
floor slab level should be accomplished where necessary. Removal of perimeter basement walls
might not be necessary at all locations; however, these should be removed along the alignment
of new wall foundations or where individual column foundations would be located over an
abandoned wall. In other areas, the existing basement walls should be cut down to permit
placement of at least 2 feet of structural fill between the top of the remaining wall section and
the bottom of the new floor slab. The existing basement floor slab should be broken or
perforated by drilling 4- inch - diameter holes on about an 8 -foot grid to prevent water from
ponding on the slab. The existing floor slab, if left in place, will provide a stable working
surface for equipment working within the depression.
We recommend that the demolition debris to be used as structural fill placed 2 feet or more
below footings or floor slabs be crushed to a gradation of between 1 and 3 inches in size. This
material should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness and compacted to a
dense, nonyielding state with a vibratory roller. This zone of debris fill should be capped with
an additional 12- inch -thick layer of debris crushed to 1'44 inch minus to choke the voids in the
underlying larger graded debris. This zone should be placed in two lifts of equal thickness and
compacted as indicated above. The final layer of structural fill should consist of clean pit run
sand and gravel which is placed and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density
determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557.
Ground water will likely be encountered in the depression remaining after demolition. We
recommend that ground water inflow into the depression be controlled during construction by
pumping from a series of sumps placed around the perimeter of the depression.
Existing asphalt concrete pavement can be left in place in new building areas, if its presence
will not interfere with installation of footings and utilities and provided that it will be covered by
at least 2 feet of structural fill and that it is broken into relatively small pieces (less than 1 foot
maximum dimension) as necessary to promote drainage. Otherwise, the existing asphalt can be
recycled for use in the lower portions of structural fill pads, provided that it is broken into pieces
that are less than 4 inches in maximum dimension and that it is mixed with sufficient import or
on -site fill soil so that no open voids are created.
We understand that the segment of 48 -inch storm drain which underlies the western portion
of the three- building complex will either be abandoned in place or removed and crushed in a
manner similar to the existing building. If the line is to be abandoned in place, it should be
completely filled with CDF (controlled density fill, a weak concrete mix). The storm drain
should be removed, however, if any portion of it will underlie foundations for the new building.
The 12 -inch sanitary line should be treated in the same manner as the 48 -inch storm drain.
Any voids or new depressions (other than from the existing building demolition) created
during site preparation should be cleaned of loose soil or debris and backfilled with structural fill.
Depending on the depth of the depression, it might be necessary to dewater the excavation by
pumping from sumps.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
The surficial soils at the site are moisture - sensitive and will be more difficult to work on
or compact during prolonged wet weather. It will be preferable to schedule site preparation and
earthwork during periods of dry weather when these soils will be less susceptible to disturbance
and will provide better support for construction equipment. However, these activities may be
accomplished during the late winter and early spring months provided that appropriate measures
are taken by the contractor.
If construction activities take place during prolonged periods of wet weather, it might be
desirable to leave the existing asphalt pavement intact temporarily to provide a stable working
surface for construction equipment. In areas where soils are exposed by site preparation and
excavation activities, it might be necessary to protect the subgrade from disturbance by providing
a crushed rock or clean sand and gravel working surface.
After demolition, removal of existing pavement and void filling are complete, we
recommend that building and new pavement area subgrades be proofrolled with heavy, rubber -
tired construction equipment if site preparation is done during prolonged dry weather. If this
work is done during wet weather, it will be more prudent to keep all but lightweight construction
equipment off the subgrade and evaluate the exposed subgrade areas by probing. Any soft, loose
or otherwise unsuitable areas detected should be recompacted, if practical, or removed and
replaced with structural fill. We recommend that the probing and proofrolling of subgrade areas
be observed by a representative of our firm to identify areas needing remedial work and to assess
the adequacy of subgrade conditions.
We expect that hard silt and sandy silt will be encountered in the excavation made in front
of the retaining wall. This excavation should be able to be accomplished using conventional
earthmoving equipment. Light ripping plight be required to excavate some of the more hard or
dense deposits. The excavation might encounter seepage zones. The contractor should be
prepared to collect this seepage with a system of swales and drainage ditches around the base of
the excavation so that softening of the exposed subgrade is minimized.
All new fill in building and pavement areas should be placed as compacted structural fill.
Demolition debris and broken asphalt concrete should be processed, placed and compacted in
accordance with the recommendations presented above. All other structural fill should be placed
in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches in loose thickness and mechanically compacted to a
firm, nonyielding condition. All fill placed beneath foundations and floor slabs should be
compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with
ASTM D -1557. Fill placed in pavement areas or in utility trenches within 2 feet of the finished
grade should also be compacted to at least 95 percent. At depths greater than 2 feet below the
finished subgrade, the fill in pavement areas and utility trenches should be compacted to at least
90 percent.
All structural fill soil should be free of organic or made -made contaminants and rock
fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Particle sizes larger than 3 inches should
be excluded from the top 1 foot of fill. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will
depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (soil passing
G e o E n g i n e e r s 10 File No. 3944 - 002- RO1/111094
the No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in
moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. We recommend
that structural fill contain no more than about 5 percent fines for placement in wet weather. The
percent fines can be higher for placement in dry weather, providing that the fill soil is moisture -
conditioned as necessary for proper compaction and that is properly protected from saturation and
subsequent softening during wet weather.
The soil that will be excavated from in front of the retaining wall contains a substantial
percentage of fines and will be highly moisture - sensitive. This soil should be considered for use
as structural fill only if it will be worked during periods of dry weather. Completed fills should
be capped with a layer of clean sand and gravel fill, wherever possible.
We recommend that a representative from our firm observe the placement and compaction
of debris and soil structural fill. An adequate number of in -place density tests should be
accomplished as the fill is being placed to determine if the specified degree of compaction is
being achieved.
The settlements of debris and soil structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with
our recommendations should be minor, probably less than 1/2 inch. Most of this settlement will
occur as the fill is being placed.
The general excavation along the toe of the hillside should not be accomplished until the
shoring is in place. If any temporary cuts of limited extent are planned to be made without
shoring, we recommend that our firm be retained to evaluate the stability and other potential
impacts of this action. Heavy plastic sheeting should be used to protect exposed soils on slopes
from erosion during wet weather. Ditches or swales should be installed along the top of all cut
slopes to intercept runoff and divert it to suitable disposal points.
We recommend that any permanent cut slopes in the existing hillside be made no steeper
than 13/4 H:1 V. The use of rockeries is considered appropriate only for cuts into the hillside
which do not exceed 6 feet in height.
Unprotected cut and fill slopes will be subject to erosion until vegetative cover is well
established. We recommend that all slope surfaces be planted or seeded as soon as possible. If
planting will be delayed after a cut or fill slope is created, we recommend protecting the exposed
soil temporarily with plastic sheeting or straw mulch during wet weather.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
We recommend that footings for the buildings be founded on the hard silt and medium
dense to dense silty sand, or on compacted structural fill. We expect that a variable thickness
of existing fill will be encountered in footing excavations, and that it might be necessary at some
locations, depending on the condition of the existing fill, to excavate to at least 2 feet below
footing grade and place new structural fill.
All spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet and a depth of embedment
below lowest adjacent finished grade of 11/2 feet. Footings designed and installed as
recommended may be proportioned using an allowable bearing value of 4,000 pounds per square
G e o E n g i n e e r s 11 File No. 3944- 002 - 801/111094
foot (psf) for undisturbed native silt or silty sand and 2,500 psf for compacted structural fill,
including existing fill which is determined by field testing to meet the criteria for compacted
structural fill. These values apply to the total of dead plus long -term live loads, exclusive of the
weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. An increase in these values of up to one -third
may be made when considering short-term live loads such as wind or seismic forces.
Settlements of footings supported as recommended are expected to be small. We estimate
that settlement of footings supporting column loads typical of two -story retail buildings will be
on the order of 1/2 to 1 inch. These settlements should occur rapidly as loads are applied.
Differential settlements between equally loaded adjacent column footings supported on debris fill
and compacted structural fill is not expected to be more than about 1/2 inch.
We anticipate that the exposed bearing surfaces in the excavations for footings will become
softened or disturbed if not carefully protected during other construction activities. Therefore,
we recommend that these excavations be made during periods of dry weather and that all footing
excavations be evaluated by a representative of our firm prior to forming footings and slabs or
placing structural steel. If footing excavations are made entirely in the hard or dense native soils,
it might be possible to cut the excavations so that the footings can be poured neat without
forming. If this is attempted, it will be necessary that concrete placement follow excavation
within a few hours.
It is imperative that the footings be founded on undisturbed native soils or compacted
structural fill, as the recommended bearing pressure and settlement estimates are based on this
condition. Any loosened, softened or otherwise disturbed soil present in footing excavations
should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. To prevent deterioration of
footing subgrades in the hard silt and dense silty sand due to construction traffic and precipitation,
we suggest that 2 inches of lean concrete or 4 inches of clean crushed gravel be placed to protect
the bearing surface as soon as it is determined that footing excavations have been properly
prepared.
FLOOR SLABS
We recommend that slab -on -grade floors be supported on a layer of clean, free - draining
sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines relative to the fraction passing the 3/4 -inch
sieve. This free - draining layer should be at least 6 inches thick. We recommend that a vapor
barrier be placed between the slab and the free - draining soil layer to minimize the potential for
condensation within the underside of the slab, particularly if floor coverings that are sensitive to
moisture are used in the buildings. The vapor barrier should be protected by a cover of 2 inches
of clean sand to reduce the potential for damage to the barrier by construction worker foot traffic.
We estimate that the settlement of floor slabs loaded up to 250 psf and designed and
constructed as recommended will be small, probably less than 1/2 inch.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 12 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
SLOPE RETENTION
The existing slope has been cut to an inclination which is judged to be the steepest for
which a reasonable factor of safety against sliding can be achieved. Reconfiguring the slope by
grading it back to provide sufficient access area on the west side of the three- building complex
is feasible from a technical standpoint but unacceptable for reasons of preserving the existing
vegetative cover on the slope. Thus, it will be necessary to construct a retaining structure at the
toe of the hillside with sufficient resistance to replace the mass of soil removed from the toe. In
addition, this wall must be constructed in advance of or concurrently with excavation from the
toe so that the stability of the hillside will be maintained at all times.
As discussed in a subsequent section, the retention structure must extend below the planned
base in order to maintain the factor of safety at a satisfactory level. A cantilever or tieback
soldier pile and lagging wall is considered the most viable option for slope retention. One or
more rows of tieback anchors will probably be required because of the depth of cut to be made
and the backslope of 1.75:1 above the wall. We recommend that at least 2 feet of freeboard be
provided at the top of the wall to provide protection against soil and vegetative debris which
might ravel down the slope.
We recommend that the lateral loads imposed on a soldier pile and lagging system be
determined on the basis of a triangular soil pressure distribution based on an equivalent fluid
pressure of 70 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) for the upper 10 feet of the wall to account for the
presence of fractures in this zone as detected in our explorations. Lateral soil loads below this
upper zone and extending down to the base of the cut should be determined using a uniform
lateral soil pressure equal to 60 H, where H is the distance from the ground surface at the top
of the wall to the base of the excavation. These values take into account the 14H:1V backslope
above the wall, and are based on the requirement that hydrostatic pressure above the base of the
cut is prevented by installation of recommended drainage measures. An equivalent fluid pressure
of 23 pcf should be used for lateral soil loads acting on the embedded portion of the soldier piles.
Passive resistance available on soldier piles extending below the level of excavation can be
determined using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot applied to a width
equal to 2.5 times the diameter of the soldier piles or the spacing between the piles, whichever
is less. This equivalent fluid density value includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
We recommend that the soldier piles be embedded a minimum of 15 feet below the planned
base of excavation for the reasons discussed in the section, "Slope Stability." The vertical
capacity of the soldier piles to resist the downward component of anchor loads and other axial
loads can be evaluated using an allowable end- bearing value of 12 kips per square foot applied
to the base area of the drilled hole into which the soldier pile is concreted. If additional
downward resistance is required, an adhesion value of 800 pounds per square foot can be used.
These values both include a factor of safety of about 2.5. The allowable capacities may be
increased by one -third for short -term loads, such as seismic forces.
GeoEngineers 13 File No. 3944-002-R01/111094
The holes which are drilled for installation of the soldier piles will likely encounter seepage.
Measures might be necessary to prevent sloughing, caving, or "running" of soil into the drilled
hole. The contractor should be prepared to use casing or other techniques, as necessary, to
stabilize the drilled holes.
We estimate that settlements of soldier piles designed and installed as recommended will
be on the order of 1/2 inch or less. Settlements will occur rapidly as loads are applied.
Timber lagging should be installed between the soldier piles as the excavation progresses
downward to limit spalling and loosening of soil in back of the wall and to provide a smooth
surface against which to place drainage material. The permanent facing for the wall (such as
cast -in- place, precast or sprayed concrete) can then be installed against the drainage material.
We recommend that tieback anchors consist of augered and grouted anchors extending far
enough into the hillside so that all load - carrying capability is developed behind a "no- load" zone
which represents the zone of yielding within the hillside to develop active pressures. This "no
load" zone is defined as that area behind the wall for a distance of one - quarter the height of the
wall measured horizontally at its base and then extending upward at an angle of 60 degrees from
the horizontal until this line intersects the ground surface. We recommend that the tieback
anchors be installed no flatter than 15 degrees below the horizontal so that the potential for failure
along the horizontally oriented layers of silt can be minimized.
Tieback anchors should be double- corrosion protected since they will support load on a
permanent basis. They should be designed and installed in general accordance with the criteria
presented in the following documents:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Permanent Ground
Anchors," Report FHWA- DP- 68 -1R, 1984.
2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, "Tiebacks," Report
FHWA /RD- 82/047, 1982.
3. Post- Tensioning Institute, "Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors,"
1980.
Tieback anchors may be sized using a frictional resistance between the grout encasing the
anchors and the surrounding soil of 650 pounds per square foot. A 30 percent increase in
adhesion value can be used when considering seismic loads. We recommend that spacing
between tiebacks be at least 3.5 times the anchor hole diameter to minimize group interaction.
The friction value presented above includes .a factor of safety of about 3 but should be
confirmed by proof testing all anchors to 135 percent of design load. Selected anchors should
be tested to 200 percent of design load to confirm design values. We suggest that at least six
anchors be loaded to this higher level. Anchors that do not meet the test criteria should be
rejected and replaced or modified by the contractor at no expense to the owner.
After completing the performance and proof tests, the anchors should be locked off at 80
percent of the design load or at the load which results in 1 inch of movement of the top of the
soldier pile into the slope, whichever is less.
G e o E n g i n c e r s 14 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
We recommend that a member of our staff observe the installation of the soldier piles and
tieback anchors, as well as monitor, record and evaluate all performance and proof testing of the
anchors.
The lateral soil pressures presented in this report assume that drainage will be provided
through or behind soldier pile walls such that hydrostatic water pressures do not build up against
the walls. Several types of drainage systems can be considered for walls on which the permanent
facing is installed directly against the soldier pile and lagging. For planning purposes, we
anticipate that Alidrain, Miradrain, or an equal system might be used to provide drainage for
permanent soldier pile walls. The drains must be hydraulically connected to an appropriate
collection system at the base of the wall.
SLOPE STABILITY
The overall stability of the hillside following grading in the 1960s was evaluated by Dames
& Moore using strength parameters developed from laboratory testing of samples obtained from
several borings drilled in the hillside. Based on these analyses, Dames & Moore concluded that
the factor of safety for the slope inclined at 13 /a H: IV is 1.25 under static conditions, with the
factor of safety decreasing by 0.1 to 0.2 with a seismic force equivalent to 0.1g. The satisfactory
performance of this slope appears to confirm the assumptions and analyses accomplished by
Dames & Moore.
We evaluated the stability of the existing and modified hillside configuration using the
computer program XSTABL developed by Sunil Sharma of Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
and based on the STABL program developed at Purdue University. This program has the
capability of analyzing slope stability for a wide range of slope and failure surface geometries
with multiple subsurface layers and ground water levels. The slope profile, soil conditions and
ground water level used in our analyses are shown in Figure 3 and also in graphs included along
with computer printouts in Appendix B.
The first step in the analyses was to back - calculate soil strength values which resulted in
a factor of safety of about 1.25 for the existing slope under static conditions. When a horizontal
acceleration of 0.1 g is included, the factor of safety of the slope, using the back - calculated
strength data, decreases to about 1.03. Based on these results and on strength tests accomplished
for the Dames & Moore study and our current study, we selected a friction angle of 37 degrees
and a cohesion of 25 pounds per square foot for our analyses.
The second stage in our analyses was to use these soil parameters to evaluate the effect of
excavation at the toe of the hillside. Analyses were run for a retaining wall with and without
embedment below the depth of cut. Factors of safety for a soldier pile embedment of 15 feet
below the base of the cut are 1.8 for static conditions and about 1.2 for a horizontal acceleration
coefficient of 0.2g. For a wall with little or no embedment (for example, a soil nail wall or a
gravity wall), the factors of safety decrease to 1.26 and 0.95, respectively, for static and dynamic
conditions.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 15 File No. 3944- 002- R01/111094
A buffer between the hillside and the west edge of the three- building complex will not be
required because of the presence of the retaining wall which, if designed and constructed in
accordance with our recommendations, will maintain the stability of the hillside. In addition, the
wall will be designed with at least 2 feet of freeboard to provide protection against ravelling.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
A drainage swale or ditch should be installed just above the retaining wall during and
following construction to intercept and control any surface water flowing down the hillside. The
swale or ditch should be sloped to drain toward both the north and south away from the center
of the wall.
A suitable drainage system should be installed in conjunction with the proposed buildings.
This drainage system should be capable of collecting runoff from the buildings and surrounding
pavement areas and directing it to an appropriate disposal system.
PAVEMENTS
Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as recommended under "Site Preparation and
Earthwork."
We recommend that the design pavement section in automobile parking areas consist of
2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete, 4 inches of crushed rock base course, and an appropriate
thickness of clean pit run sand and gravel. In truck and heavy traffic areas, the design pavement
section should consist of 3 inches of Class B asphalt concrete, 6 inches of crushed rock base
course, and an appropriate thickness of clean pit run sand and gravel.
ATB (asphalt- treated base) can be substituted for the base course to provide a working
surface and staging area for construction. Areas of ATB that experience severe cracking during
construction should be repaired or replaced an the entire surface releveled prior to placing the
asphalt surfacing.
The thickness of pit run required beneath new pavement will depend on the time of year
of construction, the presence of existing asphalt pavement, and the difference between finished
and existing grades. We can provide more specific recommendations for pit run thickness once
finished grades and construction schedules have been determined.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
We expect that trenching for most of the underground utilities on the site will encounter
existing fill or hard and dense native soils. Relatively shallow ground water levels might also
be encountered, depending on the depth of the utility and the time of year for construction. If
utility trench excavations extend below the ground water level, we anticipate that trench boxes
or other means of shoring will be necessary. Depending on the depth of trench, dewatering
might also be necessary.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No. 3944 - 002- R01/I11094
In our opinion, normal bedding requirements should be satisfactory. This will include
surrounding all pipes with a minimum of 6 inches of pea gravel or other granular soil. Utility
backfill should be compacted as recommended in "Site Preparation and Earthwork."
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Roy Bennion and the design team in design
of a portion of the project. The data and report should be provided to your contractor for
estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as
a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or types of facilities
planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report might not be fully
applicable. If such changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and
recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the
design has been finalized, we should also be retained to review the final design drawings and
specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as
intended.
The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety
precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of the
explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included
in the project budget and schedule. We recommend that we be retained to provide sufficient
monitoring, testing and consultation during construction to confirm that the conditions
encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations
for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated,
and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the
contract plans and specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No
other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 17 File No. 3944 - 002- R01/111094
The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. If
there are any questions concerning the report or if we can provide additional services, please
contact us.
EXPIRES /c7— 16~ 96
HRP:JKT:cms
Document ID: 3944002.R
G e o E n g i n e e r s
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
VA-g, Ak.h,
Herbert R. Pschunder, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
18 File No. 3944 - 002 - 801/111094
344 &oz •,ev/ /IRP=7H i //if•
VICINITY MAP
o TO BELLEVUE
SEE
STREET P.ENTON
MAP OF
INSET `°
AREA
TO SEATAC
AIRPORT
TUKWILA
SOUTHCE TER
TO
TACOMA
bc05
OLONG AC
SW. 43RD
Slxttr
PETROV I1SKY Rf✓'-----.,
STREET MAP
SOUTHCENTERR LVD.
...Ill
SOUTH B. AKER
CENTER
STRANDER
BLVD.
PARKWAY
PLAZA(SITEY-
17501 SOUTHCENTER ,
TUKWILA, WA > ��
PARKWAY
S. 180TH STREET
0
GRADY WAY
I NTERSI A1E 405
4
LONGACRES
RACETRACK tAi
ca
W
u
w
w
J
Q
.>
�`'
A. 402 STRANDER BLVD.
44. TUKWI LA, WA.
SW 43 RD STREET
No Scale
0
Reference: Drawing entitled Site Plan, Parkway Place,' by Turner and Associates, Architects, dated 09/15/94.
Geo ,O Engineers
VICINITY MAP AND STREET MAP
FIGURE 1
H4P 591/ / /
EXPLANATION:
B -1*
TP -1*
B -14
1*
*B-4
Proposed
Building A
\� -2
0
A'
\
- Proposed \
Retaining Wall
*19 —>—
--B -5
TEST BORING FOR CURRENT STUDY
TEST PIT FOR CURRENT STUDY
TEST BORING BY OTHERS
TEST PIT BY OTHERS
APPROXIMATE EDGE OF
COMPRESSIBLE ALLUVIAL SOILS
•
4 4 A' CROSS SECTION
18
- -7
B -64
*17 *12
B -1
TP -2
-B -2
Proj
Reti
Proposed Three
Building Complex
(Buildings B, C and D)
-A
Existing Nine
Story Building
1
B -2A
+ B -2
22
*25
Existing
Building
B76 -2
1
-- 6
A411111
-13-4
References: 1. Drawing entitled Site Plan, Parkway Place, Tukwila,"
by Turner and Associates, dated 09 /15/94.
2. Topographic site plan prepared by Chadwick
Surveying & Engineering, dated 10/26/94.
4.10
SOujHG eft PPVVKWPY
Geo �O Engii
0
A'
oh
A\y`yp Mh��°��
t 410 `6 too 5
,-- Proposed \
Retaining Wall
TP-2
B -1
B -2
Pro d
Retaining Wall-
B -3
Proposed Three
Building Complex
(Buildings B, C and D)
-(1)-A
Existing Nine
Story Building
B -2A
-�- B -2
A
22
5 13
-4110
*6
*21
4B -7
127
----� 26
*28
*4
soTea PPOOPI
*24
,s J Property Line
3s
� 1 _
Existing Rail Spur
Right -of -Way
Z—.
100
SCALE IN FEET
Geo O Engineers
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
A
250-
200-
A (Offset 175' South)
Proposed Three
Building Complex
W
J
a
0
a
Approximi
Ground St
Proposed
• Retaining Wall
?—
Hard sandy silt and silt with clay
and interbedded layers of silty sand
Notes: 1. Elevations are based on survey information developed by Chadwick Surveying &
Engineering, using 1929 NGVD datum, and on City of Tukwila Public Works Department
Geologic Hazards Maps.
2. This cross section is a diagrammatic interpretation of subsurface conditions based on
extrapolation of data from widely spaced borings. Actual conditions are substantially more
complex than depicted. GeoEngineers does not represent the conditions illustrated as exact:
?
Very de
gravel
HORIZONTAL
EXPLANATIC
Geo O Engii
•—
1g Wall
a)
J
a)
0
a
Hard sandy silt and silt with clay
and interbedded layers of silty sand
;loped by Chadwick Surveying &
ity of Tukwila Public Works Department
on of subsurface conditions based on
s. Actual conditions are substantially more
represent the conditions illustrated as exact:
z —
Approximate Existing
Ground Surface
Very dense silty sand with
gravel and cobbles (glacial till)
HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 50
EXPLANATION:
BORING
f
N
GROUND WATER ELEVATION
Northbound 1 -5
A'
-250
-200
-150
100
Geo i Engineers
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE
CROSS SECTION A = A':
FIGURE 3
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by conducting a geologic
reconnaissance, drilling 7 borings and excavating 3 test pits. These field activities were
accomplished between November 1 and 4, 1994. The exploration locations are shown in
Figure 2. These locations were determined by taping from existing site features. Figure 2 also
shows the locations of previous explorations accomplished by others in the vicinity of the planned
construction. Ground surface elevations at the exploration locations were determined by
interpolation from contour lines shown on topographic survey plans prepared by Chadwick
Surveying and Engineering. These elevations are based on the 1929 NGVD datum. Exploration
locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods
used.
The borings were drilled on November 3 and 4, 1994 to depths ranging from 9.0 to
49.0 feet below existing grade using a truck - mounted, continuous - flight, hollow stem auger drill.
The locations of borings B -1 through B -3 were chosen to coincide with the locations of test pits
TP -1 through TP -3. A track - mounted excavator was used to prepare an access route to these
three boring locations and also to dig the corresponding test pits.
Representative samples were obtained of each soil type encountered in the borings. These
samples were obtained using a 2.4- inch - diameter, split - barrel sampler. The sampler was driven
into the soil using a 300 -pound hammer free - falling 30 inches. The number of blows required
to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or other indicated distance, is recorded in the boring logs.
The test pits were excavated upslope from the lowest bench on the hillside using the track -
mounted excavator. The excavator boom was able to reach about 20 vertical feet above the
bench level. Test pit depths ranged from 17.3 to 22.0 feet measured relative to the upslope end
of the test pit.
The explorations were continuously monitored by a representative of our firm, who
identified the exploration locations, classified the soils encountered, obtained representative
disturbed and undisturbed samples of the various soil strata, observed seepage and ground water
conditions, maintained a detailed log of each exploration, and assisted in the installation of
piezometers in the borings. Soils were classified in general accordance with the classification
system described in Figure A -1. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Figure A -2.
Logs of the borings are presented in Figures A -3 through A -9. The log of boring A, which
was drilled by others in 1964 before the site was graded to the present configuration, is included
as Figure A -10. Test pit logs are presented in Figures A -11 through A -13. The exploration logs
are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory test data and indicate the various soil
G e o E n g i n e e r s
A - 1 File No. 3944 - 002- R01/111094
types encountered. They also indicate the depths at which these materials or their characteristics
change, although the change might actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples,
it was interpreted.
Observations of ground water conditions were made as the explorations were accomplished.
In addition, piezometers were installed in borings B -1 through B -3 to monitor ground water levels
following drilling. The ground water levels in these piezometers, as measured on November 7,
1994, are presented on the boring logs.
LABORATORY TESTING
All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further examination. Selected samples
were tested to determine their moisture content, dry density, gradation and shear strength
characteristics. The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are presented on the
boring logs and also in Figure A -14. Gradation tests were accomplished on two samples.
Results of the gradation tests are presented in Figure A -15. Strain - controlled direct shear tests
were accomplished on several samples obtained from the borings. Direct shear test results are
summarized in Figure A -16.
G e o E n g i n e e r s
A - 2 File No. 3944. 002 -R01 /111094
M
0
0
krt
00
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
GRAVEL
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Retained
on No. 4 Sieve
CLEAN
GRAVEL
GW
WELL- GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Passes
No. 4 Sieve
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL- GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY- GRADED SAND
SAND
WITH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
SC
CLAYEY SAND
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Passes
No. 200 Sieve
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
50 or More
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
in general accordance with ASTM D2488 -90.
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D2487 -90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is
obtained from below water table
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and /or test data.
-i1
Geo OEngineers
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE A -1
GEI86 -88 R
LABORATORY TESTS:
AL
CP
CS
DS
GS
%F
HA
SK
SM
MD
SP
TX
UC
CA
Atterberg limits
Compaction
Consolidation
Direct shear
Grain -size
Percent fines
Hydrometer analysis
Permeability
Moisture content
Moisture and density
Swelling pressure
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Chemical analysis
BLOW COUNT /SAMPLE DATA:
Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch 1.D.
split - barrel sampler 12 inches or
other indicated distances using a
300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D.
(SPT) split - barrel sampler 12 inches
or other indicated distances using a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches.
"P" indicates sampler pushed with
weight of hammer or against weight
of drill rig.
NOTES:
SOIL GRAPH:
SM Soil Group Symbol
(See Note 2)
Distinct Contact Between
Soil Strata
Gradual or Approximate
Location of Change
Between Soil Strata
Water Level
Bottom of Boring
22 ■ Location of relatively
undisturbed sample
12 ® Location of disturbed sample
17 ❑ Location of sampling attempt
with no recovery
10 0 Location of sample obtained
in general accordance with
Standard Penetration Test
(ASTM D 1586) procedures
26 m Location of SPT sampling
attempt with no recovery
Location of grab sample
1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the
exploration Togs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.
2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A -1.
Geo �O Engineers
KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS
FIGURE A -2
O
O
a
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Testa ( %) (pct) Count Samples Symbol
BORING B -1
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (ft.): 54.6
5
10
15
LL uw
-
c 20
25
30
35
40
MD 24 95
DS, 38 82
MD
MD 26 95
MD, 26 98
GS
MD 25 101
MD 27 97
35
20
31
40
39
66
66
ML
ML
Gray silt with occasional fine sand (hard, moist)
Orange and gray sandy silt (hard, moist)
ML Light grayish brown sandy silt with a trace of clay (hard, moist)
MUSM Brown sandy silt with intcrbeds of silty fine sand (hard /dense,
moist)
ML
ML
ML
ML
Orange and brown sandy silt (hard, moist)
Brownish gray sandy silt (hard, wct)
Dark brown silt (hard, moist)
Orange and brown silt with a trace of fine sand (hard, moist)
SP -SM Gray fine sand with silt (very dense, moist)
J
Notc: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -3
:SDS :HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944- 002 -R01
DEPTH IN FEET
40
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol
BORING B -1
(Continued)
DESCRIPTION
MD 31 91
45—
SM 16
•50—
44
50/5"
ML Brown sandy silt (hard, wet
ML/SM Gray silt with occasional fine sand and interbedded layers of
silty fine sand (hard /dense, wet)
SP Gray fine to medium sand (very dense, wet)
40
— 45
Boring completed at 49.0 feet on 11/03/94
Ground water seepage encountered at 28.0 and 40.0 feet during — 50
drilling
Piezomcter installed at 49.0 fcet
Ground water level measured at 31.1 feet on 11/07/94
55 55
60^ —60
65— —65
70— —70
75 —
80 —
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
— 75
80
Geo ,O Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -3
:SDS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944- 002 -R01
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests (%) (pep Count Samples Symhol
0
BORING B -2
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (R.): 57.6
5—
10
15
25
30
35
40
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -4
SP
Gray fine sand with a trace of silt (dense, moist)
Dark brown silt with organic matter (very stiff, moist) -
Light greenish gray silt with a trace of fine sand and occasional _
ML
ML
MD
29
94
51
I1
fractures (hard, moist)
DS,
34
89
83
1
MD
MD
27
96
50/5"
■
:
SM
Gray silty fine to medium sand (very dense, moist) _
50/5*
ML
Gray sandy silt (hard, moist)
-
50/4"
11
:
•
SM /ML
interbedded layers of gray silty fine sand and sandy silt (very
dense/ hard, moist)
DS,
- MD
42
77
50/4"
OL
Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
Gray silt with clay (hard, moist to wet)
ML
_
ML
Gray sandy silt (hard, moist to wet)
MD
24
102
50/4'
■
50/3'
■
5—
10
15
25
30
35
40
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -4
:SOS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944- 002 -R01
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests ( %) (pcf) Count Samples Skmbol
40
50/3"
45-1
72
50 —
55—
BORING B -2
(Continued)
DESCRIPTION
40
— 45
Boring completed at 49.0 feet on 1 1/04/94
Ground water seepage encountered at 28.0 and 38.0 feet during — 50
drilling
Piczometer installed at 48.0 feet
Ground water level measured at 29.6 feet on 11/07/94
^55
— 60
65— --65
70— —70
75— —75
80— —80,
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
gm.
Geo [,,,Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -4
.
:SDS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944 - 002 -R01
0
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol
BORING B -3
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (It.): 52.3
10—
15
w
w
u_
Z
x
o 20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 --40
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -5
1 1 (
OL
SP -SM
Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
Gray fine sand with silt (very dense, moist) =
DS,
MD
24
96
50/5"
1
ML
OL
Orange and brown sandy silt (hard, moist)
Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
ML
Gray silt with clay (hard, moist)
MD
33
89
67
A
SM
Brown and gray silty fine sand (very dense, moist)
SM/ML
Interbedded gray and brown silty fine sand and sandy silt (very
MD
23
97
61
dense /hard, moist) -
�,*:----
ML
Greenish gray silt with clay (hard, moist)
58
■
MD
27
97
98/8"
ML
Gray sandy silt (hard, wet)
MD
29
95
99/8*
r
81/8"
■
OL
Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
ML
Gray sandy silt (hard, moist)
71/7"
■
10—
15
w
w
u_
Z
x
o 20
25
30
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40 --40
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -5
:SDS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944. 002 -R01
40
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests ( %) (pcf) Count Samples S7mbo1
MD 22 105
45 —
50—
55—
-4
65 —
73
32
BORING B -3
(Continued)
DESCRIPTION
CL Greenish gray sandy clay (hard, moist to wet)
SM
Brown silty fine sand with occasional medium sand (dense, wet)
Boring completed at 49.0 feet on 11/04/94
Ground water seepage encountered at 27.5 and 34.0 feet during
drilling
Piczometer installed at 49.0 feet
Ground water level measured at 23.0 feet on 11/07/94
40
— 45
50
—55
— 60
— 65
70— -70
75— —75
80— —80
Note: Sec Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo ° Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -5
DS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944 - 002 -RO1
•
TEST DATA BORING B -4
Lab Tests
0
5—
10—
15—
w
w
N
o.
w
0 20—
25 —
30 —
35—
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
(%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol
SM 29
MD 26
98
69
74 1
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (IL): 31.7
0 c ASPHALT
GP
ML
Asphalt concrete pavement 1.5 inches thick
Brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to medium sand (medium
dense, moist) (fill)
Greenish gray silt with clay and a trace of fine sand (medium
stiff, moist)
ML Gray silt with fine sand (hard, moist)
:::M: SP -SM
Reddish brown line to medium sand with silt (very dense,
moist)
Boring completed at 9.0 feet on 11/03/94
No ground water encountered during drilling
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40— t_ 40
Note: Sec Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo %O Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -6
:SDS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944- 002 -R01
DEPTH fN FEET
TEST DATA
Moisture
Content
Lab Tests ( %)
0—
5—
10—
15—
20 —
25 —
30 —
35—
40 —
MD 30
MD 40
Density Blow Group
(pct) Count Samples Symbol
BORING B -5
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (ft.): 30.2
92 11
76 57
64
■
1
0
ASPHALT
GP -GM
ML
ML
OL
ML
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Asphalt concrete pavement 2.5 inches thick
Brown fine to coarse gravel with silt and fine to medium sand
(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown sandy silt with occasional organic matter (stiff, moist)
Gray silt with occasional fine sand (hard, moist)
Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
Gray silt with occasional fine sand (hard, moist)
Boring completed at 9.0 feet on 11/03/94
No ground water encountered during drilling
Geo '•` Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -7
:SDS :HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944 - 002 -A01
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Teets ( %) (pct) Count Samples S mbol
0
5—
10—
25 —
30—
35—
40 —
MD 15 122
21
8
9
21
31
BORING B -6
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (ft.): 30.9
ASPHALT
GP -GM
SM
GM
Asphalt concrete pavement 2 inches thick
Brown fine to coarse gravel with silt and fine to coarse sand
(medium dense, moist) (fill)
Brown silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, moist) (fill)
Gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (medium dense, moist
to wet) (fill ?)
SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense,
wct)
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Boring completed at 19.0 feet on 11/04/94
Ground water seepage encountered at 4.5 feet during drilling
Geo ,,,, Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -8
:SDS:HRP:CMS 11/9/94
3944. 002 -R01
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests ( %) (pet) Count Samples S� mbol
MD 9 131
10—
38
15
52
BORING B -7
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (ft.): 33.1
o ASPHALT Asphalt concrete pavement 2 inches thick
o GP -GM Brown fine to coarse gravel with silt and sand (medium dense,
SM moist) (fill)
Brown and gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium
dense to dense, moist)
Grades with less gravel
ML Greenish gray silt with fine sand (hard, moist)
SP -SM Light gray fine to medium sand with silt (very dense, moist)
—0
—5
Boring completed at 9.0 feet on 11/04/94
No ground water encountered during drilling —10
15— —15
w
w
w
U.
x
w
20—
25—
30—
— 20
— 25
—30
35— —35
40— --40
Note: See Figure A -2 for explanation of symbols
Geo !Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE A -9
fp 0
5
tip 10
15
(7,0 20
25
12.1) 30
!ro
DEPTH 114 FEET
35
40
45
/6y 50
55
9m 60
65
75
BORING A
SLRFACL EL I VAT I01. ISO! (ESTIMATCU)
N0 LEO N A
WITH GRAVEL (FIRM)
(GM)
MOTTLED BROW AND GRAY SILT 11IR14)
(ML)
BROWN AND GRAY SILTY LOAM (FIRM)
(14 -sM)
BROWNISH GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND
(COMPACT)
(ST)
CONTAINS GRAVEL
BROW ISH GRAY SANDY LOAM WITH GRAVEL,
COBBLES AND BOULDERS (VERY F1RM)
( GLACIAL TILL)
(GM)
MOTTLED BROWN AND GRAY SILT WITH OCCAS-
IONAL GRAVEL (FIRM)
(ML)
BROMI FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL
AND COBBLES (COMPACT
(GW)
BLUISH GRAY SANDY LOAM WITH GRAVEL
(VERY CM,PACT) (GLACIAL TILL)
(GM)
GRADES BROWN A40 GRAY IN COLOR
9R01N FINE SANDY LOAM WITH LAYERS OF
SILT (VERY FIRM)
(L-`4)
%DTI :
PRELI'INARY WATER LE1.EL OBSERVED
A-28-6A AT A DEP7h OF 123 FEET BELOW
GR0. \D S.al ACE.
75
1b 80
by
85
BLUISH GRAY SILT (VERY FIRM)
(PL) •
BROWN FINE SANG (V(. Y CONTACT)
(ST)
90 .
95
51) 100
DEPTH 1M FEET
105
110
115
'.0 120
125
IA 130
135
10 140
145
GRAY SILTY CLAY (VERY FIRM)
(ML)
NLUISYi GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (VERY
COMPACT)
(SP)
GROUNDWATER SELPAGE
GRAY SILT WITH LAYERS OF SILTY CLAY (VEP'I
FIRM
(ML)
GRAY SILT WITH LAYERS AND LENSES G FINE
SAND (VERY FIRM)
(AIL)
O 150
BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE SAMPLER ONE FOOT
WEIGHT . 200 LBS., STROKE - 24 INCHES
■ INDICATES DEPTH AT WhICH UNDISTURBED
SAMPLE WAS EXTRACTED
LOG OF BORINGS
ZONE OF GROUND WATER SEEPAGE
GRAY SILTY LOAM (VERY FIk1)
(ML -SM)
BORING CASLU 10 A DLPIH Of 13° FELT
EDAM MIS IS MOOTS
APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -1
Appmximate surface elevation: 73.5 feet
0.0 - 0.5 ML Dark brown silt with organic matter and forest duff (medium stiff, moist)
0.5 - 1.2 CL Brown and orange clay with occasional fine sand and fractures (hard, moist)
1.2 - 2.5 SP Brown fine sand with a trace of silt (dense, moist)
2.5 - 4.3 ML Brown and orange silt with occasional fine sand and fractures (hard, moist)
4.3 - 6.5 SM Light brownish gray silty fine sand (dense, moist)
6.5 - 9.0 ML Gray silt with a trace of clay and occasional fine sand (hard, moist)
9.0 - 12.5 ML Brown and orange silt with occasional fine sand and fractures (hard, moist)
12.5 - 14.0 SM /ML Orange and gray silty fine sand and sandy silt (dense /hard, moist)
14.0 - 16.0 ML Brown sandy silt with a trace of clay (hard, moist)
16.0 - 19.0 ML Orange and gray silt with occasional fine sand and fractures (hard, moist)
Test pit completed at 19.0 feet on 11/03/94
No ground water seepage observed during time test pit was open
Thin wall sample obtained at 4.5 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.0, 2.0 and 14.5 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo pe Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A -11
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -2
Approximate surface elevation: 79.5 feet
0.0 - 0.5 OL Dark brown organic silt and forest duff (soft, moist)
0.5 - 3.5 ML Orange and grayish brown silt with occasional fine sand seams and fractures (hard,
moist)
3.5 - 5.0 SM Light grayish brown silty fine sand (dense, moist)
5.0 - 6.5 ML Gray silt with occasional fractures (hard, moist)
6.5 - 9.5 ML Orange and brown silt with clay and fractures (hard, moist)
9.5 - 14.5 ML Gray and brown silt with occasional fine sand seams (hard, moist)
14.5 - 16.0 ML Orange and brown silt with clay (hard, moist)
16.0 - 20.0 SP -SM Light brown fine sand with silt (dense, moist)
20.0 - 20.5 ML Gray silt with occasional fine sand (hard, moist)
20.5 - 22.0 SP Gray fine sand (dense, moist)
Test pit completed at 22.0 feet on 11/03/94
No ground water seepage encountered during time test pit was open
Thin wall sample obtained at 4.0 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.5, 17.0 and 21.0 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo l,O Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A -12
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -3
Approximate ground surface elevation: 69.5 feet
0.0 - 0.3 ML Dark brown sandy silty with organic matter (soft, moist)
0.0 - 1.0 SM Orange and brown silty fine sand with occasional roots (medium dense, moist)
1.0 - 3.3 SM Orange and brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel and fractures (dense, moist)
3.3 - 5.0 ML Gray silt with a trace of fine sand (hard, moist)
5.0 - 7.0 ML Orange and brown silt with clay and fine sand (hard, moist)
7.0 - 11.0 SM /ML Interbedded layers of brown silty fine sand and gray silt with fine sand (very
dense /hard, moist)
11.0 - 11.5 OL Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
11.5 - 14.0 ML Greenish brown silt with clay and occasional organic matter and fine sand (hard,
moist)
14.0 - 15.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (very dense, moist)
15.5 - 16.0 ML Greenish brown silt with clay (hard, moist)
16.0 - 16.8 SM Gray silty fine sand (very dense, moist)
16.8 - 17.3 OL Dark brown organic silt (hard, moist)
Test pit completed at 17.3 feet on 11/04/94
No ground water seepage observed during time test pit was open
Thin wall sample obtained at 4.3 feet
Disturbed soil sample obtained at 2.7 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo O Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A -13
TEST PIT MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
Test
Pit
Number
Depth of
Sample
(feet)
Soil
Classification
Moisture
Content
( %)
TP -1
1.0
ML
32
TP -1
4.5
SM
8
TP -1
14.5
ML
32
TP -2
2.5
ML
31
TP -2
4.0
SM
4
TP -3
4.3
ML
29
Geo ,,�_, Engineers
MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
FIGURE A -14.
c7
N —
eo —
I I I
1 ' 1
1HJ13M AB JNISSVd 1■30Fi3d
I '
0
0
0
0
r
w
2
z
SILT OR CLAY
z
W
2
w
to
cc
0
J
w
2
w
z
w
N
cc
0
U
N
0
U
SOIL DESCRIPTION
Silty fine sand with occasional gravel (SM)
Ir SAMPLE
DEPTH (FEET)
Mc
M°
r
EXPLORATION
NUMBER
J
•
,
1,/
Geo Engineers
GRADATION CURVES
FIGURE A -15
GEI 85 -85 Rev. 05/93
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
Yield
Strength*
(lsf
�g
NM
g$
c4 it;
§§
MN
§§
c
Confining
Pressure
(Psi)
§§
N 4
§§
N d'
§§
cf kO
§§
(-4',d-- ,d-
Dry
Density
(Pcf)
00
00
N
VD
Moisture
Content
( %)
M
M
•:1-
N
Sample
Description
Sample
Depth
(feet) - -
O
00
O
00
0
o�
N
O
M
Boring
Number
---i
N
N
M
*Samples sheared at a strain rate of 0.04 inches /minute.
Geo •Engineers
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
FIGURE A -16
h
N
N
11 -07 -94
z
INITIAL CONDITIONS
3944 - 002 —R01
CO
u)
N
11
rn
0
L
rZ
0
E5'
z
10 most critical surfaces,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11) Co N 00
M
(leeJ) SIXd —Ji
0
-
0
O)
0
Ln
m
4-
o
M
X
X
0
N
N
0
o
XSTABL File: SMS -IN3 11 -07 -94 12:57
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
X S T A B L
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 a 94
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
* *
* Ver. 5.005 94 a 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
*
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 INITIAL CONDITIONS
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .0 135.0 200.0 135.0
2 200.0 135.0 237.0 160.9
3 237.0 160.9 250.0 170.0
4 250.0 170.0 428.0 240.0
5 428.0 240.0 468.0 245.0
6 468.0 245.0 510.0 275.0
7 510.0 275.0 700.0 300.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 115.0 115.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure
Intercept Angle Parameter Constant
(psf) (deg) Ru (psf)
25.0 37.00 .000 .0
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No.
1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Water
Surface
No.
1
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 127.00
2 200.00 127.00 ,
3 700.00 215.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 196.0 ft
and x = 205.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 240.0 ft
and x = 280.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * *
5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
5 218.23 143.19
6 222.56 145.69
7 226.78 148.36
8 230.89 151.20
9 234.89 154.21
10 238.76 157.38
11 242.50 160.70
12 246.10 164.17
13 249.55 167.78
14 252.32 170.91
* * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.256 * * **
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 INITIAL CONDITIONS
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb)
1. 1.256 158.75 251.22 123.32 200.00 252.32 1.928E +06
2. 1.268 175.86 221.77 90.07 200.00 249.06 1.491E +06
3. 1.270 140.49 285.76 161.53 202.00 255.20 2.303E +06
4. 1.280 180.17 216.75 82.86 203.00 247.19 1.095E +06
5. 1.288 103.48 338.58 225.30 200.00 255.22 2.798E +06
6. 1.296 178.71 211.94 79.05 202.00 241.66 8.025E +05
7. 1.297 124.37 315.00 194.05 205.00 255.85 2.239E +06
8. 1.301 137.79 308.15 183.67 201.00 265.38 4.644E +06
9. 1.303 160.38 273.65 142.32 205.00 263.10 3.223E +06
10. 1.306 164.13 231.93 103.05 201.00 241.89 8.854E +05
* * * END OF FILE * * *
11 -07 -94
0)
O
t
F--
Z
3944 - 002 -R01
O
- N
N
O
- M
(0
c0 o
M
O
r`
N
0
_ O
_ O
0)
O O 0 0
(0 'tna' M N v-
(e) SIXd —A
0)
(t)
1G.
X
XSTABL File:
SMS -IN4 11 -07 -94 17:13
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
*
*
*
*
*
X S T A B L
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
* Copyright (C) 1992 5 94
* Interactive Software Designs,
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
*
*
All Rights Reserved
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Ver. 5.005 94 A 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -R01 INITIAL
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
Ah =0.ig
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .0 135.0 200.0 135.0
2 200.0 135.0 237.0 160.9
3 237.0 160.9 250.0 170.0
4 250.0 170.0 428.0 240.0
5 428.0 240.0 468.0 245.0
6 468.0 245.0 510.0 275.0
7 510.0 275.0 700.0 300.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil
Unit
No.
Unit Weight
Moist Sat.
(pcf) (pcf)
1 115.0
Cohesion
Intercept
(psf)
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Friction Pore Pressure
Angle Parameter Constant
(deg) Ru (psf)
115.0 25.0 37.00 .000 .0
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Water
Surface
No.
1
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 127.00
2 200.00 127.00
3 700.00 215.00
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .100 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .000 has been assigned
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 123.32 feet
Center at x = 158.75 ; y = 251.22 ; Seg. Length = 5.00 feet
The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by
the following 14 coordinate points :
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 200.00 135.00
2 204.68 136.77
3 209.28 138.72
4 213.80 140.86
5 218.23 143.19
6 222.56 145.69
7 226.78 148.36
8 230.89 151.20
9 234.89 154.21
10 238.76 157.37
11 242.50 160.69
12 246.10 164.16
13 249.56 167.78
14 252.32 170.91
******************** * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Bishop
******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Slice x -base y -base height width alpha beta 'weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 202.34 135.88 .75 4.68 20.70 34.99 405.
2 206.98 137.75 2.14 4.60 23.03 34.99 1132.
3 211.54 139.79 3.28 4.52 25.35 34.99 1706.
4 216.01 142.03 4.18 4.43 27.67 34.99 2130.
5 220.39 144.44 4.84 4.33 30.00 34.99 2409.
6 224.67 147.02 5.25 4.23 32.32 34.99 2549.
7 228.84 149.78 5.41 4.11 34.64 34.99 2558.
8 232.89 152.70 5.32 4.00 36.96 34.99 2444.
9 235.94 155.07 5.09 2.11 39.29 34.99 1235.
10 237.88 156.65 4.86 1.76 39.29 34.99 984.
11 240.63 159.03 4.41 3.74 41.61 34.99 1894.
12 244.30 162.43 3.58 3.60 43.93 34.99 1482.
13 247.83 165.97 2.51 3.46 46.26 34.99 998.
14 249.78 168.03 1.82 .44 48.58 34.99 93.
15 251.16 169.60 .86 2.32 48.58 21.47 230.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c -value phi U -base U -top Q -top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 60.7 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 180.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 272.1 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 338.9 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 381.8 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 402.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 402.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 383.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 354.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 337.9 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 294.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 228.2 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 149.5 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 99.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 39.2 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Simplified BISHOP factor of safety = 1.034
Resisting Moment = 181.57E +04 ft -lb
WARNING - This method is valid only if the
failure surface approximates a circle
n
0
ri
11 -07 -94
U)
Z
SOLDIER PILE WALL
3944 - 002 —R01
most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS =
0
O O O 0
to co 00
M N
(4a9J) SIXd_)
O
- M
c0
O
-
Ln
0
O
C)
O
XSTABL File: SMS -IN5 11 -07 -94
17:07
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
X S T A B L
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 6 94
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Ver. 5.005 94 6 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 SOLDIER PILE WALL
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .0 135.0 236.9 135.0
2 236.9 135.0 237.0 160.9
3 237.0 160.9 250.0 170.0
4 250.0 170.0 428.0 240.0
5 428.0 240.0 468.0 245.0
6 468.0 245.0 510.0 275.0
7 510.0 275.0 700.0 300.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 115.0 115.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure
Intercept Angle Parameter Constant
(psf) (deg) Ru (psf)
25.0 37.00 .000 .0
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No.
1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Water
Surface
No.
1
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 127.00
2 200.00 127.00
3 700.00 215.00
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments:
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 236.9 120.0 236.9 135.0
2 236.9 135.0 237.0 160.9
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 150.0 ft
and x = 200.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 280.0 ft
and x = 350.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * *
8.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -R01 SOLDIER PILE WALL
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.801
1.805
1.806
1.810
1.810
1.814
1.818
1.818
1.825
1.825
224.24 228.33 109.66 166.67 330.55 3.867E +07
228.78 205.02 86.63 177.78 314.80 2.627E +07
222.02 242.59 123.63 161.11 339.83 4.723E +07
224.11 205.35 87.42 172.22 310.69 2.528E +07
223.60 189.45 71.17 177.78 294.72 1.654E +07
234.19 230.90 111.26 177.78 342.69 4.448E +07
223.96 244.43 126.20 161.11 344.47 5.160E +07
233.93 206.40 87.51 183.33 320.97 2.852E +07
235.38 232.52 113.26 177.78 345.82 4.726E +07
230.88 226.98 109.09 172.22 337.55 4.292E +07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
11 -07 -94
cD
z
3944 - 002 -R01
V)
CD
0
W_
CL
J
1 1 1
1
1
1
0990 my-A
1
31
13i
O
a)
4-
O
tip V)
—
Q
X
O
N
N
0
— co
0
O)
O
G)
O
XSTABL File: SMS -IN6 11 -07 -94
17:11
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* X S T A B L
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 $ 94
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
* Ver. 5.005 94 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -R01 S.P. Wall Ah =0.2g
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left
No. (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.0
236.9
237.0
250.0
428.0
468.0
510.0
135.0
135.0
160.9
170.0
240.0
245.0
275.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 115.0 115.0
x -right y -right Soil Unit
(ft) (ft)
236.9 135.0
237.0 160.9
250.0 170.0
428.0 240.0
468.0 245.0
510.0 275.0
700.0 300.0
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure
Intercept Angle Parameter Constant
(psf) (deg) Ru (psf)
25.0 37.00 .000 .0
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Water
Surface
No.
1
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Slice x -base y -base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 170.15 133.03 1.97 6.96 -29.58 .00 1579.
2 177.24 129.34 5.66 7.23 -25.40 .00 4707.
3 181.65 127.31 7.69 1.60 -21.22 .00 1413.
4 185.38 125.86 9.14 5.86 -21.22 .00 6157.
5 192.14 123.55 11.45 7.65 -17.04 .00 10069.
6 197.98 121.92 13.08 4.04 -12.85 .00 6076.
7 201.88 121.03 13.97 3.76 -12.85 .00 6040.
8 207.71 120.00 15.00 7.91 -8.67 .00 13643.
9 215.66 119.08 15.92 7.98 -4.49 .00 14599.
10 223.64 118.75 16.25 8.00 -.31 .00 14953.
11 231.63 119.00 16.00 7.98 3.87 .00 14691.
12 236.26 119.36 15.64 1.27 8.05 .00 2293.
13 236.95 119.45 28.50 .10 8.05 89.78 328.
14 240.27 119.92 43.27 6.55 8.05 34.99 32576.
15 246.77 121.08 46.66 6.45 12.23 34.99 34625.
16 250.68 121.93 48.34 1.37 12.23 21.47 7588.
17 255.20 123.21 48.84 7.67 16.41 21.47 43098.
18 262.78 125.75 49.28 7.49 20.59 21.47 42441.
19 270.16 128.83 49.10 7.26 24.77 21.47 41013.
20 277.29 132.44 48.29 7.00 28.95 21.47 38873.
21 284.14 136.57 46.86 6.70 33.14 21.47 36101.
22 290.60 141.12 44.84 6.22 37.32 21.47 32072.
23 293.78 143.55 43.67 .14 37.32 21.47 720.
24 296.85 146.25 42.17 5.99 41.50 21.47 29059.
25 302.64 151.76 38.94 5.59 45.68 21.47 25028.
26 308.01 157.68 35.13 5.16 49.86 21.47 20835.
27 312.94 163.98 30.77 4.70 54.04 21.47 16625.
28 317.40 170.62 25.89 4.21 58.22 21.47 12542.
29 321.36 177.56 20.50 3.71 62.40 21.47 8737.
30 324.80 184.78 14.64 3.18 66.58 21.47 5352.
31 327.71 192.23 8.33 2.64 70.76 21.47 2526.
32 329.79 198.84 2.54 1.53 74.94 21.47 445.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c -value phi U -base U -top Q -top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (lb)
1 366.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 932.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 1171.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 1296.4 25.0 37.00 446. 0. 0. .00
5 1363.8 25.0 37.00 1721. 0. 0. .00
6 1385.7 25.0 37.00 1313. 0. 0. .00
7 1429.9 25.0 37.00 1471. 0. 0. .00
8 1348.5 25.0 37.00 4047. 0. 0. .00
9 1246.2 25.0 37.00 5168. 0. 0. .00
10 1121.6 25.0 37.00 6011. 0. 0. .00
11 977.2 25.0 37.00 6572. 0. 0. .00
12 871.7 25.0 37.00 1093. 0. 0. .00
13 2230.5 25.0 37.00 86. 0. 0. .00
14 3787.2 25.0 37.00 5669. 0. 0. .00
15 3976.2 25.0 37.00 5654. 0. 0. .00
16 4155.2 25.0 37.00 1183. 0. 0. .00
17 4059.4 25.0 37.00 6539. 0. 0. .00
18 3994.5 25.0 37.00 5957. 0. 0. .00
19 3897.2 25.0 37.00 5093. 0. 0. .00
20 3769.2 25.0 37.00 3951. 0. 0. .00
21 3612.2 25.0 37.00 2539. 0. 0. .00
22 3428.4 25.0 37.00 863. 0. 0. .00
23 3411.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
24 3132.3 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
25 2737.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
26 2325.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
27 1902.5 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
28 1479.5 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
29 1066.8 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
30 677.2 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
31 326.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
32 65.9 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Simplified BISHOP factor of safety = 1.229
Resisting Moment = 361.26E +05 ft -lb
WARNING - This method is valid only if the
failure surface approximates a circle
11-07-94
3944 - 002 -R01 WALL WITHOUT EMBEDMENT
(D
11
0
0
0
z
N
V
v
4-
L.
N
D
U
L
U
.1L�^
O
E
0
1
O O O O
Lc) co
M
(199J) SIXV-A
O
XSTABL File: SMS -IN7 11 -07 -94 17:48
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* X S T A B L *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.005 94 a 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 WALL WITHOUT EMBEDMENT
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
x -left y -left
(ft) (ft)
.0
236.9
237.0
250.0
428.0
468.0
510.0
135.0
135.0
160.9
170.0
240.0
245.0
275.0
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
1 115.0 115.0
x -right
(ft)
y -right
(ft)
236.9 135.0
237.0 160.9
250.0 170.0
428.0 240.0
468.0 245.0
510.0 275.0
700.0 300.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure
Intercept Angle Parameter Constant
(psf) (deg) Ru (psf)
25.0 37.00 .000 .0
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Water
Surface
No.
1
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 127.00
2 200.00 127.00
3 700.00 215.00
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments:
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 236.9 135.0 237.0 160.9
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 190.0 ft
and x = 230.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 260.0 ft
and x = 300.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
* * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL * * * * *
6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * *
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 17 coordinate points
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 207.78 135.00
2 213.63 133.69
3 219.60 133.02
4 225.60 132.99
5 231.56 133.61
6 237.43 134.86
7 243.13 136.73
8 248.60 139.20
9 253.77 142.25
10 258.58 145.83
11 262.98 149.91
12 266.92 154.43
13 270.36 159.35
14 273.24 164.62
15 275.54 170.16
16 277.24 175.91
17 278.18 181.08
* * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.256 * * **
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 WALL WITHOUT EMBEDMENT
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb)
1. 1.256 222.86 188.81 55.88 207.78 278.18 4.565E +06
2. 1.332 223.21 199.24 66.07 207.78 287.61 6.775E +06
3. 1.351 222.89 204.15 70.78 207.78 291.35 7.740E +06
4. 1.358 213.50 209.84 78.45 190.00 287.83 7.977E +06
5. 1.364 229.88 185.95 51.70 221.11 281.34 4.870E +06
6. 1.364 230.16 184.48 50.30 221.11 280.32 4.668E +06
7. 1.370 225.71 190.35 58.18 207.78 283.43 6.045E +06
8. 1.374 214.46 202.86 72.13 190.00 283.85 7.166E +06
9. 1.377 220.77 196.75 65.51 198.89 284.92 6.976E +06
10. 1.384 221.53 208.68 75.90 203.33 294.34 9.014E +06
* * * END OF FILE * * *
11 -07 -94
to
N
39
(1)
O
- N
3 N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
O O O O
�d M N co
tV �"
(199J) SIX\ -)
XSTABL File: SMS -IN8 11 -07 -94 17:50
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
* X S T A B L
*
* Slope Stability Analysis
* using the
* Method of Slices
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 94
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
*
* All Rights Reserved
*
* Ver. 5.005 94 1237 *
*********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Problem Description : 3944 - 002 -RO1 WALL W/O EMBED Ah =0.2g
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
7 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 135.0 236.9 135.0 1
2 236.9 135.0 237.0 160.9 1
3 237.0 160.9 250.0 170.0 1
4 250.0 170.0 428.0 240.0 1
5 428.0 240.0 468.0 245.0 1
6 468.0 245.0 510.0 275.0 1
7 510.0 275.0 700.0 300.0 1
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 115.0 115.0 25.0 37.00 .000 .0 1
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
PHREATIC SURFACE,
*** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Point x -water y -water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 127.00
2 200.00 127.00
3 700.00 215.00
A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient
of .200 has been assigned
A vertical earthquake loading coefficient
of .000 has been assigned
BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UPPER limiting boundary of 1 segments:
Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 236.9 135.0 237.0 160.9
A SINGLE FAILURE SURFACE HAS BEEN SPECIFIED FOR ANALYSIS
Trial failure surface is CIRCULAR, with a radius of 55.88 feet
Center at x = 222.86 ; y = 188.81 ; Seg. Length = 6.00 feet
The CIRCULAR failure surface was estimated by
the following 17 coordinate points :
Point x -surf y -surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 207.78 135.00
2 213.64 133.69
3 219.60 133.02
4 225.60 132.99
5 231.57 133.61
6 237.43 134.86
7 243.13 136.73
8 248.60 139.21
9 253.77 142.25
10 258.58 145.84
11 262.98 149.91
12 266.92 154.44
13 270.35 159.36
14 273.24 164.62
15 275.54 170.16
16 277.24 175.92
17 278.17 181.08
******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SELECTED METHOD OF ANALYSIS: Simplified Bishop
******************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL SLICE INFORMATION
********* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Slice x -base y -base height width alpha beta weight
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (lb)
1 210.71 134.35 .65 5.86 -12.58 .00 440.
2 216.62 133.36 1.64 5.96 -6.42 .00 1126.
3 222.60 133.01 1.99 6.00 -.27 .00 1374.
4 228.58 133.30 1.70 5.97 5.89 .00 1166.
5 234.23 134.18 .82 5.33 12.04 .00 504.
6 236.95 134.76 13.19 .10 12.04 89.78 152.
7 237.22 134.81 26.24 .43 12.04 34.99 1310.
8 240.28 135.80 27.40 5.70 18.19 34.99 17962.
9 245.87 137.97 29.14 5.47 24.35 34.99 18316.
10 249.30 139.62 29.89 1.40 30.50 34.99 4810.
11 251.89 141.14 29.60 3.77 30.50 21.47 12833.
12 256.18 144.04 28.38 4.81 36.66 21.47 15711.
13 260.78 147.87 26.37 4.40 42.81 21.47 13346.
14 264.95 152.18 23.70 3.94 48.97 21.47 10737.
15 268.64 156.90 20.43 3.43 55.12 21.47 8060.
16 271.80 161.99 16.58 2.88 61.28 21.47 5497.
17 274.39 167.39 12.20 2.30 67.43 21.47 3230.
18 276.39 173.04 7.34 1.70 73.59 21.47 1430.
19 277.70 178.50 2.40 .93 79.74 21.47 257.
SLICE INFORMATION ... continued :
Slice Sigma c -value phi U -base U -top Q -top Delta
(psf) (psf) (lb) (lb) (ib)
1 98.3 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
2 210.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
3 230.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
4 178.1 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
5 76.1 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
6 1293.3 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
7 2576.9 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
8 2494.0 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
9 2458.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
10 2334.1 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
11 2311.2 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
12 2042.2 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
13 1735.7 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
14 1412.1 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
15 1082.8 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
16 760.6 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
17 461.4 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
18 204.7 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
19 24.3 25.0 37.00 0. 0. 0. .00
For the single specified surface,
Simplified BISHOP factor of safety = .953
Resisting Moment = 417.31E +04 ft -lb
WARNING - This method is valid only if the
failure surface approximates a circle
CASTELLO LAND CO INC
4730 32ND AVE S.
SEATTLE, WA 98118
LEVITZ FURNITURE CORP
212 HIGH ST
POTTSTOWN, PA 19464
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
HAROLD R IVERSON
1252 GREEN LANE
BURLINGTON, WA 98233
MIKAMI MASAO
PO BOX 256
DUBLIN, OH 43017
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
LEVITZ FURNITURE CORP
212 HIGH ST
POTTSTOWN, PA 19464
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PACIFIC NORTHWEST GROUP A
3131 S. VAUGHN WY STE 204
AURORA, CO 80014
PARKWAY PROPERTIES INC
720 3RD AVE SUITE 1700
SEATTLE, WA 98104
i^— s —"I P.-- Y
s
"CVs 1 1994
DEVELOPMENT
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.
PHASE II - LIMITED SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Tukwila, Washington
November 12, 1993
Prepared for.
Mr. John Hatfield
Vice President
Lennar Partners
Nations Bank Plaza, Suite 3500
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 LOCATION
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCUS
3.2 ZONING
3.3 UTILmES
3.4.1 Water
3.4.2 Heat
3.4.3 Sewer
3.4 STORAGE TANKS
FIGURE 2 SITE SCHEMATIC
3.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
4.0 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
4.1 REGIONAL LAND USE
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
4.3 GEOLOGY
4.4 HYDROLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
1
2
3
4
5
8
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 9
5.1 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.1.1 Soil Borings
5.1.2 Soil Characterization
5.1.3 Soil Screening •
5.1.4 Analytical Results: Soil
5.2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
5.2.1 Monitoring Well Locations
5.2.2 Monitoring Well Construction •
5.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.3.1 Groundwater Flow
5.3.2 Groundwater Sampling •
5.3.3 Analytical Results: Groundwater
FIGURE 3 GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS 15
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
7.0 LIMITATIONS
16
18
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Conti
ATTACHMENT A- LIMITATIONS
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A- ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT, ARTHUR D.
LITTLE, INC., APRIL 29, 1993
B -LETTER REPORT, HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS,
OCTOBER 29, 1993
C- BORING LOGS
D- ANALYTICAL RESULTS
E -HNu PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR SPECIFICATIONS
AND SCREENING PROCEDURES
F- MONITORING WELL REQUIREMENTS
G- GROUNDWATER FLOW CALCULATIONS
H- SAMPLING PROCEDURES
ENVIROBUSI•ESS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTAW S
701 CONCORD AVENUE
CAMBRIDGE, MA 02138
(617) 868 - 4321
FACSIMILE (617) 868 - 3132
Mr. John Hatfield
Vice President
Lennar Partners
NationsBank Plaza, Suite 3500
600 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
R.E. LW Real Estate.Investments, L.P.
Dear Mr. Hatfield:
November 12, 1993
In accordance with the Proposal for additional work dated October 13, 1993
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. ( ENVIROBUSINESS) is pleased to submit our Phase 11 - Limited
Subsurface Investigation (Investigation) on a property located at 17501 South Center
Parkway, Tukwila, Washington (the Site). This Investigation was performed in
accordance with the Washington Administrative Code (Chapters 173 -200 and 173 -340).
The purpose of the Investigation was to further investigate the findings of the
Environmental Baseline Assessment (Assessment) prepared by Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) on
April 29, 1993 (see Appendix A) and a visual inspection of the Site interior performed by Herrera
Environmental Consultants (Herrera) on October 21, 1993 (see Appendix B). The performed
scope of work of the Investigation is based on findings from the Assessment prepared by ADL,
the inspection by Herrera and existing conditions at the Site.
The conclusions of this Investigation are based on work performed by ENVIROBUSINESS
including: field screening of subsurface soils obtained from four soil borings drilled at the Site on
October 22 and October 23, 1993 and laboratory analysis of soils and groundwater from the
monitoring well installations. Conclusions in this Investigation are based in part on information
from the Assessment prepared by ADL and the inspection by Herrera.
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin R. O'Malley
Senior Consultant
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project 093 -1765
17501 Southcatter Parkway, Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Phase II- Limited Subsurface Investigation (Investigation) was to
determine the condition of the groundwater and soils and establish baseline conditions at the Site.
The subsurface investigation included the following.
• Four soil borings were drilled, with subsequent installation of a groundwater
monitoring well in each of these borings (see Appendix C).
• Soil samples were field screened with an HNu Photoionization Detector (PID) to
detect the presence of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in soils encountered
during the soil borings.
• Selected soil samples in which VOCs were detected above 5 parts per million (ppm)
above background during the field screening process were submitted to a state
certified laboratory, and tested for the presence of VOCs. No screened soil samples
exceeded this limit and no samples were submitted for VOC analysis.
• One soil sample per boring was submitted to a state certified laboratory for Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) analysis by the infrared (IR) method, and for analysis
for 13 priority pollutant metals (PPM -13).
• Monitoring well headspace was screened for volatile organic compounds using the
PID.
• Groundwater samples from monitoring wells were submitted for laboratory analyses
to detect the presence of VOCs using EPA Method 624, TPH by the IR method and
for PPM -13.
• Groundwater flow direction and hydraulic head gradient were calculated from
groundwater elevations measured in the four wells and a topographic survey
referenced to an arbitrary datum.
2
•
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project 093 -1765
17501 Southcenter Parkway. Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
2.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Field data and laboratory analysis of groundwater samples collected by ENVIROBUSINESS
from the four monitoring wells installed at the Site and soil samples collected from their
respective borings, indicated the following:
• No evidence of a release of Oil or Hazardous Materials (OHM) was detected or
observed at the Site. However metals were detected in both soil and groundwater
samples.
• Field screening of soil samples did not detect organic vapors in excess of background
levels of 0.5 -1.0 parts per million (ppm). No soil samples were sent for VOC analysis.
No TPH were detected above detection limits in laboratory analysis of soil samples
submitted.
• Concentrations of metals in soils were all below soil cleanup levels except for
cadmium. Cadmium concentrations exceeded the cleanup levels for soil (cadmium
cleanup level based on plant protection) but were below the industrial soil cleanup level
(based on protection of groundwater) in all samples submitted. Cadmium was below
detection limits in all groundwater samples (see Section 5.1.4 of this Investigation). .
• No VOCs or TPH were detected in any of the groundwater samples submitted for.
analysis. Copper, Lead, Zinc, Antimony, and Mercury were detected in groundwater
samples submitted for analysis. Lead was detected at a concentration of 0.010
milligrams per litre (mg/L) in the groundwater sample obtained from monitoring well
EB -1. This concentration exceeds the State of Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) Groundwater Cleanup Level of 0.005 mg/L, but was below the DOE Water
Quality Standard for Groundwater of 0.050 mg/L (see Section 5.3.3 of this
Investigation). The complete Toxikon report is included .as Appendix D.
• Groundwater was calculated to be flowing across towards the northeast to east -
northeast on a bearing of 038° to 066° relative to magnetic north. It is likely that the
hydraulic head gradient in the area northwest of the building is affected by a dewatering
well located in that area. The hydraulic head gradient for the rest of the Site area was
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project 093 -1765
17501 Southcaner Parkway, Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
calculated at 0.0657 (units are dimensionless). This equates to a head drop of one foot
every 15.2 feet.
• The Site is improved with a nine -story office building and associated parking lots. The
Site is located in a commercial area within the City of Tukwila, WA.
• Empty 55- gallon drums reported by ADL in April, 1993 were not observed at the Site.
A 55- gallon drum containing propylene glycol and water was observed in a chemical
storage container located behind the building. Other chemicals included algaecides and
descalers and cardboard boxes labeled as containing MEK. No stains were observed.
A storage container located adjacent to the Satellite Dish Enclosure contained some
electrical supplies.
3.0 4ITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 LOCATION
According to the Des Moines, WA Quadrangle, U.S.G.S. Topographic Map, the Site is
located at 47 °26'45" north latitude, 122 °15'40" west longitude. The Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) coordinates are 5,254,762 niN and 555,710 mE.
The Site consists of six acres of land, approximately 10% of which is occupied by the
Parkway Plaza building. The Parkway Plaza building until recently operated as an office
building for Boeing and was used as a project center for classified goverment work. The
building is currently vacant. The Site is located at 17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila, WA
(see Figure 1, Site Locus, which depicts the Site on a portion of the U.S.G.S: Des Moines, WA
Quadrangle 7.5 minute series Topographic Map). Access to the Site is from the west side of
Southcenter Parkway between Strander Boulevard and 180th Street. The Site is abutted by an
abandoned railroad spur, woodland and Interstate 5 to the west, Winners restaurant to the north,
Azteca restaurant and Levitz furniture to the south and Southcenter Parkway to the east. Parkway
4
i
rTLE 11TACOMA
•
IATIONAL AIRPORT
GEO
SITE LOCATION
ll�
2
A portion of the Des Moines, WA
U.S.GS. Quadrangle SCALE: 1:24,000 I
1/2
1 Mile
1
Figure 1
Site Locus
17501 Southcentral Parkway
Tukwila, WA
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.
(617) 868-4321
N
t
5
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project 093 -1765
17501 Soothe-enter Parkway, Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
Plaza shopping mall is located on the . opposite side of Southcenter Parkway. Figure 2, Site
schematic is a computer generated plan of the Site and the immediate vicinity.
3.2 ZONING
According to ADL the site is zoned as M -1, light industrial, within the Tukwila City
Limits and the building is designated as a Type B -2 building (business, office etc.). Seismically
the Site is located in a Zone 3 area, designated as stable. The Site is not located in.the 100 -year
floodplain.
3.3 UTILITIES •
3.3.1 Water
According to the ADL Assessment water is supplied by the City of Tukwila.
3.3.2 Heat
According to the Herrera report, space hearing and cooling is via a hydronic heat
pump system. Electronic units located on the roof of the building heat or chill water which is
then circulated throughout the building.
3.3.3 Sewer
According to the ADL Assessment, waste water enters the City of Tukwila sewer
system and is treated at the Metro Treatment plant.
•
3.4 STORAGE TANKS
The ADL Assessment indicated that according to the building plan, a small day tank was
located in the generator room on the roof of the building. However, Herrera observed a 140 -
gallon day tank in a mechanical room in the basement, located on the western side of the
building. Fill and vent pipes for this tank were observed adjacent to the loading dock.
1
1
1
1
1
1
Chemical/
Storage
Container/
1
1
Dumpsterl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
Railway Line Easement
Former
Drum Storage
Area Dewatering
well
Parking
Lot
EB -3
Loading
Dock
Area
Site
Building
Satellite Dish
Enclosure
Storage Container
4EB -2
Parking
Lot
+EB-4
Winners
Restaurant
Parking
Lot
Entrance Driveway
Parking
Lot
Azteca
Restaurant
Legend
Well Location
• • Fill and Vent Pipe
Southcenter Parkway
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 2
Site Schematic
17501 Southcentral Parkway
Tukwila, WA
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.
(617) 868 -4321
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project 093 -1765
17501 Soudtcattet Parkway. Tukwila, WA
November 12. 1993
3.5 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
An Environmental Baseline Assessment, dated April 29, 1993 was performed by ADL
and a follow up Letter Report, dated October 29 was performed by Herrera. Both of these
reports are contained in Appendices of this Investigation. Herrera noted that the photograph and
medical laboratories referred to by ADL were not at the Site. They also listed hazardous
chemicals at the Site, these included propylene glycol, algaecides and other descalers. They also
noted a sealed cardboard box with a shipping label identifying its contents as MEK. These
chemicals were all stored in the chemical storage container located on the west side of the
building. The chemicals were still at the Site on October 22, 1993. The empty 55 -gallon drums
reported by ADL were not observed at the Site during this Investigation.
4.0 REGIONAL DESCRIPTION
4.1 REGIONAL LAND USE
The Site is located on the western margin of a valley containing the Green
River/Duwamish River. According to the ADL report, the valley was formerly farmland until its
development in the 1970's for warehouse use. In the 1980's the area was developed as a retail
center with the construction of the shopping mall.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY
• The Site is located at the western boundary of the Green/Duwamish River valley at an
elevation of approximately 25 feet above mean sea level. The topography of the Site is
essentially flat sloping gradually towards the east. A steep hill rises abruptly on the western edge
of the Site to an elevation of 482 feet (as indicated by a U.S.G.S. benchmark) located
approximately one mile west of the Site. The highest point of elevation in the area is an unnamed
hill, located approximately 11/4 mile northwest of the Site, with an elevation of approximately
510 feet above mean sea level (see Figure 1, Site Locus).
8
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project 893 -1765
17501 Southcetter Parkway, Tukwila. WA
November 12, 1993
4.3 GEOLOGY
According to the U.S.G.S. Geological Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle (GQ -159),
dated 1962, the Site is underlain by alluvium. Rock outcrops comprised of laminated clay and
siltstone were observed at the base of the hillside abutting the Site to the west. Alluvium
underlies the valley floor with Kame terrace deposits composed of Glacio-fluvial sand and gravel
forming the hill slope west of the Site.
4.4 HYDROLOGY/HYDROGEOLOGY
The Site is located in the Green River / Duwamish River drainage basin, with the Green
River located approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the Site. The Green River flows north and its
confluence with the Duwamish River is approximately two miles northeast of the Site. The
Duwamish River discharges into Puget Sound (an inlet of the Pacific Ocean) approximately ten
miles north of the Site. Sensitive receptors in the area include the Green River and its associated
tributaries. Groundwater flow direction at the Site is discussed in Section 5.3.1 of this
Investigation.
5.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
5.1 SOIL SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
5.1.1 Soil Borings
A total of four soil borings (EB -1, EB -2, EB -3 and EB -4) were installed on October
22 and 23, 1993, using hollow stem augers to average depths of approximately five feet
below the observed water table. Standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the test
borings at five foot intervals or as shown on the test boring logs. Soil samples were collected
from split -spoon samplers, which were driven approximately one and a half feet into
undisturbed soils by a 140 -pound drop hammer in accordance with the standard method
ASTM D- 1586 -84. Soil boring logs are presented in Appendix C, Boring Logs. Monitoring
wells were installed in all of the borings at the locations shown in Figure 2.
9
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project #93 -1765
17501 Southcenter Parkway. Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
5.1.2 Soil Characterization
Subsurface soils were characterized and their description entered in the boring logs
(see Appendix C).
EB-1
EB -1, located on the west side of the building in the vicinity of the former hazardous
materials storage area, was drilled to a depth of twenty feet. EB -1 was spudded through
asphalt and encountered approximately four feet of coarse brown gravelly sand with pebbles
and some clay. This was followed to a depth of eight feet by dark grey -brown coarse, poorly
sorted sand with clay. From eight to 10'6" moist blue -green medium to coarse sand with
much clay was encountered. From 10'6" to 21'6" grey, clay silt was encountered. This unit
varied from tight, silty clay to sandy silt and was moist throughout the drilled horizons.
Monitoring well EB -1 was installed in this boring and screened from five to 20 feet.
2
EB -2 was spudded through asphalt and was located south of the building near the satellite
dish. EB -2 encountered approximately. three feet of dry "fill" of coarse grey poorly sorted
sand with clay and gravel/pebbles. This was followed from three to 16'6" of moist to wet,
grey, poorly sorted, coarse angular sand with clay and some gravel. Monitoring well EB -2
was installed in this boring and screened from five to 15 feet.
EB -3 was located in the parking lot in front of the northeast side of the building. EB -3
was spudded through asphalt and encountered yellow grey, clay silt with some lithic
fragments, to a depth of eight feet. This was followed from eight to 21'6" by coarse brown -
grey, angular, poorly sorted sand with lithic fragments. Monitoring well E13-3 was installed
in this boring and screened from 10 to 20 feet.
EB-4
EB -4 was located in the parking lot in front of the southeast side of the building. EB -4
was spudded through asphalt and encountered gravelly fill to a depth of approximately four
feet. This was followed from four to six feet by silty sand and from six to 11 feet by grey,
silty clay. From 11 to 19'6" feet, medium coarse, angular, poorly sorted sand with clay was
10
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project 993 -1765
17501 Southcauar Parkway, Tukwila. WA
November 12. 1993
encountered Monitoring well EB-4 was installed in this boring and screened from 9'6" to
19'6" feet. .
5.1.3 Soil Screening
During soil boring activities, split spoon soil samples were collected and screened with
an NNu photoionization detector (PID) for the presence of VOCs. (See Appendix E for a
complete description of the PID field screening of soils and for PID readings of screened
soil samples). Background PID readings of 0.5 -1.0 were detected at the site. The soil
samples were screened upon extraction from the split spoon sampler and a second time
after ten to fifteen minutes to give any VOCs a chance to volatilize. No screened soils
exhibited PID readings in excess of 5 ppm above background and therefore no soil samples
were submitted for further analysis.
5.1.4 Analytical Results: Soil
Based on the field screening of soils, no samples were submitted for VOC analysis. One
sample per boring was sent to a laboratory for TPH analysis by infrared spectroscopy (EPA
method 9073). One soil sample per boring was submitted for PPM -13 analysis (EPA method
3005). A complete report of these analyses can be found in Appendix D of this Investigation.
Based on the analytical report prepared by Toxikon, TPH was below detection limits in
all soil samples. Analytical results of all soil samples are summarized in Table 1.
Cadmium exceeds the Method A Cleanup Levels for soil of 2.0 mg/JA but are within
the Industrial Soil Levels of 10.0 mg/kg. It must be noted that the Industrial Soil Cleanup
Levels are based on protection of groundwater and the Soil Cleanup Levels based on plant
protection. The Site is a commercial lot and completely paved except for some landscaped
areas adjacent to the building.
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project N93 -1765
17501 Southcenter Parkway. Tukwila, WA
November 12. 1993
Table 1 • Analytical Results: Soils
(Results in mg/kg - parts per million (ppm))
Analyte
Detection Limit
Soil/Industrial
Soil- Method A
Cleanup Levels
Soil Boring Identification
EB -1
EB -2
EB -3
EB-4
TPH
40.0
200.0/200.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
Metals
•
Silver
1.3
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
0.66
2.0/10.0
2.79'
2.11'
2.42'
8.33'
Chromium
0.66
100.0/500.0
37.8
33.6
37.1
68.9
Copper
0.66
26.6
18.0
18.2
37.8
Nickel
2.6
39.1
37.9
43.2
70.0
Lead
1.0
250.0/1000.0
5.0
2.75
2.85
4.98
Zinc
0.39
40.0
38.6
40.6
102
Arsenic
1.50
20/200.0
6.30
4.22.
3.75
5.39
Selenium
0.5
3.22
4.41
3.41
2.96
Beryllium
0.26
•
ND
ND
ND
1.10
Antimony
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Thallium
0.5
ND
ND
ND
ND
Mercury
• 0.324
_ (inorg) 1.0/1.0
ND _
ND
ND
ND
Note: ND = Not Detected. Bold indicates concentrations in excess of cleanup levels. `Denotes
concentrations in excess of clean up levels based on plant protection, but below cleanup levels based on
groundwater protection.
5.2 MONITORING WELL INSTALLATION
5.2.1 Monitoring Well Locations
All four soil borings were completed as monitoring wells. Monitoring well EB -1 is
located in the parking lot outside the west side of the building and. approximately 35 feet
topographically downgradient (northeast) from the former chemical storage area located
A
behind the building. A water well used to dewater the building foundation, is located 65 feet
northeast of EB -1. Monitoring well EB -2 is located south of the building and approximately
40 feet east of the satellite dish enclosure. EB -3 is located in the parking lot in front of the
northeast corner of the building. EB -4 is located in the parking lot in front of the southeast
corner of the building.
12
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project 493-1765
17501 Southcettter Parkway. Tukwila. WA
November 12, 1993
5.2.2 Monitoring Well Construction
Permanent monitoring wells were installed in borings EB -1, EB -2, EB -3 and EB -4 in
order to obtain groundwater samples for laboratory analysis and to determine groundwater
head elevations. The wells penetrated approximately five feet below the saturated zones or
the water table where encountered. The wells consist of 10.0 to 15.0 feet of 2.0 inch
diameter, 0.10 inch slotted schedule 40 PVC threaded pipe (screen) and 5.0 to 10.0 feet of
2.0 inch diameter, schedule 40 PVC riser pipe. The wells were fully screened across the
water table (saturated zones). Silica sand was placed around the slotted screen section of the
wellpoint to a level approximately 3.0 foot above the screen to act as a filter pack. A 2.0 foot
bentonite clay seal was placed above the sand to act as a seal to prevent surface runoff from
entering the well. The well was backfilled with bentonite pellets to a depth of approximately
two feet below grade. A two inch expansion plug was put in the riser to seal the well and a
non - locking monument well cover box was installed flush to the ground surface to cap the
well. The monument well cover was secured with concrete. Monitoring wells were
developed prior to sampling using a surge block (a full bailer) to eliminate bridged sand and
remove fines, such as clay particles, from the sand filter pack.
All monitoring wells were tagged with a State of Washington Department of Ecology
"Unique Well" identification plate which was secured around the riser inside the Monument
well cover. EB -1 was designated Unique Well# ABB -128, EB -2 was designated Unique
Well# ABB -129, EB -3 was designated Unique Well# ABB -130 and EB-4 was designated
Unique Well# ABB -131. The State of Washington Department of Ecology monitoring well
requirements are included in Appendix E, Monitoring Well Requirements.
5.3 GROUNDWATER SAbIPLING AND ANALYSIS
•
5.3.1 Groundwater Flow
Monitoring wells EB -1, EB -2, EB -3 and EB-4 were sampled on October 25, 1993. The
depth of the groundwater at the Site was determined using an electronic depth gauge. The
relative ground surface elevations were established during a Site survey referenced to an
arbitrary datum of 100 feet and subsequent groundwater elevations were calculated using this
data. The groundwater elevation of EB -1 was determined to be 86.66 feet, EB -2 was
determined to be 89.92 feet, EB -3 was determined to be 83.76 feet, and EB -4 was
13
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project *934765
17501 Southceztter Parkway, Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
determined to be 83.90 feet. Due to its proximity to the dewatering well it is believed that the
groundwater elevation measured at EB -1 was artificially low. Groundwater flow calculated
from all wells indicated that flow was to the northeast to east - northeast. Depending on which
well elevations were used for flow calculations the direction of flow varied from 038° to 066°
relative to magnetic north. Head gradient also varied from 0.0177 (units are dimensionless)
equating to one foot head drop every 56.5 feet to 0.0657 (one foot head drop every 15.2
feet). Ignoring the elevation in EB -1 due to its proximity to the dewatering well, the
headgradient across the eastern part of the Site appears to be 0.0657 on a bearing of 066 °.
Groundwater flow calculations are presented in Figure 3, Groundwater Elevations and
Appendix G of this Investigation.
5.3.2 Groundwater Sampling
Groundwater samples were obtained from the four monitoring wells according to
Sampling Procedures outlined in Appendix H. The well headspace was measured using the
PID as soon as the well was first uncapped. Monitoring wells were purged a minimum of
three well volumes with a dedicated disposable bailer to ensure a representative groundwater
sample. All groundwater samples were placed in laboratory prepared containers and stored at
approximately 4 °C pending State certified• analyses by Toxikon for TPH using the IR method
(EPA Method 418.1), VOCs (EPA Method 624) and priority pollutant metals (EPA method
3005, 200.7 and 245.1 Mercury). TPH samples were preserved with sulphuric acid
(H2SO4), VOC samples were preserved with hydrochloric acid (HC1) and metals were
filtered and acidified upon receipt by the laboratory.
5.3.3 Analytical Results: Groundwater
Based on the analytical report prepared by Toxikon, No VOCs were detected in the four
groundwater samples submitted. TPH was below detection limits in all samples submitted
for analysis. Laboratory analyses of groundwater samples, well headspace readings from the
PID, the State of Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Standards for
Groundwaters (Chapter 173 -200 WAC) and the Groundwater Method A Cleanup Levels
(Chapter 173 -340 WAC) are summarized in Table 2. A complete report of these analyses
can be found in Appendix D of this Investigation.
14
1
1
Chemical1
Storage
Container
. 1
1
Dumpsterl
1
Railway Line Easement
Former
Drum Storage
Area Dewatering
well
EB -1
EL 86.60'
Parking
Lot
EB -3
winners
Restaurant
Parking
Lot
83.76'
Loading
Dock •
Site
Building
a
o�.
a'�C44.4ei6C. Entrance Driveway
4to
Q
Satellite Dish
Enclosure
Storage Container
EB -2
EL 83.92'
Parking
Lot
�EB-4
EL 83.90'
Parking
Lot
Azteca
Restaurant
Lend
4' Well Location
• Fa and Vent Pipe
Southcenter Parkway
Figure 3
Groundwater
Elevation
NOT TO SCALE
17501 Southcentral Parkway
Tukwila, WA
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.
(617) 868 -4321
15
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project #93 -1765
17501 Southcaua Parkway, Tukwila, WA
November 12, 1993
Table 2 - Analytical Results: Groundwater
Analyte .
Concentration
•
Detection
Limit ,
Groundwater quality
criteria /Method A
cleanup levels
Soil Boring Identification
EB-1
(ABB -128)
EB-2
(ABB -129)
EB -3
(ABB -130)
EB-4
(ABB -131)
PID -Well
ppm
0.1
,
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Ikactspace
TPH
mg/L (ppm)
1.0
NS /1.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
VOCs
Metals
µg/L (ppb)
mg/L (ppm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
Silver
0.020
0.05/NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cadmium
•
0.010
0.01/0.005
ND
ND
ND
ND
Chromium
0.010
0.05 /0.050
ND
ND
ND
ND
Copper
0.010
1.0/NS
ND
ND
0.013
0.010
Nickel
0.040
NS/NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead
0.050
0.05 /0.005
0.010
ND
ND
ND
Zinc
0.0060
5.0/NS
ND
0.010
ND
0.025
Arsenic
0.10
0.00005 /0.005
ND
ND
ND
ND
Selenium
0.25
0.01/NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
Beryllium .
0.0040
NS/NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
Antimony
0.15
NS/NS
ND
ND
ND
0.009
Thallium
0.30
NS/NS
ND
ND
ND
ND
Mercury
0.0005
0.002/0.002
0.001
ND
0.001
0.001
Note: ND = Not Detected Bold indicates concentrations in excess of cleanup levels.
From Table 2 it can be seen that of the analytes detected, lead, detected in EB -1, was
above the Method A cleanup level but below the groundwater quality criteria.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the information assembled for the Phase 1I - Limited Subsurface Investigation,
ENVIROBUSINESS discovered no evidence of a release of OHM at the Site.
Concentrations of metals in soils were all below soil cleanup levels except for cadmium
Cadmium concentrations exceeded the cleanup levels for soil (cadmium cleanup level based on
plant protection) but were below the industrial soil cleanup level (based on protection of
groundwater) in all samples submitted. Cadmium was below detection limits in all groundwater
samples.
16
ENVIROBUSINESS. INC. Project 093 -1765
' 17501 Southceuter Parkway, Tukwila. WA
November 12, 1993
No VOCs or TPH were detected in any of the groundwater samples submitted for
analysis. Copper, Lead, Zinc, Antimony, and Mercury were detected in groundwater samples
submitted for analysis. Lead was detected at a concentration of 0.010 mg/L in the groundwater
sample obtained from monitoring well EB -1. This concentration exceeds the State of
Washington Department of Ecology Groundwater Cleanup Level of 0.005 mg/L, but was below
the Water Quality Standard for Groundwater of 0.050 mg/L
Monitoring well EB -1 was located approximately 65 feet from a dewatering well. It is
possible that groundwater elevations in EB -1 are artificially low due to drawdown effects of the
dewatering well. Groundwater flow calculated from all wells indicated that flow was to the
northeast to east - northeast. Depending on which well elevations were used for flow calculations
the direction of flow varied from 038° to 066° relative to magnetic north. Head gradient also
varied from 0.0177 (one foot head drop every 56.5 feet) to 0.0657 (one foot head drop every
15.2 feet). Ignoring the elevation in EB -1 due to its proximity to the dewatering well, the
headgradient across the eastem part of the Site appears to be 0.0657 on a bearing of 066 °.
The contaminants detected at the Site all occur naturally and do not appear to be as a result
of current or past releases and/or land use practices at the Site. The Site is in an industrial area
(zoned as light industrial) and completely paved except for some landscaped areas. Soil
contamination is below the Industrial Soil Cleanup Guidelines and it is likely that metal
concentrations are within background ranges.
Antimony standards were not listed, however the EPA Phase V maximum contaminant
level for public water supplies for antimony is 0.006 mg/L. There are no private drinking water
wells at the Site and water is provided by the city of Tukwila. It is unlikely therefore, that
groundwater at the Site would be used for drinking in the future.
The conclusions of this Investigation are based on the laboratory results of the soil and
groundwater samples and site data obtained on October 22, 23 and 25, 1993 and information
provided in the ADL and Herrera reports dated April 29, 1992 and October 29, 1993
respectively.
17
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. Project 193 -1765
17501 Southcenter Parkway, Tukwila. WA
November 12, 1993
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The observations in this Phase II - Limited Subsurface Investigation are valid on the date
of the investigation and are made under the conditions noted in the Investigation, our Proposal
for additional work dated October 13, 1993 and our Agreement for Environmental Services,
dated October 8, 1993, all of which are integral parts of this Investigation. •
This Investigation has been prepared by the staff of ENVIROBUSINESS for Mr. John
Hatfield of Lennar Partners in accordance with accepted geotechnical practices using that degree
of skill and care exercised for similar projects under similar conditions by competent
environmental consultants. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
It has been a pleasure to perform this Investigation. Please feel free to call George
Naslas, Lawrence Boise or John Roddy if there are any questions or if we may be of further
assistance.
Sincerely,
ENVIROBUSINESS, INC.
George D. Naslas
Project Manager
ATTACHMENT A
LIMITATIONS
1. The observations described in this Report were made under the conditions stated herein. The conclusions
presented are based solely upon the services described, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the
scope of described services or the time and budgetary constraints imposed by Client. The work described in
this Report was carried out in accordance with terms and conditions in our Authorization Letter and Agreement
for Environmental Services regarding the Site, which are incorporated herein by references.
2. In preparing this Report, ENVIROBUSINESS, INC. ( ENVIROBUSINESS) has relied on certain
information provided by state and other referenced parties, and on information contained in the files of federal,
state and/or local agencies available to ENVIROBUSINESS at the time of the assessment. Although there
may have been some degree of overlap in the information provided by these various sources,
ENVIROBUSINESS did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of all information
reviewed or received daring the course of these Environmental Services.
3. Observations were made of the Site and of structures on the Site as indicated within the Report. Where access
to portions of the Site or to structures on the Site was unavailable or limited, ENVIROBUSINESS renders
no opinion as to the presence of oil or hazardous materials (OHM) in that portion of the Site or structure. In
addition, ENVIROBUSINESS renders no opinion as to the presence of OHM or the presence of indirect
evidence relating to OHM where direct observation of the interior walls, floor, or ceiling of a structure on a
Site was obstructed by objects or coverings on or over these surfaces. No representations concerning
insulating material is expressed or implied.
4. ENVIROBUSINESS did not perform testing or analyses to determine the presence or concentration of
asbestos, radon, or lead at the Site unless specifically stated otherwise in the Report. Similarly, no
investigation of dust or air quality was conducted unless specifically stated otherwise in the Report.
5. The purpose of this Ripon is to assess the physical characteristics of the Site with respect to the presence of
OHM in the environment. No specific attempt was made to determine the compliance of present or past
owners or operators of the Site with federal, state, or local laws or regulations (environmental or otherwise).
6. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based in part, where noted, upon the data
obtained from a limited number of soil or water samples obtained from widely - spaced subsurface explorations.
The nature and extent of variations between these explorations may not become evident until further
exploration. If variations or other latent conditions then appear evident, it will be necessary to reevaluate the
conclusions and recommendations of this Report.
7. Any water level readings made in test pits, borings, and/or observation/monitoring wells were made at the
times and under the conditions stated in the Report. However, it must be noted that fluctuations in the level
of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall and other factors different from those prevailing at the
time measurements were made.
8. Except as noted in the Report, no quantitative laboratory testing was performed as part of the assessment.
Where such analyses have been conducted by an outside laboratory, ENVIROBUSINESS has relied upon the
data provided, and has not conducted an independent evaluation of the reliability of this data
9. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report are based in part (where noted) upon various
types of chemical data and are contingent upon their validity. This data has been reviewed and interpretations
made in the RepB1t. As indicated in the Report, some of this data may be preliminary "screening" level data,
and should be confirmed with quantitative analyses if more specific information is necessary. Moreover, it
should be noted that variations in the types and concentrations of contaminants and variations in their flow
paths may occur due to seasonal water table fluctuations, past disposal practices, the passage of time, and
other factors. Should additional chemical data become available in the future, these data should be reviewed,
and the conclusions and recommendations presented herein modified accordingly.
10. Chemical analyses may have been performed for specific constituents during the course of these
Environmental Services, as described in the Report. However, it should be noted that additional chemical
constituents not searched for during the current study may be present in soil and/or groundwater at the Site.
11. Any qualitative or quantitative information regarding the Site, which was not available to
ENVIROBUSINESS at the time of this assessment may result in a modification of the representations made
herein.
12. It is acknowledged that ENVIROBUSINESS' judgements shall not be based on scientific or technical test or
procedures beyond the scope of the Services or beyond the time and budgetary constraints imposed by Client.
It is acknowledged further that ENVIROBUSINESS' conclusions shall not rest on pure science but on such
considerations as economic feasibility and available alternatives. Client also acknowledges that, because
geologic and soil formations are inherently random, variable, and indeterminate in nature, the Services and
opinions provided under this Agreement with respect to such Services, are not guaranteed to be a
representation of actual conditions on the Site, which are also subject to change with time as a result of
natural or man -made processes, including water permeation. In performing the Services,
ENVIROBUSINESS shall use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by environmental consultants
or engineers performing similar services in the same or similar locality. The standard of care shall be
determined solely at the time the Services are rendered and not according to standards utilized at a later date.
The Services shall be rendered without any other warranty, expressed or implied, including, without
limitation, the warranty of merchantability and the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
13. Client and ENVIROBUSINESS agree that to the fullest extent permitted by law, ENVIROBUSINESS
shall not be liable to Client for any special, indirect or consequential damages whatsoever, whether caused by
ENVIROBUSINESS' negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract, breach of warranty or
other cause of causes whatsoever.
14. In connection with its performance under the conditions and terms in Authorization letter or agreement,
ENVIROBUSINESS shall use reasonable care to locate underground structures, such as pipes, cables and
tanks, in exploration and testing areas at the Site. ENVIROBUSINESS shall not be liable for damage to or
interference with underground structures, including geological structures, which have not been brought to
ENVIROBUSINESS' attention by Client or the owner of the Site or which are incorrectly located on plans
or information furnished to ENVIROBUSINESS by Client, by the owner of the Site of by Dig -Safe.
15. ENVIROBUSINESS shall not be liable for any contractor's or subcontractor's failure to use due care for the
maintenance of safety at the Site or failure to comply with the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970,
any regulations promulgated thereunder, and/or any state, county or municipal law or regulation of similar
import.
16. Client acknowledges and agrees that ENVIROBUSINESS is not responsible or liable for the condition of the
Site, now existing or hereafter arising or discovered. ENVIROBUSINESS does not, by its execution or
performance of the Services, assume any liability or responsibilities with respect to said conditions.
Client acknowledges that the use of equipment by ENVIROBUSINESS or its contractors and subcontractors
may alter or damage the grade, subgrade, vegetation, buildings, structures, and/or improvements on or about
the Site. Client hereby releases, indemnifies and holds ENVIROBUSINESS harmless from and against a any
and all liabilities and damages of any nature arising out of the performance of the Services at the Site, except
to the extent that such damage is caused by the negligent acts or omissions of ENVIROBUSINESS, its
employees or agents. ENVIROBUSINESS agrees that the Services will be provided in accordance with
generally accepted engineering practices employed by firms providing similar services under the same
circumstances and conditions. ENVIROBUSINESS will endeavor to limit damage to the Site during the
performance of services under this Agreement. All Site restoration shall be the responsibility of Client.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #1: • This is a photograph of the Parkway Plaza building looking west. The •
photograph is taken from Southcenter Parkway.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #2: This is a photograph of EB -1 located behind the Site building.
Photo #3: This is a photograph of the location of EB -2 looking north. Note the fenced
enclosure used to house the satellite dish.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #4: This is a photograph the satellite dish and its enclosure located south of the
building. The container in the foreground contains miscellaneous electrical supplies.
Photo #5: This is a photograph of a soil sample from boring EB-1. Note the different
clay-silt horizons.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #6: This is a photograph of EB -3 located in the
parking lot northeast of the building.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #7: This is a photograph of EB -4 located in the
parking lot southeast of the building.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #8: This is a photograph of a soil sample taken from
EB -3. Note the clay and the sand horizons.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #9: This is a photograph of the dumpster located behind the building. Notice the railway
easement and the hillside rising steeply behind the Site.
Photo #10: This is a photograph of the chemical storage container located behind the
building.
PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM
Photo #11: This is a photograph of the 55- gallon drum located in the storage container.
Photo #12: This is a photograph of other chemicals located in the storage container.
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ASSESSMENT
ARTHUR D. LITTLE, INC.
APRIL 29, 1993
Artful. D Little
o99
Environmental
Baseline
Assessment -
Parkway Plaza,
Tukwila, •
Washington
Confidential
Volume 1
Report and Appendices
Report .to
EnviroBusiness
April. 29, 1993
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Center for
Environmental Assurance
Acom Pant
Cambridge, Massachusetts
02140
. Reference 43655
Table of Contents
Confidential
I. Introduction
A. Scope of Work
B. Approach
C. Organization of Report
D. Facility Access
II. Description of Facility
A. History
B. General Description•
C. Infrastructure
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
III. General Environmental Discussion 5
A. Wastewater Control 5
B. Air Emissions Control 5
C. Non - hazardous and Hazardous Waste Disposal 5
D. Asbestos 5
E. Polychlorinated BiphenyLs 5
F. Tanks 5
G. Soil and Groundwater 5
H. Dcinldng Water 5
I. Spill Control 6
J. Paint 6
K. Radon 6
Appendices
Appendix A Site Map
Appendix B Permits
Appendix C Inventory of Wells
Appendix D Agency Contacts
Appendix E Inventory of Tanks
Appendix F Inventory of Pits and Sumps
Appendix G Database Search
Sampling Protocols
A. Drinking Water
B. Paint
C. Radon
D. Asbestos
Ar hhi r D Little
I. Introduc,_...n
Confidential
A. Scope of Work
Arthur D. Little, Inc. (ADL) was contracted by EnviroBusiness, Inc. to conduct
environmental assessments of twenty-seven (27) facilities. This report prepared on behalf
of EnviroBusiness, Inc., reflects the assessment performed at the Parkway Plaza
Building, 17501 South Central Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. The actual physical
inspection was conducted on April 23, 1993. The material in this report reflects Arthur D:
Little's best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation.
The purpose of this work was to identify and assess current environmental conditions at
the Parkway Plaza Building that could result in current or future liabilities and to develop a
"baseline" report that documents those conditions as of the date of our visit to the site.
The scope of work included the following functional environmental areas:
• Wastewater Control
• Air Emissions Control
• Non - hazardous and Hazardous Waste Disposal
• Asbestos
• Polychlorinated Biphenyls
• Tanks
• Soil and Groundwater
• Drinking Water
• Spill Control
• Paint
• Radon
Where possible, single samples were taken of paint and tap water to measure the lead
content. Radon detectors were also placed where possible at the facility and areas that
appeared to contain friable asbestos were also sampled. The taking of test samples for
lead paint, lead in water, radon and asbestos were limited to single locations at each
property and the results of such tests can not be construed as indication of conditions on
the property as a whole. In the case of the radon samples, the responsibility for securing
the canister at the proper time and sending it to the laboratory was left to the facility
personnel. The scope of work did not include any sampling and analysis of groundwater,
surface water, or soils.
In assessing this facility, we followed a revised version of Arthur D. Little's protocol that
had been customized to ensure that information called for in our teens of reference with
EnviroBusiness, Inc. would be collected. This was done to the extent that the information
could be obtained in a reasonable manner within the constraints imposed upon us by the
facility, its owners/operators, regulatory agencies, or lack of available information. Our
focus was on conditions that could lead to unwanted adverse impacts on the environment
related to the functional areas listed above. "Conditions" could include matters of
potential non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, although we were not
requested, nor did we perform a compliance audit.
Arthur D Little
I. Introduce _n
Confidential
B. Approach
This assessment was carried out by Arthur D. Little personnel in accordance with ADL's
site assessment protocol and generally accepted environmental assessment practices. At
the facility, to the extent they cooperated, we met with the appropriate personnel to gain an
understanding of facility history and operations, environmental control systems, any
known environmental issues,.and prior uses of the facility and surrounding property. We
inspected the facility to observe the operations, equipment, chemical and hazardous
material storage, and environmental control systems that were in place. Where we were
able within the constraints imposed and based upon the construction date of the facility,
we conducted sampling of drinking water, paint, radon, and any sources suspected of
being friable asbestos. We also reviewed relevant docurents that were made available to
us and looked for landowners in the vicinity who have had operations on their sites that
may have hada potential for causing contamination through migration to the facility. We
visited relevant local regulatory and governmental agencies to confirm information that we
had received or to obtain additional information. We also reviewed documents and maps
related to current and prior ownership of the properties in order to help determine
historical usage of the property.
C. Organization of Report
This report contains a general description of the facility followed by information regarding
facility environmental conditions. Specific conditions we observed that may resiilt in
some current or future environmental liability are reported. The appendices contain
detailed information not easily integrated into the body of the report. This tends to be an
exception report, but wherever it is important to the information needs of the terms of
reference, we have noted the absence of any observed potential liabilities.
D. Facility Access
Arthur D. Little did not receive permission from the owner/operator of Parkway Plaza to
conduct a complete physical site inspection. Because of the nature of the operations at the
property, we were able to gain limited access to those parts of the facility open to the
public. --- -
I1. Description of Facility Confidential
A. History
The Parkway Plaza Building was designed in 1978 and constructed for occupancy by
Boeing. Boeing leased the facility in part to carry out classified assignments for DOD
until recently when it relocated most of its work force to Kent, Washington. The building
remains a secured area with restricted access. All information was collected through
interviews with the Planning and Engineering Department of the City of Tukwila and a .
review of available documents. Additional information was gathered from telephone
interviews with Boeing environmental personnel.
B. General Description
The Parkway Plaza Building until recently operated as an office building and project
center for classified government work. The structure was designed to accommodate 1810
people and designated as a Type B -2 building. The property is zoned as M -1 within the
Tukwila City limits.
•
The central part of the building is composed of 9 floors, a basement and a penthouse. In
addition there are 7 floors of additional office space at either end of the structure. It was
equipped with a medical laboratory and an X -ray facility, and contained a cafeteria, film
processing and reproduction facilities. A large delivery bay and docking area is located to
the rear of the building. The building parking lot contains 1095 spaces, has access to
South Central Parkway at the front of the structure, and is contiguous with the lots from
the restaurants located to the North and South of the property.
The building is situated on the western edge of the 6 acre property and occupies
approximately 10% of the site. The property, which is not in the 100 -year floodplain
area, is located on the western margin of the river valley occupied by the Green
River/Duwamish River. The valley which was formerly farm land was developed in the
early 1970s for warehouse use. In the 1980s, the area experienced a second transition
and is presently occupied by a large shopping mall and retail area. In some instances the
warehouse structures have been converted to retail stores and retain the spur service'
offered by Union Pacific Railroad.
The property is abutted on the east by Interstate 5, on the west by South Central Parkway,
on the south by Winners Restaurant, and on the north by Azteca Restaurant.' An easement
on the eastern edge of the property was recently occupied by Union Pacific, which
operated a spur line to a Levitz Furniture Factory outlet located to the south of Azteca
Restaurant. The tracts were removed last year when rail service to the factory ceased.
The cross streets are Strander Boulevard to the north and south 180th Street on the south.
Seismically, the site is located in a Zone 3 area and is stable.
Recently, Boeing has conducted an environmental survey of the facility, and is presently
in the process of restoring the building to its original condition. The Boeing
environmental survey was not made available to us.
.0.,.43at.0.4126 3
/Irtlur D Little
3
I1. Oescripti,... of Facility
C. Infrastructure
Confidential
1. Heating and Cooling Systems
The cooling system is composed of a tower, located on the roof of the penthouse, pumps
and pipe. No cooling water discharges were noted in the plans filed with the City of
Tukwila (Permit #1549).
2. Potable Water
Potable water is distributed by the City of Tukwila, which is supplied by the City of
Seattle.
3. Sanitary Water
Sanitary waste water enters the City of Tukwila POTW and is treated at the Metro
Treatment plant
4. Fire Water
The entire facility is equipped with fire sprinklers.
5. Tanks •
The facility has no underground or above ground storage tanks with the exception of a
small day tank located in the generator mom on the roof of the building. The building
plant did not indicate the exact size of the tank.
6. Electrical Equipment
The facility is supplied with electrical power from buried utilities and a large step -down
transformer located at the rear of the building. Puget Sound Electric owns the transformer
equipment.
7. Chemicals Used
The facility used propylene glycol, propane and "dangerous" chemicals as evident by the
waste streams located to the rear of the building. Depot stores of hazardous chemical
were maintained in a small storage shed located near the solid waste dumpster. In
addidon, a 20 -foot storage container of unknown contents was also located at the rear of
the building near the loading area.
Arthur D1 Little
I11. General bsivironmental Discussion
A. Wastewater Control
Confidential
1. Sanitary Wastewater
Sanitary sewage was generated from laboratories and various hand washing operations.
According to the plans for the structure, sinks from the medical laboratory, and kitchen
also emptied into the sanitary waste water system. No reclamation equipment or holding
tanks were used. Sanitary sewage is discharged to the City of Tukwila Public Works
sanitary sewer system where it is transported to the Metro sewage treatment facility before
discharge into Puget Sound.
2. Stormwater
Storm water at the facility consists of road, roof and parking lot runoff which empties into
the stonmwater drainage system. Runoff from the Interstate 5 is collected in to 2 culverts
and transported down the hill toward the western edge of the property where it enters into
the stormwater drain system. Storm water eventually flows into the Duwamish River.
8. Air Emissions Control
The facility did not generate significant levels of air pollutants. According to the plans it
does not have any air pollution control devices. The laboratory•has exhaust vents as does
the generator.
C. Non - hazardous and Hazardous Waste Disposal
There are at least 3 major types of observable solid waste streams generated by Boeing.
These include sanitary trash, wood pallets, and empty chemical drums. There are
probably more, but without access to either the facilities or maintenance personnel, further
confirmation is not possible.
Debris from the building is collected in a 40 -yard dumpster and emptied by Seatac
Disposal twice weekly into a transfer facility where it is deposited into the Cedar Hill
Landfill. It is unknown whether any sorting took place to separate recyclable paper
products from the waste or whether spent batteries or metals were likewise separated.
The building places wood pallets in piles at the rear of the building. Approximately, 50
wood pallets were observed during the tirne of the visit.
Twenty empty 55 -gallon drums were also observed stacked between the dumpster and the
chemical storage shed. The contents are unknown, but it is possible that the building's
cooling system might have been recharged recently.
D. Asbestos
Since the building was completed in 1978, there is no friable asbestos present. However,
Boeing was aware that asbestos was a component of the floor tiles.
Arthur 11 Little
III. General L..gironmental Discussion
Confidential
E. Polychlorinated Bfphenyfs
Since the building was completed within the last 15 years, no polychlorinated biphenyls
were used in the transformer equipment. The building plans contained no transformers,
and the building was serviced with underground utilities and a step -down transformer
located at the back of the building.
F. Tanks
No fuel storage tanks are present, with the exception of a small day tank located in the
generator room according to the plans for the building.
G. Soil and Groundwater
No remedial action has been taken on the property or in the immediate area. Prior to its
development the area was in pasture. Development of the area into warehouses brought a
railroad spur past the property, which has recently been removed. The roadbed is still in
place on the easement. Please refer to the ERIIS Report in Appendix G for available
information on underground storage tanks within a mile radius.
H. Drinking Water
The facility receives its drinking water from the City of Tukwila. The city distributes
water supplied to it by the City of Seattle, as Tukwila does not treat the water itself.
Because we were denied access to the site, no samples were taken.
I. SpIII Control
The facility contained no quantities of oils, solvents, paints or soaps indoors. There were
no floor drains noted in the plans for several of the rooms in the basement or receiving
areas. There was no containment area with the possible exception of the dangerous
chemicals shed on the rear of the building.
J. Paint
The building was constructed in the late 1970s. As such, it is possible that the structure
has lead- containing paint. Because we were denied access to the site, no paint samples
were taken.
K. Radon
Because we were denied access to the building, no radon samples were taken.
Artlur D Little
Appendix A
Site Map
Confidential
Shoppi
Across
Azt.ca
• Restaurant
g Mall
arkway
AeM(red 104119 yinoS
Parking Lot
Satellite Dish
rel
•
0
■
•
A
Parking Lot cnn
0
•
o
INFRINW
• —
Winners
Restaurant
•
■
9
•
0
•
PREPARED FOR:
EnviroBusiness
DATE:
Apr111993
SCALE:
Not to scale
DWG. NO.:
amm.43655.dwg.4/93
TITLE South Central Parlcway
Tukwila, WA Facility —
Layout
Arthur D Little
Appendix e
Permits
The property maintains no known environmental permits.
Confidential
Appendix C
Inventory of Wells
There are no known drinking water wells on the property.
Confidential
Appendix G'
Agency Contacts
I. A. Name
Jack Pace
Senior Planner
11. A. Name
Robin Tisclunark
Associate Engineer
111. A. Name
Steven Ryan
Environmental Assessment
B. Summary of. Findings
Confidential
Agency, Address & Phone
Department of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 South Center Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
206 -431 -3686
Agency, Address & Phone
Public Work Engineering
City of Tukwila
6300 South Center Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
208 - 433 -0179
Agency, Address & Phone
Boeing Corporation
Parkway Plaza Building
Tukwila, Washington.
206 - 773 -3076
We had a brief conversation with Steven Ryan.. Mr. Ryan failed to return our call
and failed to provide us a copy of the Boeing environmental survey.
IV. A. Name
Tom Sargent
Arthur D Little
Agency, Address & Phone
Seatac Disposal
Commercial Accounts
206 - 872 -7220
Appendix E'
Inventory of Tanks
There are no known underground storage tanks on the property.
Confidential
Appendix F
Inventory of Pits and Sumps
There were no pits and sumps indicated on the building plan.
Confidential
Appendix G
Database Search
Confidential
A search of the following databases found no violations for this site:
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
Information System
• Civil and Judicial Actions
• Federal Superfund Potentially Responsible Parties/Superfund Enforcement Tracking
System
• Facility Index System
• National Priority List
• National Priority List Site Descriptions
• Records of Decisions
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System/Hazardous Waste Data
Management System
• Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INFORMATION & IMAGING SERVICES
RADIUS REPORT
REPORT NUMBER: 21845
STATE: WA
LATITUDE: 47.477163
LONGITUDE: - 122.268450
ZIP CODES SEARCHED: 98168 98188 98178 98055
RADIUS
DATABASE (MILES1 el9oerty property -1/16 1/16 -1/2 112-1 �, ZJP CODE CITY/COUNTY
NPL 1.000 NO 0 0 0 0 0
CERCLIS 1.000 NO 0 0 0 8 0
TRI 1.000 NO 0 0 0 6 0
RCRIS TS 1.000 NO 0 0 0 1 0
RCRIS_LG 1.000 NO 0 • 0 • 2 12 0
RCRIS_SG 1.000 NO 0 2 9 16 0
DOCKET 1.000 NO 0 0 0 1 0
ERNS 1.000 NO 0 0 0 0 1
FINDS 1.000 NO 0 8 29 114 0
NUCLEAR NR NR NR NR NR 0 0
OPENDUMP NR NR NR NR NR 0 2
LUST 1.000 NO 0 0 1. 31 13
AMC 1.000 NO 0 0 3 10 0
RADIUS REPORTED SITES NOT•RADIUS REPORTED
0
STATE DATA IN PAPER FORMAT: UST, SWF
10 44 0 199 16
•
Selection of PROPERTY records requires an accurate street address in the ERIIS job order.
ZIP CODE and CITY /COUNTY sites are not radius reportable due to insufficient and /or inaccurate addresses reported by
federal /state agency. These sites are reported within the study site zip code(s) and /or city /county and may be within
the study site radius. These sites require further investigation to accurately assess proximity to the study site.
A blank radius count indicates that the database was not searched by this radius per client instructions.
NR in a radius or zip code count indicates that the database cannot be reported by this search criteria due to insufficient
and /or inaccurate addresses reported by a federal /state agency.
TOTAL
ES
0
8
6
1
14
27
1
1
151
0
2
45
13
State data in paper format is sorted using the most specific secondary search criteria available (zip code, city, or county!.
Arthur D Little
269
N
W
CC
0
0
33
2<
I3
33
m
1,
0
0
00
0
YS
0
cote
r H
Sampling Protocols Confidential
A. Drinking Water
1. This kit is designed to determine the lead content of the water after it has been
standing in the pipes for at least six hours as well as the effect that allowing the water
to run has on the lead content.
2. For the most meaningful results, collect the samples the first thing in the morning.
The water should have been standing for at least six hours.
3. Label the bottles 0, 2, and 5 so that accurate interpretation can be made.
4. Remove the aerator from the faucet. Place the bottle labeled "0" under the cold water
faucet, turn the water on gently and fill the container.
5. Allow the water to run for 2 minutes and fill the bottle labeled "2 ". This represents
the "2 minute" sample.
6. Allow the water to run for 3 more minutes and fill the bottle labeled "5" this
represents the "5 minute" sample.
7. Return the samples to the lab as soon as possible.
B. Paint
Reliability of results depend on proper sample collection. These procedures are taken
from HUD guidelines and are based on standard methods for the collection of paint
samples.
Some materials that may be useful are:
• Heat gun, two putty knives (narrow and wide blade), plastic zip lock bags or any
small freezer strength storage bag, labels or tape, permanent marker, sharp thin -edge
knife, mailing containers.
Samples taken for analysis should be about 2 square inches or larger and.should contain
all layers of paint down to the substrate. Inclusion of excessive amounts of substrate may
affect the results.
Record the location where the sample was taken on the reverse side of this form and on
the sample collection bag. Be sure to attach a label identifying the sample. Do not under
any circumstances place a business card, piece of scrap paper or material other than the
paint sample inside the bag.
.in.43u.ra..raa3
Arthur D Little
Sampling Protocols. Confidential
Three methods for sample collection are described:
• Cut or punch
1. Place clear, pressure sensitive tape over an area slightly larger than the sample to
be collected. Carefully measure and mark a 2" x 2" or larger area.
2. Cut down through all layers of paint with a punch, template, or sharp knife.
3. Remove the paint an thin layer of substrate beneath it using a sharp chisel having
the same dimensions as a side of the measured area.
• Cutting
Using a sharp knife or scalpel, score a measured area of paint to a size at least
2" x 2 ". Attempt to lift the paint by sliding a thin blade along the score and
underneath the paint Remove a section down to the wood or plaster making sure all
layers are intact Avoid including wood, paper or plaster in the sample if results are
to be reported in weight %.
• Heat - Does not work well on plaster, works moderately well on concrete and
exceptionally well on steel and wood.
1. Direct hot air from a heat gun about 4" to 6" from the surface while pressing the
edge of a knife into the paint. Use gentle heat - do not overheat or cause
smoking.
2. Altemately heat for a few seconds then cool for a few seconds while continuing
to press the knife into the paint.
3. Use the knife to lift off the paint. Scrape the surface with the scraper to remove
any residual paint.
C. Radon
1. Identify the area where you will place the canister(s) on a map of the facility. Try to
limit the placement to two canisters per facility. These should be placed in a
basement level room, or if no basement exists on the ground floor.
2. Write "Date of Capping" and "Time of Capping" on the labels we have supplied to
you separately. Leave areas for the facility employees to fill in this . information when
they cap the canisters 48 hours later. These labels must be placed at the upper portion
of the canister, on the same level with the bar code label. If the label is any lower on
the canister, it will interrupt the measurement of radiation from the canister during
analysis. Then immediately uncap and place the canister and the small green sign on
a table top or some other area which is several feet above the floor.
Artful'. D Little
Sampling Protocols
Confidential
3. Fill out a separate data sheet for each facility you visit, indicating the bar code
numbers and the date and time of placement of the canisters used at each site, as well
as the information indicated in the top box of the fora, and fax this form to the
analysis laboratory. Accurate information on date and time of placement and
recapping is critical to obtain valid results.
4. Instruct the employee to tightly recap the canister 48 hours later, writing the exact
time and date of recapping on the label in the spaces you have left for them.
Emphasize that it is important to record the exact time that the canister was recapped.
The employees should then send the canisters using the Federal Express materials
you have left with them for next morning delivery.
D. Asbestos
Sampling of material suspected to contain friable asbestos:
1. Record the location where the sample is taken on a site map and on the sample
collection bag. Be sure to attach a label identifying the sample. •
2. Carefully cut a 2" by 2" section of the suspect material with a sharp knife or scalpel,
down through all layers of the insulation.
3. Detach the sample from the substrate, and place in a zip lock bag.
4. Return the sample to the laboratory for analysis.
Artful. 11 Little
Attachment 3
Storage containers with unknown contents
Chemical storage trash dumpster and barrels in rear of building
Prepared For: Enviro/Business
Date:
April 1993
Reference Number:
43655
JTitle:
Parkway Plaza Building
Tukwila, Washington
Arthir D Little
Attachment 3
Front view of Parkway Plaza building
Loading dock in rear of building
Prepared For:
Date:
April 1993
Enviro/Business
Reference Number:
43655
Title:
Parkway Plaza Building
Tukwila, Washington
Arthir D Little
LETTER REPORT
HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
OCTOBER 29, 1993
NOV 01 '93 04 :20PM SEATTLE WA
HERRERA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS
October 29, 1993
John Roddy
Enviro Business, Inc.
701 Concord Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Re: Parkway Plaza building inspection
Dear Mr. Roddy:
On October 21, 1993 Rob Harrison of Herrera Environmental Consultants
conducted a walk- through building inspection of the Parkway Plaza building,
17501 South Central Parkway, Tukwila, Washington. The main objective of
the inspection was to determine if any asbestos - containing materials or.other
hazardous materials are present in the building. The building was used by the
Boeing Company for office space, but currently is unoccupied. Mr. Harrison
was accompanied during the inspection by Loren Laskow, representing
property management. Mr. Laskow has managed the building for the. past 6
years.
The building consists of three wings.. The middle wing is 9 stories high and
both outside wings are 7 stories. Construction is monolithic concrete slab and
beam with concrete columns. Permanent interior walls are finished with
gypsum board. Mr. Laskow stated that approximately 90 percent of the walls
are temporary movable partitions.
The 'majority of the building consists of open landscape office space, with
permanent- partitioned offices around the perimeter. The basement floor
houses a cafeteria and both men's and women's locker and shower rooms. A
mechanical room that houses an emergency generator and the fire sprinkler
pump system also is located in the basement. The emergency generator is fed
by an approximately 140 - gallon - /day tank,. which is suspended in the
mechanical room above the generator. No underground storage tanks were
found. Most of the suspended ceiling tiles have been removed.
Approximately 30 percent of the building is unlighted.
Space heating and cooling is accomplished by a hydronic heat pump system.
1414 oexter Electrical rooftop units heat or chill water that is circulated through the
Avenue North building in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping. The piping intercepts randomly
Suite 200 spaced heat exchangers where forced air is blown over coils to heat or cool
Seattle the spaces. Only fiberglass insulation was found.
Washington
98109 The only suspect asbestos- containing materials identified were several types
of vinyl sheet flooring, floor and cove mastic, gypsum board (drywall), and
:O6) 2814604 joint compound. Most of these materials are in good condition. However,
FAX 281.7651 there are limited areas where damage and wear have occurred. Some of the
009T -041
NOV 01 '93 04:21PM SEATTLE WA
John Roddy
October 29, 1993
Page 2
P.7,7
computer rooms have had the vinyl floor tiles removed and the mastic is
exposed.
The environmental • baseline assessment report prepared by A.D. Little, Inc.
mentioned a photo laboratory and a medical laboratory.' Mr. Laskow knew
nothing of these laboratories, nor was any evidence of them found during the
inspection.
•
The only hazardous chemicals used on the site appear to have been propylene
glycol, algicides, and other descalers. These materials were used in the
cooling and heating system. A partly filled drum of propylene glycol and
containers 'of algicides were found in the hazardous chemical storage
container behind the building. The container was clean inside and there. were
no unusual odors or evidence of spills. Appropriate manifest documentation
(Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] generator manifests)
appeared to be in order. There was a small sealed cardboard box with a
shipping label identifying MEK as the contents. It is not certain if MEK
refers to methyl ethyl ketone or some other product. The box was about 5
inches square. It is not known what the MEK was used for.
Mr. Harrison met with George Naslas at the property on October 22 and
discussed site conditions briefly. No other observations were made.
If you have any questions, please call me. I hope that you will look to us
again in the future to assist in site assessment or design needs.
Sincerely,
He rera Environmental Consultants, Inc.
' 'Peter Jowise, Director
Hazardous Waste Services
PJ:rtb
009T-041
•
APPENDIX C
BORING LOGS
SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE, INC.
IATE 10 -- ? - 3
LOG OF BORING NO E Ri
^.LIENT
6Uiro v&fru S5
OCATION 5- 17 1/4 L) 0 1/4
CITY To k ( 4_1,4 . STATE
)RILLING METHOD L. / r/ 7 J
. IIG # 2 1 TRlUCK #
WELL ID # es. Z ` 1 START CARD # CI CI Z k./ Q
CLIENT JOB # 4 3 17 t S S S JOB # 14i - "KC '•.
SEC. 0 4 TOWNSHIP ? ' N RANGE (-) N
.6)4 SL, COUNTY K l 1-1
DATUM /WATER ELEVATION
OTHER c-�■c:l.n e ✓ DATE INSTALLED
TIME & CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION
TOTAL
TIME
DRILUNG
ICREWED STANDBY
I
NON-CREWED STANDBY
MOVING
INSTALLATION
WATER
I CLEAN +PATCH
REORI L
4.430(14 514,1?
15 I-1 14,t r /rr's44
AHD Dru444<'
ITRAVEL
DRILLER �e Y /�
HELPER Rir k eit J
HELPER
DRILLER'S SIGNATURE
The BY JIZ \It
Lnj3e
HOURS
Y.prewa Moro R. intg
PVC BLANK
TOTAL FOOTAGE
SCALE 1'. FEET
PAGE I
OF 3
1 -- 'X S 1 E srh o
PVC SCREEN /...4112.s-/1.0.0 2 .1(1 O
MONUMENTTYPE
6- - /n - ?n s i1AtL�
1
1 - •I..e_
r •v a e
MOBDEMOB
ISAMPLE METHOD
DRIVE SAMPLES
ATTEMPTS
EZ c'i
7 "117'"e.L
ANNULUS
MATERIAL
OSTERBURG
(..,o6
7Ob -730
• '730 -$30
1.3o-
COMMENTS n
A -aa� StiA. RdCheme J AT lo:3(
b
itisillisk SI r (4,. ti r 1« S•■••4«1.)t.#
1 /Ob -,13n c
1134 -1 tt1 ' t� o-, c_ ' i7�r w►�� s
11US''Ihlo .,cenyrvrti
I
29"
AS
BUILT
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
(4V /iStS
O'-
sa- Gt
13-2•1 *5.1.
5,7,`t
Gldt.417,
..
SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE, INC.
DATE /0`22-u3
LOG OF BORING NO 1'G' -1,3.. WELL ID # Pr Z g - Plc? START CARD # CO ZU 0
CLIENT . hU lI 13 OS 1 ICI €5 S CLIENT JOB # 4 3 I 1 S� S S S JOB It
LOCATION i E 1/4 IV 1/4 SEC. C) LI TOWNSHIP z 9 'N RANGE Cl e4 'r
CITY 1 C1 lui 1 At. , STATE L✓./9 COUNTY t-,.,7 DRILLING METHOD / IYJ1 DATUM WATER ELEVATION
)41'.."0-1 2' v." r- DATE INSTALLED
RIG # 7 5 TRUCK* 73'
OTHER
TIME & CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION
TOTAL
TIME
/
DRILLER (fiver 1 t,r
HOURS 2 • Z
TOTAL FOOTAGE
DRIWNG
•
f.A'
HELPER Rt CIA hr CA
. Z
1..,z5"
CREWED STANDBY
HELPER
SCALE t -. FEET
NON-CREWED STANDBY
MOVING
DRI ER'S SIGNATURE % _ '�
INSTN. ATION
1
The a Wean , ate•
�,
BY
PAGE Z OF
WATER
CLEAN ♦PATCH
t
a C� R•o► ««..r,�.
•
REDflLL
PVC BLANK =A I - e 'X s- i 5 c h y t
ANNULUS
MATERIAL.
AS
BUILT
-
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
Maw D,t..14
• ?S°.•
PVC SCREEN / - Z ",00 n /6 Sr h'l U
/
� ~
,..114O
-3
3 - ��• he
.Ot ! e
s i !
CC ilk
- sc...-Lid
-
-
MONUMENT TYPE Jl,J�i ,..),.....„0
Z"
5
'it
iv
/� ;.�N,r, ,
/u s 5
j e �e,�.e. 1.�
TRAVEL
-
1 s 2" r c
MOB-0EMO0
-
-
.
M
-
-
-
-
-
"
C:
r'_
O
'
z " `_ z s.�c 1
SAMPLE METHOD
-
ATTEMPTS
/ _
1-- S v, I D r r 4 t- 4
DRIVE SAMPLES
3
OSTERBURG
COMMENTS .
i /G S� ��o� ABj�- IZ9 � Is
..
e ' 'r
15 _..-_
r
t'23n -r 30 � ��= ! o 1S %3
"j30 -.zoo ,- I.•c...4 44F. .- !-,
_r
1F20 -L15+ WI _frieze tirUi.s.t . •
SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE, INC.
)ATE /D -7? -93
LOG OF BORING NO. E G —$ 3 WELL ID # k CZ • 13 D START CARD # ClQ .Q G
CLIENT 4vir?) R U E k2 ; CLIENT JOB* 4 31.76 S.S.S. JOB* w • 110
LOCATION 5 G 1/4 PJ G_ 1/4 SEC. q TOWNSHIP Z 9 NJ RANGE L1 Pr
CITY 77, PC41 1 �i STATE LA,/ A SA COUNTY k I t, C,
DRILLING METHOD Li " h 5/q DATUM WATER ELEVATION
RIG # 2 1 TRUCK # -J OTHER S 4061-444t V DATE INSTALLED
TIME & CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION
ORIWNG
CREWED STANDBY
NON.CREWED STANDBY
MOVING
INSTALLATION
WATER
CLEAN *PATCH
REDRLL
TOTAL
TIME
1
DRILLER+, may'
HELPER e1e l&. cJ
HELPER
BY
ER'S SIGNATURE
*Orman wIthmf
PVC BLANK
HOURS 3.1
Imposts aCant Rpn..n*dv.
L r lo ft. Sep y 0
SCALE r. FEET
PAGE v OF 3
r7l�Kh r �ta of
2 " TE C
ANNULUS.
MATERIAL.
AS
BUILT
P/HC. o ? /4( 1
`gas /°
/0 Se-re_en
TRAVEL
MOB DEMOB
SAMPLE METHOD
DRIVE SAMPLES
OSTERBURG
I- z" L. Z SJ2 k
�- ck
/f -
,11C
ATTEMPTS
1 — Sn t t
c
COMMENTS
Z rS -31 S • I I 1 +0 2 I ,S t4 CI 1- 130 ci s�•.•. t S a-
31c Lii n S4 d! -+0 1o'
•I-11C-- &ILIS r- e. (�1
L-14 5.- S d b laliftliftre.ar S rt r-u c k_
Soo -5" ^,0 2LOhn
'C0
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
I ever
eIc,...� c4-2
h srl t-
- S=.J.S`
Goss. �t
Sul- GI
• rctetralt$voliev 0 - NY.•t.v..-
SOIL SAMPLING SERVICE, INC.
)ATE 3 y 3
LOG OF BORING NO. li ` M
CLIENT norm tc uSlrL2Ss
_OCATION b 1/4 1/4.
CITY II L) P U J I ri STATE
DRILLING METHOD "
RIG it Z `L TRUCK # 3
WELL ID #_..LQ� g_ 1 3i START CARD # () /)Zq
CLIENT JOB # 4 /') S.S.S. JOB # W - 3 3c Z_
SEC. L! TOWNSHIP Z (I k) RANGE U h
L4.2A S COUNTY et t7
DATUM WATER ELEVATION
OTHER ,- 4-• L°' DATE INSTALLED
TIME & CHARGE
DISTRIBUTION
TOTAL
TIME
DRIWNG
,7s
CREWED STANDBY
NON•CREWED STANDBY
IACNING
INSTALLATION
WATER
I,S
.2S
CLEAN. PATCH
DRILLER �'OO rli� oj•e + t
HELPER r v��Yry L•OpCZ
HELPER
DRILL S SIGNATURE
The eon wee
BY
pie
HOURS
Represefealre
TOTAL FOOTAGE
SCALE I "a FEET
PAGE ;
OF
REDRILL
T l(. f
Moo n-pltric,,
40,4uv -t' Ti xi:,
PVC BLANK / -Z' x' - Set 1 U U
PVC SCREEN
ANNULUS
MATERIAL
MONUMENT TYPE 7 f _ Pe, iH tea
Z -cl c I►os
TRAVEL
1 - 2 '( E? Sew
MOO DEMOB
SAMPLE METHOD
ATTEMPTS
-
7 7r rj-C.
S a � ( D r c-wt
1 - c ch, c 1-t
DRIVE SAMPLES
OSTERBURG
'4— S/oZ c SarS
(,a Lis— '? 1C
COMMENTS
1lt Lt..J' 7„ct ( T ►rsp.P
(1l 10 1
•Y
� ' c — 7t/S'' JP/Out
- as"- is 30 Dv 1,11 t`X
-- 4 30 -/vvo 1�� Io ! +.0 1q.S
Joao - /oso c. L'.44 -Peg* £
r (13v /bbS Seco,-•e r.x 4
/D L - 1 /OD riayt ►7ru.4.�
IQt2 [) b
•
AS
BLILT
FORMATION
DESCRIPTION
tank
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Page 1
Received: 10/26/93
TOXIKON
REPORT €NVIRO BUSINESS INC.
TO 701 CONCORD STREET
CAMBRIDGE. MA 02138
(617)868 -4321 FAX:3132
ATTEN GEORGE NASLAS
CLIENT ENVIRO BUS3 SAMPLES 1¢
COMPANY ENVIRO BUSINESS INC.
FACILITY 701 CONCORD STREET
CAMBRIDGE. MA 02138
WORK ID LWR- PARTNERS- TUKUILA
TAKEN 10/22/93. 12/23/93.& 10/25/93
TRANS
TYPE WATER AND SOIL
P.O. 0
INV. N 006463
CORP. REPORT York Order t 93- 10-386
11/10/93 17:34:23 York Not Couplet*
PREPARED TOXIKON CORPORATION
BY 225 WILDWOOD AVE
WOBURN. MA 01801
ATTEN PAUL LEZBERG
PHONE (617)933 -6903
•
CERTIF D BY.
CONTACT KAR
MA CERT N MA064: TRACE METALS, SULFATE.CYANIDE.RES. FREE
CHLORINE, Ca. TOTAL ALK.. TDS. pH. THMs, VOC, PEST..NUTRIENTS.
DEMAND. 08G. PHENOLICS. PCBs CT DHS NPH -0563. NY 010778
FL HRS E87143. NJ DEP ,59538. NR286, ,SC 88002. NH 204091 -C.
VERIFIED BY: 't1
MASS DEP - CERT 0MA064
Previously Reported on 10/29/93.
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
01 E8 -1
Oj EB -2
03 EB -3
04 18 -4
05 E8 -4
06 E8 -4
07 E8 -2
08 E8 -2
OS EB -1
10 E8 -1
11 EB -3
1a EB -3
13 EB-1
14 EB -2
15 EB -3
16 E8 -4
TEST CODES and NAMES used on this vorkorder
624 PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
MEX HG METALS. EXT. FOR MERCURY
MEX TW METALS. TOTAL EXT.. WATER
pP13 METALS.13 PRI.POLL.
TPH IR TPH BY IR
Page 2
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
SAMPLE ID Eli-1 SAMPLE Si 001 FRACTIONS: A
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 12:30:00 Category RATER
TPH IR ND
mg /L DL =1.0
SAMPLE ID ED-2 SAMPLE M 02 FRACTIONS: A
TPH IR ND
mg /L DL=1.0
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 11:30:00 Category RATER
SAMPLE ID E8-3 SAMPLE M 03 FRACTIONS: A
TPH IR NO
mg /L DL =1.0
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 13:00 :00 Category WATER
SAMPLE ID E5-4 SAMPLE M Oi FRACTIONS: A
TPH IR ND
mg /L DL =1.0
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 10:30:00 Category WATER
Page 3
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID E8-4
TOXIIODN CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
FRACTION 214. TEST CODE PP13 NAME RETALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 10:30 :00 Category WATER
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 0.020
Cadmium ND 0.010
Chromium ND 0.010
Copper 0.010 0.010
Nickel ND 0.040
Lead ND. 0.005
Zinc 0.025 0.0060
Arsenic ND 0.005
Selenium ND 0.005
Beryllium ND 0.0040
Antimony 0.009 0.005
Thallium ND 0.005
Mercury 0.001 0.0005
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/26/93
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST SN
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS ma /4
ND = Not detected at detection limit
Page 4
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID E5-4
TOXIIODN CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order • 93- 10-356
FRACTION OA TEST CODE 624 NAME PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 10:30:00 Category PATER
PURGEABLE QRGANICS VOA
RESULT LIMIT
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1- Dichloroethene
1,1- Dichloroethene
Trans -1,2- Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2- Dichloroethene
2- Butanone
1,1,1 - Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
Bromodichloromethane
1,2- 01chloropropane
trans -1,3- Dichloropropene
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
NO _ 0
ND 2.0
ND 10
ND 50
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 10
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
Trichloroethene
Dibromochloromethane
1,1,2 - Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis -1,3- Dichloropropene
2- Chloroethylvinylether
Bromoform
2- Hexanone
4- Methyl -2- pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2- Tetrachtoroethane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Total Xylenes
Trichloroftuoromethene
1,2- Dichlorobenzene
1,3- Dichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenzene
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
DATE RUN 10/27/93,
ANALYST DPV
INSTRUMENT HP -1
DIL. FACTOR 1.0
UNITS = ug /L
ND = not detected at detection limit
RESULT LIMIT
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 4.0
ND 4.0
ND 2.0,
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 2.0,
ND 2.0
ND 2.0,
ND 2.0
Page 5
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID E8-2
TOXIIOON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
FRACTION 07A TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS -13 PRI.POLL.
Date 8 Time Collected 10/25/93 11:30:00 Category PATER
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
• RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 0.020
Cadmium ND 0.010
Chromium ND 0.010
Copper ND 0.010
Nickel ND 0.040
Lead ND 0.005
Zinc 0.010 0.0060
Arsenic ND 0.005
Selenium ND 0.005
Beryllium ND 0.0040
Antimony ND 0.005
Thallium ND 0.005
Mercury ND 0.0005 •
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/26/93,
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST SN
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS mo /I,
ND = Not detected at detection limit
Page 6
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID EB-2
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order 8 93- 10-386
FRACTION gm TEST CODE 624 NAME PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 11:30:00 Category YATE
PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
RESULT
Chtoromethane
Eromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1- Dichloroethene
1,1- Dichtoroethane
Trans- 1,2- Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2- 01chloroethane
2- Butanone
1,1,1 - Trichloroethene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
Bromodichloromethane
1,2- Dichtoropropane
trans -1,3- Dichloropropene
LIMIT
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 10
ND 2.0
NO 10
NO 50
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 10
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
Trichloroethene
0i bromochloromethane
1,1,2- Trichloroethane
Benzene
cis -1,3- Dichloropropene
2- Chloroethylvinytether
Bromoform
2- Hexanone
4- Methyl- 2- pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,2,2- Tetraehloroethane
Toluene
Chlarobenzene
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Total Xylenes
Trichlorofluoromethane
1,2- 0ichlorobenzene
1,3- Dichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenzene
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST DPV
INSTRUMENT
HP -1
DIL. FACTOR 1.0
UNITS = ug /L
ND = not detected at detection limit
RESULT LIMIT
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
N0 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 4.0
ND 4.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND '2.0
Page 7
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID EB-1
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order 0 93- 10-386
FRACTION 09A TEST CODE PP13 NAME NETALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Date 6 Time Collected 10/25/93 12:30:00 Category WATER
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT •LIMIT
Silver ND 0.020
Cadmium ND 0.010
Chromium _ND 0.010
Copper ND 0.010
Nickel ND 0.040
Lead 0.010 0.005
Zinc NO 0.0060
Arsenic ND 0.005
Selenium NO 0.005
Beryllium NO 0.0040
Antimony ND 0.005
Thallium NO 0.005
Mercury 0.001 0.0005,
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/26/93,
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST SN
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1,
UNITS mo /l,
ND = Not detected at detection limit
•
Page 8 TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
SAMPLE ID EB-1
Work Order X 93-10 -386
FRACTION 10A TEST CODE 624 NAME PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
Date i Time Collected 10/25/93 12:30:00 Category WATER
PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
RESULT
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1- Dichloroethene
1,1- Dichloroethane
Trans- 1,2- Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2- Dichloroethane
2- Butanone
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
Bromodichloromethane
1,2- Dichloropropene
trans -1,3- Dichloropropene
LIMIT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
RESULT LIMIT
2.0 Trichloroethene ND 2.0
z.0 Dibromochloromethane ND - 2.0
10 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane ND - 2.0
2.0 Benzene NO 2.0
10 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene ND - 2.0
50 2- Chloroethylvinylether ND 2.0
2.0 Bromofora ND 2.0
2.0 2- Hexanone ND 4.0
2.0 4- Methyl -2- pentanone ND' 4.0
2.0 Tetrachloroethene ND 2.0
2.0 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane ND 2.0
2.0 Toluene ND 2.0
10 Chlorobenzene ND 2.0
2.0 Ethyl Benzene ND 2.0
2.0 Styrene ND 2.0
2.0 Total Xylenes ND 2.0
2.0. Trichlorofluoromethane ND 2.0
2.0 1,2- Dichlorobenzene NO 2.0
2.0 1,3- Dichlorobenzene ND 2.0
1,4- Dichlorobenzene . ND •2.0
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST DPV.
INSTRUMENT HP -1
DIL. FACTOR 1.0
UNITS = ug /L
ND = not detected at detection limit
Page 9
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID E8-3
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
Work'Order 0 93- 10-386
FRACTION 1j TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS,13 PRI,POLL.
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 13:00 :00 Category WATER
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 0.020
Cadmium ND 0.010
Chromium ND 0.010
Copper 0.013 0.010
Nickel ND 0.040
Lead ND 0.005
Zinc ' ND 0.0060
Arsenic ND 0.005
Selenium ND 0.005
Beryllium ND 0.0040
Antimony ND 0.005
Thallium ND 0.005
Mercury 0.001 0.0005
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/26/93,
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST SN
INSTRUMENT 1CP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS ma /L,
ND = Not detected at detection limit
Page 10 TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
SAMPLE 10 EB-3
York Order N 93- 10-386
FRACTION 14 TEST CODE 624 NAME PURGEABLE ORGANICS VOA
Date & Time Collected 10/25/93 13 :00:00 Category WATER
PURGEASLE ORGANICS VOA
RESULT LIMIT
Chloromethane
Bromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disulfide
1,1- Dichloroethene
1,1= Dichloroethane
Trans -1,2- Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2- Dichloroethane
2- Butanone
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
Bromodichloromethane
1,2- Dichloropropane
trans- 1,3- Dichloropropene
ND 2.0 Trichloroethene
ND 2.0 Dibromochloroaethane
NO 10 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
ND 2.0 Benzene
ND 10 cis- 1,3- Dichloropropene
ND 50 2- Chloroethylvinylether
ND 2.0 Bromofora
ND 2.0 2-Hexanone
NO 2.0 4- Methyl -2- pentanone
ND 2.0 Tetrachloroethene
ND 2.0 1,1,2,2- Tetrachloroethane
ND 2.0 Toluene
ND 10 Chlorobenzene
ND 2.0 .Ethyl Benzene
ND 2.0 Styrene
ND 2.0 Total Xylenes
ND 2.0 Trichlorofluoromethane
ND 2.0 1,2- Dichlorobenzene
ND 2.0 1,3- Dichlorobenzene
1,4- Dichlorobenzene
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
DATE RUN 10/27/93
ANALYST DPV
INSTRUMENT HP -1
OIL. FACTOR 1.0
UNITS = ug /L
ND = not detected at detection limit
RESULT LIMIT
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0.
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 4.0
ND 4.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0,
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
ND 2.0
NO 2.0
ND 2.0
s
Page 11
TOXIIOON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
York Order 8 93- 10-386
SAMPLE ID ES-1 SAMPLE M 13 FRACTIONS: A
Date & Time Collected 10/22/93 11:00 :00 Category SOIL
TPH IR ND
mg /Kg 0L =40
•
Page 12
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID EB-1
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
FRACTION 131 TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Data i Time Collected 10/22/93 11:00 :00 Category SOI
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 1.3
Cadmium 2.79 0.66 •
Chromium 37.8 0.66
Copper 26.6 0.66
Nickel 39.1 2.6
Lead 5.00 1.00
Zinc 40.0 0.39
Arsenic 6.30 1.50
Selenium 3.22 0.500
Beryllium ND 0.26
Antimony ND 0.500
Thallium ND 0.500
Mercury ND 0.324
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/28/93
DATE RUN 10/28/93
ANALYST BK0
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS mo /Kq
ND = Not detected at detection limit
. Pape 13
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
SAMPLE ID EB-2 SAMPLE N L FRACTIONS: A
Date i Time Collected 10/22/93 14:00 :00 Category SOI
TPH IR ND
mg /Kg DL =40
Page 14
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID EB-2
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Results by Sample
York Order N 93- 10-386
FRACTION 14A TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Date & Time Collected 10/22/93 14:00:00 Category SOI
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 1.3
Cadmium 2.11 0.66
Chromium 33.6 0.66
Copper 18.0 0.66
Nickel 37.9 2.6
Lead 2.75 0.500
Zinc
Arsenic
Selenium
Beryllium
Antimony
Thallium
Mercury
38.6 0.39
4.22 1.50
4.41 0.500
ND 0.26
ND 0.500
ND 0.500
ND 0.324
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/28/93
DATE RUN 10/28/93
ANALYST BKO
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS me /KQ
ND = Not detected at detection limit
Page 15
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
York Order / 93- 10-386
SAMPLE ID EB-3 SAMPLE N 11 FRACTIONS: A
Date & Time Collected 10/22/93 16 :00 :00 Category SOI
TPN IR ND
mg /Kg DL =40
Page 16
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Sample
York Order / 93- 10-386
SAMPLE ID EB-3 FRACTION 15A TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Date 6 Time Collected 10/22/93 16:00:00 Category SOIL
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver ND 1.3
Cadmium 2.42 0.66
Chromium 37.1 0.66
Copper 18.2 0.66
Nickel 43.2 2.6
Lead 2.85 0.500
Zinc 40.6 0.39
Arsenic 3.75 1.50
Selenium 3.41 0.500
Beryllium ND 0.26
Antimony ND 0.500
Thallium ND 0.500
Mercury ND 0.324
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/28/93,
DATE RUN 10/28/93
ANALYST BKO
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS mo /Kq
NO = Not detected at detection limit
s
Page 17
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Results by Semple
York Order • 93- 10-306
SAMPLE ID ER-4
TPH IR ND
mg /Kg DL =40
SAMPLE N 16 FRACTIONS: A
Date $ Time Collected 10/23/93 10:00:00 Category SO
•
Pape 18
Received: 10/26/93
SAMPLE ID E9-4
TOXIKON CORP. REPORT Work Order N 93- 10-386
Results by Sample
FRACTION 16A TEST CODE PP13 NAME METALS.13 PRI.POLL.
Date & Time Collected 10/23/93 10:00:00 Category SOIL
13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT METALS
RESULT LIMIT
Silver NO 1.3
Cadmium 8.33 0.66
Chromium 68.9 0.66
Copper 37.8 0.66
Nickel 70.0 2.6
Lead 4.98 1.00
Zinc 102 0.39
Arsenic 5.39 1.00
Selenium 2.96 0.500
Beryllium 1.10 0.26
Antimony ND 0.500
Thallium ND 0.500
Mercury ND 0.324
Notes and Definitions for this Report:
EXTRACTED 10/28/93,
DATE RUN 10/28/93
ANALYST BKO
INSTRUMENT ICP
DIL. FACTOR 1
UNITS ma /Kq
ND = Not detected at detection limit
Page 19
TOXIKON'CORP. REPORT
Received: 10/26/93 Test Methodology
TEST CODE 624 , NAME PURGFARJF ORGANICS VOA
EPA METHOD: 624
Reference: Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and
Industrial Wastewater. Appendix A. 40CFR Part 136.
Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 209, 1984.
TEST CODE MEX HG NAME METALS, EXT. FOR MERCURY
York Order R 93- 10-386
REFERENCE:
EPA METHOD 245.1 Mercury. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes. EPA 600/4 -79 -020.
TEST CODE MEX TV NAME METALS, TOTAL EXT.. WATER
REFERENCE:
EPA METHOD 3005. Acid Digestion of Waters for Total Recoverable or
Dissolved Metals for Analysis by Flame Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy or
Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy. Test Methods for Evaluating
Physical /Chemical Methods. SW 846, 3rd Edition.
Wastewater digestion
40CFR Part 136 Appendix C- Preparation for Inductively Coupled Plasma -
Atomic Emission Spectrometric Method for Trace Element Analysis'of
Water and Wastes Method 200.7. Protection of Environment, 1991.
TEST CODE TPH IR NAME TPH BY IR
EPA METHOD: 418.1 for water sample.
Reference: Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.
EPA 600/4-79-020 (Revised, March 1983). EPA /EMSL, Cincinnati, OH.
EPA METHOD: 9073 for soil sample.
Reference: Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical /Chemical Methods.
EPA SW-846 (Third Edition) 1986. Office of Solid Waste, USEPA.
APPENDIX E
HNu PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR
SPECIFICATIONS AND SCREENING PROCEDURES
HNu Photoionization Detector
Field screening for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) was carried out
using a photoionization detector (PID) equipped with an eleven and seven- tenths (11.7) eV
bulb. The PID draws the gases of interest into an ionization chamber where the sample is
exposed to ultraviolet light. The light is of sufficient energy to ionize many trace gas
species such as VOCs, but not the major components of air. Ionization renders the trace
gases detectable .to electrodes located in. the ionization chamber. Their concentration is
displayed on the instrument meter in parts per million (ppm). Before field screening the
PID was calibrated using a certified iso -C4HS (iso-butylene) standard provided by Hazco.
PID Field Screening Techniques
The following methods were employed while screening soils for the presence of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) with the PID:
Headspace Screening Technique
Several 200 milliliter samples were collected at regular intervals and placed into a 250
milliliter glass jar, which was then covered with foil before capping. The sample was
shaken for a period of thirty (30) seconds and placed in a warm area for approximately ten
(10) minutes in order to facilitate the volatilization of any VOCs trapped in the sample.
Each cap was then removed and the end of the PID probe intake was poked through the foil
and the air in the jar above the sample (the headspace) was analyzed for the presence of
VOCs.
Ambient Air Screening Technique
The PID probe intake was held approximately 2 -3 inches above soil driven up to the
ground's surface by the rotation of a borehole drill and the air above the soil was sampled.
Soil -Gas Survey Technique
VOCs in groundwater and/or subsurface soils can be detected by analyzing_the uses in the
surrounding soil matrix since many VOCs will volatilize from the contamination source and
move by molecular diffusion from source areas towards regions of lower concentration in
surrounding soils.
Well Headspace Technique
VOCs degassing from groundwater or migrating through soil pore spaces, build up in the
well headspace. This is the area above the water surface enclosed within the well bore.
Immediately upon removal of the expansion plug capping the monitoring well, the PID
intake probe was placed down the well. After approximately thirty seconds, the maximum
reading recorded by the PID was recorded
Soil- Screening
PID readings from soil screening ranged from 0.8 to 1.0E ppm. These are within
background levels.
APPENDIX F
MONITORING WELL REQUIREMENTS
•
YOUR WELL I.D. NUMBER
X Y Z 1 2 3
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
Mail Stop PV-11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 4594000
Dear Well Owner.
The State of Washington has started a Well Identification Program to protect Washington's ground water. This
Program will help protect your well, your health, and your property values. Building a record of good well and
water quality protection is money in the bank.
Your well has been assigned a well identification number. It is printed on the metal tag which is attached to your
well. This unique well number should remain affixed to your well forever and should be written on all
information about your well and referenced in all inquiries about your well.
Your well identification number will assist you in tracking water quality and water quantity changes in your well.
It also establishes a link between well construction and public health records. In addition to using your well
identification number, we recommend the following protection practices for your well to preserve. the quality of
your drinking water:
✓ Test your well for bacteria annually and for nitrates every three years (especially if you have an infant
under six months of age). Additionally, you may want to test for chloride (an indicator of seawater
intrusion) if your well is located near the coast. Be sure to write your well identification number on each
lab slip.
✓ Keep your well tightly capped with a sanitary seal to keep surface contaminants and small animals or
insects out. Maintain screening on any vents or openings on top of your well casing.
✓ Keep the area around your well clean.
DON'T:
Q1 Remove the well identification tag.
�d Store hazardous materials such as paint, oil, gasoline, anti - freeze, garden chemicals, rat poison, and trash
near your well or in your well house.
0 Let farm animals pasture around your well, particularly if the well is in a low spot where water can
collect.
If you have any questions about testing your well, please contact your local Health Department. If you have
questions about the Well Identification Program, call Maryrose Livingston at the Department of Ecology Water
Resources Program at (206) 493 -9226. We all have a stake in clean ground water - with your help we can protect
our : •und water for your use and for future generations.
Si
Adelsman, Program Manager
ment of Ecology Water Resources Program
molgiois
0
APPENDIX G
GROUNDWATER FLOW CALCULATIONS
Groundwater Flow Calculations
1. Purpose
To determine the direction of groundwater flow and hydraulic head gradient.
2. Procedures
1) The depth to groundwater was determined following the procedures
outlined in Appendix G.
2) The well casings were surveyed in and referenced to an arbitrary datum of
100 feet.
Survey Information
Location Angle High Med. Low
EB -1 2240 5.06 4.49 3.93
EB -3 128° 7.00 6.38 5.76
Ref. Pt. 171° 1.99 1.74 1.48
EB -3 backsight 313° 5.54 5.00 4.46
EB-4 183° 6.22 5.74 5.26
EB -2 186° 7.49 6.17 4.82
nig: Sightings to EB -2, EB-4 and the backsight to EB -3 were from the second
transit position.
3) From this information well casing and groundwater surface elevations were
calculated
Well Groundwater
Well Casing surface
Elevations Elevations
EB -1 97.25 86.66
EB -2 94.19 89.92
EB -3 95.36 83.76
EB-4 94.62 83.90
Note: Referenced to a 100' datum
4) Groundwater flow was calculated following the procedure outlined in
Groundwater and Wells, pp 80-82. Groundwater was calculated in the area of
wells EB -2, EB -3 and EB-4, to be flowing to the east- northeast on a bearing of
0.660 referenced to magnetic north. The hydraulic head gradient was calculated at
0.0657, equivalent to a one foot head drop per 15.2 feet.
3. References:
Johnson Filtration Systems, "Groundwater and Wells" pp. 80-82.
APPENDIX H
SAMPLING PROCEDURES
Sample Collection - Monitoring Wells
1. Purpose:
To obtain liquid samples for analysis to determine general quality of the
groundwater at the sampling location or as part of a program to define a
contaminant plume.
2. Equipment and Materials
• Appropriate sample containers
• Designated disposable bailers
• Sampling cable
• 100 -foot electronic measuring tape with weighted end
• Rags or paper towels
• Cooler and ice
Additional equipment and materials included the field screening equipment (OVM
Photoionization Detector).
3. Procedures
A. Prior to sample collection, three times the volume of standing water in the well
was removed using the following method
1) Measured depth to groundwater to the nearest 0.01 -foot from the top of the
riser pipe using the 100 -foot electric water level indicator.
2) Measured total well depth to the nearest 0.1 foot from the top of the riser
pipe using the 100 -foot electric water level indicator.
Wells
Bottom
WW Depth
Column
# Bailers purged
EB -1
18.88'
10.59'
8.29'
7.5 (& 3 galls.) ,
EB -2
15.47'
4.27'
11.20'
20 (& 3 galls.)
EB -3
19.34'
11.60'
8.74' .
20
EB -4
19.62'
10.72'
8.90'
20 (& 10 galls.)
3) Calculated the volume of standing water in the well using the above
measurements and the inside diameter of the well.
4) Using the disposable bailer of known volume, three times the volume of
water calculated in (3) was bailed from the well.
5) Allowed sufficient time for well to recharge before initiating sampling.
B. Using a designated disposable bailer, a sample was withdrawn from the well.
C. The sample was transferred from the bailer directly into the sample container by
pouring the liquid down the side of the container with minimum turbulence. This
procedure is critical to minimize loss of volatile materials from the sample through
aeration.
D. Sample containers were capped and sealed, labeled, preserved, and stored in
accordance with appropriate protocols.
4. Records and Documentation
All data and sampling information was recorded in a separate fieldbook and
information was transposed into this Investigation.
5. Special Notes
Separate disposable bailers were used for each well sampled to preclude cross -
contamination. Separate bailer cables were also employed.
6. Applicable References and Standards
Dunlap, N.J.; McNabb, J.F.; Scalf, M.R.; and Crosby, R.L., "Sampling for
Organic Chemicals and Microorganisms in the Subsurface," EPA - 600/2- 77 -16,
August 1977.
STORM DRAINAGE REPORT
PARK PLACE REDEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
BRH PROJECT No. 94187.02
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
PHONE:(206) 323 -4144
CONTACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, P.E.
March 13, 1995
RECEIVED
MAR 2 21995
COMIVIUNI FY
DEVELOPMENT
OJY r`
tt u sera
, .) :.i:..
TUK.I.Aii LA
PUBLIC VIPORKS
CITYECVED
OFT TUKWILA
MAR 1 5 1995
PERMIT CENTER
Park Place is a 15.54 acre site as delineated on the architect's
site plan. The project is located along Southcenter Boulevard in
Tukwila, Washington. Located on the site is a 9 story office
building which was occupied by Boeing. The tenant has moved out of
the facility and the owner is looking to find a more viable use for
the property. This proposal would demolish the existing building
and construct approximately 3.5 acres of retail space on the
property.
There are several existing utility lines and easements across the
site. We have used an ALTA survey and topographic information
prepared by Chadwick Surveying and Engineering, available WSDOT and
City as -built records and BRH pot hole information to establish
utility locations. A new section has been added to this report to
discuss the existing utilities in more detail. This section has
been added in response to the City of Tukwila letter dated October
31, 1994.
The existing site is generally flat. A steep slope rises on the
west side of the property to Interstate 5. The slope is covered
with trees and thick underbrush. A railroad easement was located
along the toe of slope. The railroad easement has been vacated.
The 9 story building is located approximately midway between the
railroad easement and Southcenter Boulevard. The existing building
has a footprint of approximately 24,981 square feet., The remainder
of the site is covered by asphalt parking and landscaping.
Detailed surface area coverage calculations have been prepared and
are shown on page 4 of this report.
Two other buildings share the existing parking and access points
to Southcenter Boulevard. Each of the buildings are located on
segregated parcels and have not been included in the area count for
the Park Place project. These structures are to be remain after
the completion of the shopping center. Some grading of the parking
area between the two building may be necessary for the construction
of the new retail building. Final design will also require
coordination of utility connections for the sewer and water main
relocation. This subject will be discussed in more detail in the
new section of the report.
Redevelopment of this site will include the construction of two
retail buildings. A 26,760 square foot building in the southwest
corner and a 136,619 square foot building along the western
boundary of the slope. The 136,619 square foot building will cover
the area occupied by the existing 9 story office building. Some of
the existing utility lines serving the site will have to be routed
around the new buildings. This includes extending a water main
loop around the west side of the new buildings, relocation of an
existing 48 inch storm pipe and routing the existing sanitary sewer
main around the east side of the buildings. The new buildings have
been located so that the existing 66 and 54 inch storm drainage
pipes from the southern off -site areas do not have to be relocated.
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 2
Existing parking areas will be retained to the greatest possible
extent. Some additional parking will be gained along the west side
of the 136,619 square foot building with the relinquishment of the
railroad easement. The new building has been located further west
than the existing 9 story building. This will require construction
of a retaining wall along the western margin of the site plan.
Construction documents for the retaining wall have been submitted
to the City for review. A soldier pile wall with a shotcrete
facing will be constructed. The advantage of using this type of
retaining structure is that it can be constructed with minimal
disturbance to the areas above the top of wall. We have located
all relocated utilities to the east side of the building. There
was a great deal of concern about the influence of trenching the
deeper utilities along the face of wall. Moving the utilities to
the east side of the building will increase the construction cost,
but it relieved the concerns pertaining to the wall design.
Therefore, the only utilities located in the drive lane at the base
of wall will be power, gas, water and storm drainage pipe. Trench
depths for these utilities will not extend into the passive
pressure zone of the wall.
There is a public storm drainage system servicing the site from
Southcenter Boulevard. Storm water will be collected in catch
basins and conveyed using underground pipe. Much of the existing
storm system in the vicinity of the existing building will be
abandoned. The site has been graded so that finished grade
elevations around the new buildings are higher than the existing
grade. Therefore the storm water will sheet flow to the existing
catch basins located in the eastern parking areas. Loading docks
on the western side of the buildings are the only locations where
a new storm collection system will have to be installed.
The proposed site plan reduces the net parking area by
approximately 1.5 acres. Since the area subject to vehicular
traffic will be reduced, there should be a corresponding
improvement in storm water quality discharged to the downstream
system. Oil /water separator vaults with coalescing chambers and
high flow bypasses will also be installed to improve water quality
prior to discharge to the downstream system.
The site is served by public sewer. Redevelopment of the site to
a retail center will significantly reduce the sanitary sewer
discharge. The 9 story office building contained approximately
214,600 square feet of floor space and supported a population of
approximately 2,230 people. The proposed 162,889 square feet of
retail space will reduce the sewer discharge by approximately
31,650 gpd based on the D.O.E. Table No. 2 for new system design.
Therefore redevelopment of this site to a retail facility will
benefit the existing sewer system.
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 3
SURFACE AREA COVERAGE
Existing site: 676,948 SF (15.54 AC)
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA = 24,981 SF (0.57 AC).
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA = 383,677 SF (8.81 AC)
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA = 26,136 SF (0.6. AC)
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE = 83,666 SF. (1.92 AC)
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE = 158,488 SF (3.64 AC)
Redeveloped site: 676,948 SF (15.54 AC)
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA = 162,900 SF (3.74 AC)
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA = 320,957 SF (7.37 AC)
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA = 0 AC (0.0 AC)
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE = 52,826 SF (1.21 AC)
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE = 140,265 SF (3.22 AC)
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 4
ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION
Storm Drainage System:
There are two major drainage courses draining beneath the
Interstate 5 and conveyed through the site. The most northerly
course discharges from a 48 inch culvert approximately 70 feet west
of the northwest property corner. At the discharge point, a
concrete energy dissipator with "V" notched weirs on the bottom
side has been installed. Storm water flows east from the discharge
in a 15 foot wide grass lined ditch to a 48 inch concrete culvert
located approximately 20 feet east of the northwest property
corner. The grass lined ditch area has been classified as a Class
4 stream. All work related to the Parkway Place project will occur
outside the stream area. There is a concrete box inlet with a
heavy steel trash rack at the 48 inch intake. From this point the
storm water is conveyed in the 48 inch culvert approximately 145
feet to a 45 degree bend in the line. The bend directs the flow in
a southeasterly direction toward a manhole located within the drive
lane of the Parkway Place parking lot.
An 11 foot wide concrete spillway has been constructed above the 48
inch culvert between the intake and 45 degree bend. The spillway
directs the overflow to two 30 inch CMP culvert inlets located at
the edge of parking, approximately 60 feet north of the northwest
property line. The overflow lines convey the storm water easterly
to Southcenter Boulevard and then northward in the street system.
Therefore, once the inlet capacity of the 48 inch culvert is
exceeded, the flow is routed to a separate storm system.
Storm water flow in the 48 inch culvert is turned southward at the
most northern manhole. John Howard, with the City of Tukwila,
opened the manhole structure for my observation. The manhole has
a round lid at the asphalt paving surface which covers a locking
lid on the pipe. It is my understanding that the locking lid is
required because the 48 inch pipe flows under pressure during
heavier rainfall events or when the river is at a higher elevation.
At the time of my observation, there was approximately 6 inches of
water flowing in the pipe. Stones with a diameter of approximately
one foot were also observed at the bottom of the pipe.
From the manhole the 48 inch pipe conveys the storm water
approximately 850 feet south. The pipe is deflected 21 degrees to
the west approximately 570 feet south of the manhole.
Approximately 180 feet south of the bend, the pipe is deflected 64
degrees to the east. The 48 inch pipe then extends 90 feet where
it connects to a 66 inch culvert. Connection to the 66 inch pipe
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 5
is accomplished using a wye. The 66 inch culvert then conveys the
storm water easterly to Southcenter Boulevard.
The second off -site drainage course discharges from an arched
culvert on the east side I -5 located near the southwest property
corner. The discharge flows into a fenced pool area. The pool
flows into a 54 inch culvert which conveys the storm water
easterly. The culvert is located just south of the southwest
property line. There is an asphalt maintenance road above the
culvert between the Parkway Place parking lot and the pool area.
The 54 inch pipe is connected to the 66 inch culvert which also
conveys the storm water from the 48 inch pipe discussed above. It
does not appear that any manholes exist along the 54 inch pipe
between the pool and 66 inch pipe.
48" Storm Relocation:
The existing 48 inch storm pipe will have to be abandoned because
the new buildings will be located over the line. The new line
will be located to the east side of the new building.. We have
worked closely with Associated Sand & Gravel throughout the design
process on detailing the new storm system. This a unique system
because of the head pressures exerted by the storm water. We have
designed the manhole at the connection point and new 48 inch storm
pipe to resist a force of 150 psi. Preliminary details of the
connection manhole were sent to WSDOT for review. We have received
WSDOT approval on the details submitted. The new pipe will be
installed with a greater slope than provided by the existing
system. This will increase the gravity flow capacity of the 48
inch pipe.
The new line will be constructed so that access points do not
exceed 400 feet. Construction documents for the existing pipe were
obtained from WSDOT. Details and specifications used in the
original pipe construction have been reproduced for this project.
These details and specifications have been given to Associated Sand
& Gravel. Telephone conversations I have had with their pipe
designers indicates that the materials can be manufactured.
Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will not alter the basin
characteristics. The new line will remain a conveyance system for
off -site flows only. No catch basin for on -site drainage will be
connected to the new line. Therefore drainage from the site will
not enter the pipe during or after construction.
The abandoned section of 48 inch pipe will be capped at the ends.
GeoEngineers has prepared recommendations on how to deal with the
sections under the building slab and foundation. The abandoned
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 6
section can remain under the building and does not require
additional treatment. The pipe does not have to be filled with CDF
or be crushed and backfilled. Where the pipe crosses the north and
south exterior walls, the footing will be designed as a grade beam.
Interior column footings which are located near the pipe will have
piles extending below the invert elevation of the pipe. Therefore,
the abandoned sections of pipe will not be subjected to increased
building loads.
Sanitary Sewer System:
The sanitary sewer main enters the site from the south near the
southeast property corner. In the southern driveway, the sewer
main is turned west and extends approximately 675 feet to a manhole
located west of the asphalt parking lot. The sewer then angles
northward to the loading dock area on the west side of the existing
9 story building. The manhole for the building connection is
approximately 17 feet deep. There is an electronic flap gate on
the building service line to prevent sewer from flowing into the
building line. From this manhole the sewer main continues
northward approximately 640 feet to a manhole located in the
northwest corner of the site. This manhole also collects flows
from areas north of the Parkway Place site. From the manhole in
the northwest corner of the site, the flow is turned eastward
toward Southcenter Boulevard. The sewer main crosses beneath
Southcenter Boulevard and then turns northward.
It appears the primary reason the sewer was extended to the west
side of the Parkway site was to provide a future connection point
for property to the west. Since the main was extended the longest
possible route, it became relatively deep along the western side
of the project. The existing 9 story building required a deep
building sewer service to the basement and therefore the additional
depth was justifiable.
The new site plan locates a building over the existing sewer main.
Therefore the sewer will have to be relocated. In December of
1994, we had Santana Excavating pot hole the 66 inch storm pipe to
verify the sewer crossing proposed on the BAR drawings. Elevations
of the 66 inch storm pipe and 12 inch do not allow a crossing to be
made where we originally proposed. Therefore the sewer design has
been revised to use the existing crossing at the western end of the
site. We are proposing to saddle the existing sewer main after it
crosses the 66 inch storm pipe. A new sewer line will then be
constructed back to the east and then north to the existing main.
This route has been selected because the deep trench along the base
of the retaining wall created design problems. The longer run has
resulted in flatter pipe slopes. The pipe slope exceeds the
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 7
minimum slope requirements of DOE. There is not sufficient
elevation to have a 0.1 foot drop across the manholes. The 0.2%
slope will be maintained across the manholes.
The existing sewer main will have to remain in operation during
construction of the new main. This can be accomplished by setting
a new manhole structure on the existing main at the lower
connection point. The existing pipe will extend through the new
structure and continue to convey the flow. From the manhole, new
sewer pipe will be installed southward to the existing main. A new
manhole will be set over the existing main at the higher connection
point. Again the existing pipe will extend through the new manhole
conveying the flow to the existing downstream pipes. The new sewer
run will be tested and approved prior to routing the flows into
them. Once approved, the existing pipe within the manhole will be
removed and the manhole bottoms channeled to direct the flow into
the new sewer pipe.
Existing sewer pipes under the floor slab will be capped and
abandoned. The existing pipes are approximately 17 feet deep.
According to GeoEngineers, the pipes do not have to be removed.
Therefore only the existing manhole structures within the building
area will have to be removed.
Water Service:
A dead end 10 inch water main currently serves the Park Place site.
The dead end line also appears to be the only service for the
adjacent properties on the north and south side of Parkway Place.
The water main enters the site from Southcenter Boulevard, just
north of the center driveway. The water main has a pressure of
approximately 150 psi, and therefore fire flow is not in question.
The water main will be looped across the site. This is necessary
to adequately provide the fire hydrant spacing. The existing dead
end water main will have to be connected to another main so that
the loop has two sources. This will allow sections of the main to
be isolated for maintenance without shutting down the water supply
for the entire system. A second feed is also required by the fire
marshal.
Since the BAR approval, we have been corresponding with Levitz
Furniture and American National Insurance Company about extending
a 10 inch public water main across their site. Levitz Furniture is
leasing the site from American National Insurance. There is a 10
inch water main on the south boundary of the Levitz site. American
National Insurance is the property owner, so approval to complete
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 8
the work and granting of easements will require their
authorization. A water main loop would benefit both Levitz and
Parkway Place sites. Levitz is willing to allow the work and
therefore it appears likely that American National Insurance
Company will allow the water main loop to extend across their
property.
Temporary Erosion Control and Grading:
One of the first tasks will be the demolition of the existing
building. It is my understanding that the building will be
demolished using a crane and wrecking ball. This process will
require a relatively small area for stock piling the material and
moving the construction equipment around the existing structure.
During this phase, most of the existing asphalt paving will be
retained. An area will be dedicated for stock piling the material.
The area will be enclosed with filter fabric fence to prevent silt
laden storm water run -off from entering the existing storm system.
Since the material will consist of crushed brick, glass and
concrete, siltation should not be a significant problem.
After the building demolition is completed, construction of the
retaining wall will commence. Material excavated for the wall
construction will be placed on the building pads. Existing asphalt
concrete paving below the building pads will remain. The
contractor will break the existing paving so that water cannot
accumulate at the interface. The top 12 inches of building pad
will be capped with the crushed building material. Since the
excavated material will be compacted immediately after placement
and the existing asphalt concrete paving will remain, there should
not be a significant amount of sediment generated.
A wetland exists in the southwest corner, just outside the parking
lot area. The wetland has been delineated by a wetland specialist
and located by a field survey crew. Since the existing parking lot
drains from west to east, storm water run -off control should not be
a problem during construction. The new site plan has been designed
so that new paving will not extend beyond the existing pavement in
the vicinity of the wetland. A filter fabric fence should be
installed prior to starting demolition so that the wetland can be
clearly identified. The filter fabric fence will also prevent silt
laden storm water from entering the wetland during construction.
There is an existing ditch along the western edge of paving which
conveys the hillside drainage to the north and south. The section
which drains to the south flows into the wetland. Construction of
the retaining wall and building pads will destroy the existing
ditch. An interceptor swale will be constructed at the top of wall
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 9
to convey the hillside drainage north and south. The interceptor
swale will prevent storm water from flowing over the top of wall
during construction and after the wall is completed. The section of
swale draining southward will be tied back into the wetland,
preserving the existing wetland hydrology.
Filter fabric fence will be installed along the eastern limit of
clearing. An interceptor swale will be constructed along the
western side of filter fence. The swale will convey storm water
run -off from the disturbed areas to sediment traps. This system
should provide adequate protection for the downstream system.
Crushed material from the existing building will be used to cap the
building pads and graded parking areas. The crushed material will
provide a surface which is resistant to erosion.
Other Best Management Practices will also be implemented to reduce
the impacts to off -site areas. These include wetting the
demolition materials being crushed and graded areas to reduce dust,
installing filter fabric material in catch basin grates, sweeping
parking lot and road surfaces, delineating limits of clearing on
the plans and installation of a rock construction entrance. Site
grade will be established to produce a balanced earthwork volume.
This will help reduce truck traffic outside the project area during
construction. The existing asphalt paving will not be removed from
the existing parking lot. Existing paving will be broken and fill
placed directly on the surface. The top 3 inches of fill will be
treated with cement. This will produce a surface which is very
resistant to erosion. These measures represent the minimum
requirements which will be shown on the construction documents.
Final Drainage System:
The off -site drainage tightline system will retain the same
function as the existing site. Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will
not change the flow characteristics of the system. If the northern
48 inch pipe system inlet capacity is exceeded, then the storm
water will follow the existing overflow route. The new building
has been located so that the north face does not extend into the
existing overflow route. If there is a failure of the overflow
route, storm water will flow overland to the Southcenter Boulevard
system. The building will not be flooded if this occurs.
Buildings have also been located outside the overflow route for the
southern 54 inch pipe system. If the inlet capacity of the 54 inch
pipe is exceeded, or there is a failure, storm water will flow
overland to the wetland area. This is the same route followed
under the existing site plan. The building will not be flooded if
this situation occurs.
Storm Drainage Report
March 13, 1995
Page 10
A swale will be constructed along the top of retaining wall at the
western slope. From the retaining wall high point, the swale will
convey storm water north and south along the top. At the point
where the retaining wall is no longer required, the swales will be
connected into the existing ditches. Therefore the existing
drainage courses will be preserved. This is critical for the
southern drainage course since it supplies water to the wetland.
Drainage from the new parking lot will be collected by the existing
catch basins. Underground pipe from the new catch basins at the
loading docks will convey the storm water to the existing storm
drainage system. The existing storm drainage system discharges
untreated storm water directly into the Southcenter Boulevard
system. Since this is no longer an acceptable practice, oil /water
separation vaults with a coalescing chamber will be installed at
the existing discharge points. This method of water quality
improvement is widely accepted for existing storm system retrofit
in urban areas. The water quality vaults will be sized for a 6
month -24 hour storm event according to D.O.E. Storm Water Design
Standards. Storm water flows greater than the 6 month -24 hour
event will be routed around the vault in a bypass system. This
assures the oils and sediment trapped within the vault are not
flushed to the downstream system.
There are existing storm drainage pipes located below the new floor
slab. According to GeoEngineers, the pipes can be abandoned in
place if there is at least 3 feet of cover. Abandoned pipes will
be capped at the ends. Some sections of storm pipe may have to be
removed where they cross structural walls. These locations will be
identified on the structural plans. Catch basin structure located
within the building footprint will be removed.
JEA /cd
KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON. SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
FIGURE 3.S.1C 2 -YEAR 24 -HOUR ISOPLUVIALS
0•
Witt
,Ji
ft-14r
2 -YEAR 24 -HOUR PRECIPITATION
3.4 '1"i' ISOPLUVIALS OF 2 -YEAR 24 -HOUR
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 6 MAIM
1+300,000
3.5.1 -8 L 1/90
.1 ....::•• IZ-4,
-,,—...-:: ...-:..(1zo --• .4
.74 sz)
. *? O4 .4
_.- ...,. 0) ,Iz,
..
,‘ ..-. • 1 '114 rii?
i. 4,* ■
—4
%
I-I'ST
000•00e tT
G
9 re Z TO
S3HONI NI NOlitfild1031:1d
AVQ-L 1:IV3A-001. AO S1VIArl1dOSI tre --
N011V1Id1338c1 Ava-L EIV3A-001-
s
;42
- — it=o-of
1VflNVNO1S3G 113.LVM 3DVASIIS NO.LONIHSVM A11%11103 DN1N
N M AU AL
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SURFACE W ATER DESIGN
FIGURE 3.5.11 100-YEAR 7-DAY 1SOPLUV1ALS
_
8.2 -
9.68'4
9.08.8
9
ir
r
100-YEAR 7-DAY PRECIPITATION
3.4 ISOPLUVIALS OF 10YEAR 7-DAY
TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
1: 300,000
7 6 Mll•%
15.
14.0
13.c
3.5.1-14
C L
'
1••• •••
N
1/90
3/ 8/95
Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. page 1
Parkway Place
John E. Anderson, P.E.
storm disk /94187
BASIN ID: B2
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA
RAINFALL TYPE
PRECIPITATION
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
BASIN
NAME: SOUTH
2.23 Acres
USER1
1.33 inches
10.00 min
11.83 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.57 cfs VOL:
BASIN ID: B3
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA •
RAINFALL TYPE
PRECIPITATION •
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC •
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.17
NAME: BASIN
1.92 Acres
USER1
1.33 inches
10.00 min
11.83 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.50 cfs VOL:
BASIN ID: B4
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA •
RAINFALL TYPE
PRECIPITATION
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
NAME:
SUMMARY
BASIN
BASEFLOWS: 0.00
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.23
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 2.00
CN • 98.00
Ac -ft TIME: 460
BETWEEN BLDGS
0.15
BASEFLOWS: 0.00
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.19
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 1.73
CN • 98.00
Ac -ft TIME: 460
cfs
Acres
Acres
min
cfs
Acres
Acres
min
BASIN SOUTH OF WINNERS
1.75 Acres
USER1
1.33 inches
10.00 min
9.17 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.51 cfs VOL:
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.17 Acres
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 1.58 Acres
CN • 98.00
0.14 Ac -ft TIME: 460 min
3/ 8/95 Bush, Roed & Hitchings, Inc. page 2
Parkway Place
John E. Anderson, P.E.
storm disk /94187
BASIN ID: B5
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA •
RAINFALL TYPE •
PRECIPITATION •
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC •
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
BASIN SUMMARY
NAME: NORTH BASIN
1.10 Acres
USER1
1.33 inches
10.00 min
9.30 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.32 cfs VOL:
BASIN ID: F
SCS METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA •
RAINFALL TYPE •
PRECIPITATION •
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC •
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.08
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.11 Acres
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.99 Acres
CN • 98.00
Ac -ft TIME: 460 min
NAME: NORTH BASIN
1.10 Acres
USER1
1.33 inches
10.00 min
9.30 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.32 cfs VOL:
BASIN ID: bl
SBUH METHODOLOGY
TOTAL AREA •
RAINFALL TYPE •
PRECIPITATION •
TIME INTERVAL •
TIME OF CONC
ABSTRACTION COEFF:
0.08
NAME: wall
3.04 Acres
USER1
3.90 inches
10.00 min
15.00 min
0.20
PEAK RATE: 0.88 cfs VOL: 0
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.11 Acres
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.99 Acres
CN • 98.00
Ac -ft TIME: 460 min
swale for 100 year
BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs
PERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 2.50 Acres
CN • 77.00
IMPERVIOUS AREA
AREA..: 0.00 Acres
CN • 98.00
36 Ac -ft TIME: 480 min
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. (..
CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
�'. (206) 323 -4144
H (206) 323 -7135 • Fax
JOB
Y Ft-4_ .s
SHEET NO. OF
CALCULATED BY DATE
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
. ro
VAT ��o-cps
• voLuv \n E 5000 aol
. ............
-. W z...CA UAL l 'r-Y PER . E. IS. (0 M _ 0 • (0-t r
.= o.101,(A2,, o. ") = 1,372"
StNGt Acl_L. RS1KIS *. P‘PP2o 1lvtitaTELs T4 .....` -+Mkg.. St .
`rte... hESt6N ' %L,. Py6 FvR THE 1 442(.v6S1' 5AS ►►�1..........�F T1 W,-
.....
\o( -- CPS tiv02. Fat TV..1-42.0 S'T P. stt i Ti N fl WILL
YALE
TT At,satua-te fotZ 'Ns
P 'oNA .: 631206 e + 132.
A= 2.Z3a�
GZ : = O.5'1 Gr5 .
TIME 1W VPN1-1" = Q 0.577 sr ' \t.l O.lSFr, = Iq,S MAN, >15rniU
•
l rw L J'. ?tPe . FAz. .CAF L o,y'l c,t=,
P� PC ..t.a (7& = a ,. 50 % ..
Co" Q F = O #4('
ff00UC1 4041 IS** Sky's/ xs 1144:44, / rita /„ ■4 crow Masi 01411 logo ROA TOLL NC 1400 7/54.143
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC.
CIVIL ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYORS
2009 Minor Avenue East
Seattle, WA 98102
(206) 323-4144
(206) 323-7135 ' Fax
.00..
B R H
SHEET NO
CALCULATED BY -116?11
CHECKED BY DATE
SCALE
OF
DATE
NEW: ?FE t.t.nu. 13g .5 /-b-77 rb A4,4-re4-1 77 /r/tA42
te,C1,4•147 IFEre....ilicEr) • Ti (_.4-ae:5.-r i550451^.1
/4612--5 Q A /211 /00,eio
ApEottrru: A-REA5 Aeoz-E 7746
. .
...._ or-
rzx tVozrill L) /W/ Gu c.c., as'
7-14147* "Tb ,Slz,"5D sc>t,_.)
i(i0277#4 5/L'� e9 7.71 PRopp.Tzry, 77.07 7.
LeE5 Afe..77- A/74-ve-- t/c- 77/er
.01/11.(1A7-074 VA-14-7 F:66141
gccrf t7Rdso... rog 7-44 5cror-44 f4411.4, 7;
czwvecy.a-r) Ib. -MF. is<igr LAf. ifir 1 7 . r-gerieg. TA .ezz
ti-Ra4 Aior /h444-- 7. it,g bveuive-D /J 774e-- okikm7sZ,
MAxv
pie' Mn ivokril or 77k /O7/ 14/84- Nor
te35 Ciat4087'), 77,16 mi/p1.4a-Ivr
VeZ , 7/WI tAIE Aleit/65' 4107- Fizavroe-D ,4&)
wt-1)1.--r i5'g 77-/S
P°^ftri 764 Wen.79; ,Peryd.Ers7V-1/40,4 61.1r4 0141 k i 11CO MON
A
3.51
Cftsrfm■ 1 slop.. (rtyr.t.12-
0..005
Sid. slop.. (721)■
1.
Welt Argon-
037
n
0.015
Wmt L'airimmtmr■
1.82
scre.ftom width (ft)-
Flow delEpth (rtj—
1
0.20
Cmloulftteld Flow (cros)--
0-91.51.
Flow Nrubloolty (A.1241)'"
2-4462
C. wag'
tc4x4Y iwc.V.-04.rt-1-- *14
— \OD M..O'1 = 0
4ASe 44"4 DZCCvgAV \ "B k) 4
— s\4.4A.LE t3s. e-or-laza-ce
fl= o.0%s
ti■ = ,50470
,•.111.>e 130-voiv\
114. (...c>r,sc.iReTS. \/...mkt..e
,e)r.Jvs‘-( Ti-ie 100 \ra-niz C5Err1
<JA-r ),4-01F AT A Z744
ozcl c see CA LC Al3f-WES)
t7sPot-IP-ele AT3:)\ie
03/08/95
RAINFALL PILE:
STORM SEWER SUMMARY REPORT
Parkway off -site syates
FILE: 9487.STM
100 YEAR DESIGN STORK
PAGE 1 OF 1
I - 0.000/ ( Tc + 0.000) ^ 0.000
LINE ID
FLOW RATE INFO
PIPE INPO
1
HYDRAULIC INFO
LINE,' DESCRIPTION IINC ARIRUNOFFCIINLTIHEIINLT IIINC CIAI INPUTQ IUNIF0RMISIzE /IINVERT 'PIPE I NVAL IHGLSLOPEIHYD GRD 1 VEL
I DOWNLINE/ 1TOT ARIWEIGHTDI Tc 1TOTL 11T0T CIA' TOTAL() 1FLOWCAPITYPE 1UP /DOWN 'LEW 11NVSLOP1 JLC 1UP /DOWN 1UP /DOWN
1 I (ac) I C 1 (sin) 1(in /11)1 (cfa) 1 (cfs) 1 (cts) 1(1n) I (ft) 1(ft) I(tt /it)I (!t /ft)l (ft) 1 (Pt /s)
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 I OUTFALL 1 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 I 6601 16.501 10001 0.0131 0.0221 42.041 21.55
1 DNLN - 0 1 0.01 -man' 1.221 0.001 0.001 512.001 150.21 6601 14.501 1 0.0021 0.00 I 19.901 21.64
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 66/48 JOINT 1 0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 I 4801 22.511 9101 0.0131 0.0211 61.491 16.71
1 DHLN ■ 1 1 0.01 -maul 0.311 0.001 0.001 210.001 116.71 4801 16.501 1 0.0071 0.00 1 42.041 16.71
1 48DEND /HILL
I DNLN - 2
1
4 1 66/54 JOINT
1
1
5 1 54 TO SILL
1
1
6 I
1
DNLN 1
DNLN 4
54 ON HILL.
DNLN - 5
0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 210.001 1 4801 69.001 3101 0.0131 0.0371 72.881 16.85
0.01 -mini 0.001 0.001 0.001 210.001 559.51 4801 22.511 1 0.1521 0.00 1 61.491 16.71
1
0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 6601 16.581 401 0.0131 0.0081 42.371 12.71
0.01 -man! 0.341 0.001 0.001 302.001 150.21 6601 16.501 1 0.0021 0.00 1 42.041 12.71
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1
0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 5401 16.581 1101 0.0131 0.0241 44.961 18.99
0.01 -man' 0.251 0.001 0.001 302.001 8.81 5401 16.581 1 0.0001 0.00 1 42.371 18.99
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 302.001 I 5401 69.001 2801 0.0131 0.1021 73.411 19.09
0.01 -nan' 0.001 0.001 0.001 302.001 858.51 5401 16.581 1 0.1911 0.00 I 44.961 18.99
r ��G 2.tr�fj(41Z (N t-X (5T1t- 0 GaG , 1 rj4‘ 4 " -1 F‘
N 1/2 LA c\ sQ.v L. 1-0 Gut✓v -�, G2o�sl tila
54' comb e S F = 302 GV S
s r s -row
l e4r 1,1,/42 = 61.4t71- 22, sr= .38,6/8 Fr -7 z-r 8 or Neu F�,�
r48 sD
PRe55ufZE = 39,Qf3 r -rte 2. ?)6g r psci ' /50 psi 5ood
661/4e1). = 42, 04'-- /Cogs'
fY g s' = e 5 , 5 f Fr
PQv-veE = .S.54Fr 2,30844 59 ps/ < 150psi
66H/4 gIt6,.,NE6,--rto►.l
i
i
i
ft - CAST (Zpu{5 MN
C /
W� AST Tor s%c s'oN
Car.3c. 13e:T'.JE
Wet 4T7W
&:5.)-t-- tt.l
P(. -PC.0
'o-Ctovo
/ ,•
¢8" Foe Acc.64`2
GAy� (N
‘se tA \' w
P,ot -t 17 ou3r4 1.--t
1„,10.1) t0 NP've
CL-ty a- 5 VtT
r out oe ulttw
46'->r-7
Bye /N My 1'b EXTEW
IN7b CAS - /ev -PLACE f3A5C
SbC.-11o�
7/4 8 " ,j, I e(r7 `1
d'a or Gb" egeAug
MI-4 mu L e,,em 440)40
17(.,Fo1 Vrgv,-)
98'(dEw9
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
April 10, 1995
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
Mr. Roy Bennion
Park Place Associates
800 Fifth Avenue
Suite 3700
Seattle, Washington 98104
Re: Parkway Place
Dear Mr. Bennion:
In enforcing the SEPA conditions attached to this project with respect to noise and nuisances,
the following decision has been made. We will enforce a 70 dB(A) limit on noise associated
with demolition and construction for this project. This is the maximum noise level permitted
under state and local codes for noise levels from an industrial property to an industrial property,
and as such is the maximum permitted noise level under ordinary circumstances.
If we receive complaints in the department on noise levels associated with demolition or
construction, we will ask that the contractor on the project hire a qualified professional to
measure noise levels at the appropriate property line of the complaining property. If the noise
levels exceed the 70 dB(A) limit, we will consider mitigation at that time.
I would suggest that you take the following steps to minimize any demolition /construction delays
in the event a complaint is received:
1. Make arrangements with a qualified environmental noise specialist to be 'on call' so that
should a complaint be recieved, quick response can occur. It would be helpful if you
could inform us of your arrangements and provide information on the individual's
qualifications.
2. Identify alternative measures that can be taken or attempted to reduce noise levels in the
event it is determined that the standard referenced in this letter is exceeded.
Sincerely,
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431 -3665
.... � .. .... .
cc Blayne Leingang R.W. Rhine
Duane Griffin, City of Tukwila
Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Diana Painter
Company: City of Tukwila
Phone: 431 -3661
Fax: 431 -3665
From: Michael Woodland
Phone: 467 -4806
Fax: 621 -8782
Date: 23 February 1995
Pages (including this
cover page): 14
Comments:
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Diana,
Included here is a draft of the complete SEPA report. I am also putting a
copy in the mail along with some material from PSAPCA.
Look the report over and tell me if it addresses the elements and code
requirements in the level of detail you wanted. Is there any thing else that should be
included? In addition, I have several questions relating to the notes you made
concerning elements. I've included a copy of your notes here as well.
The questions are as follows:
• I didn't write anything for the element on aesthetics on retaining wall
detailing. There wasn't much definition of this by the time the report was
issued. There still isn't as far as I know. Am I missing something?
• There is nothing on noise for the element on Environmental Health.
Except for not restating allowable dB(A), I thought the Checklist covered
it sufficiently. Do you have some elaboration?
• There is nothing in the element on transportation regarding "No
intersection impact analysis" or "Provide ped access ". I have no
documentation on these issues. Can you fill me in?
• The element on utilities does not cover "shoring up the wall while utilities
are relocated" because I'm not sure of the reference. Is this the bracing
]FAXED
•
• across to the new building mentioned in the 21 Dec report from Geo
Engineering? If so it follows the date of the SEPA report and is covered
in the 17 Jan addendum. Is that sufficient?
• The element on utilities also does not cover interference with the WSDOT
storm line. I have no documentation on this issue.
• The code requirements section included a note regarding "Utilities etc. ".
What would you like here? Required utilities permits /approvals include
Sanitary Side Sewer, Storm Drainage, and Water. Is there a summary of
thes " that would be useful?
Michael
Earth
Air
for2, E. pa_ ;Kcaw:T
Mention excavation of hillside
Discuss erosion control (says will do it during dry months, in January?)
Discuss impacts of crushing operation, demolition
Surface water
No surface water impacts. See below.
Ground water
Ground water on the site flows generally to the northwest. This would indicate that demolition
and construction activities would have minimal impact to the classified watercourse in the
northeast corner of the site. According to the SEPA Checklist, the closest construction activity
to this watercourse is 70'.
Vegetation
Mention trees removed from landscaping, trees removed from hillside, tree replacement plan
and vegetated wetland buffer
Noise
Mention noise during grading, construction, demolition, crushing
Environmental health
Mention asbestos in referenced in report
Aesthetics
Mention detailing of wall
Transportation
Problems with trip generation analysis
No intersection impact analysis
Transit stop /shelter to be retained
Provide ped access
Utilities
Mention need for shoring up wall while utilities relocated.
Mention coordination between storm sewer relocation and interference with WSDOT storm
drainage line.
mention new easements per conditions
8
2/20/95 5 :13 PM
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT: Parkway Place
DATE: December 1, 1994
PROPOSAL: To demolish a 9 -story office building and construction 150,000 sq. ft.
of retail space
LOCATION: 17501 Southcenter Parkway
APPLICANT: Howard Turner, Architect, Turner & Associates
Michael Sandorffy, Developer, Park Place Partners
FILE NUMBER: L94 -0085 SEPA
THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - significance
Issued December 1, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
The environmental review of this proposal consisted o an analysis based on the following documents
included in the environmental record:
A. SEPA Checklist, revised, dated November 10, 1994
B. Report from Arthur D. Little, "Environmental Baseline Assessment," April 29, 1993
C. Letter from Peter Jowise, Herrera Environmental Consultants, "Parkway Plaza Building
Inspection," October 29, 1993
D. Report from Envirobusiness, Inc., "Phase II Limited Subsurface Investigation," November 12,
1993
E. Letter from Mark Jacobs, TP &E, "Parkway Place Boeing Site Trip Generation Study,"
September 15, 1994
F. Letter from Blayne Leingag, R.W. Rhine, "Parkway Plaza Building; Demolition," September
23, 1994
Page 1
G. Letter from Michael Sandorffy, Parkway Place Partners, "Canopy Removal," October 31, 1994
H. Report from Talasaea Consultant, "Parkway Place Retail Center Sensitive Areas Ordinance
Report," November 1994
I. Letter from Blayne Leingang, R.W. Rhine, "Parkway Place," November 7, 1994
J. Letter from Mark Jacobs, TP &E, "Parkway Place Boeing Site Midday Trip Generation,"
November 9, 1994
K. Letter from Shawn Parson, LandPlan, "Parkway Place," November 10, 1994
L. Report from GeoEngineers, "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Parkway
Place," November 10, 1994
M. Report from Bush, Roed & Hitchings, "Preliminary Report for BAR Review,: November 10,
1994
N. Letter from Michael Sandorffy, Parkway Place Partners, "Canopy Removal," November 10,
1994
O. Plans and Drawings by Howard Turner & Associates, November 10, 1994
P. Letter from Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila Public Works, "Parkway Place," November 18,
1994
Q. Letter from Paul Grant, Shannon & Wilson, "Geotechnical Review, Proposed Parkway Place
Retail Center," November 28, 1994
R. Letter from Doug Johnson, Metro, "Transit Issues and the Parkway Place Retail Center,"
November 28, 1994
S. Letter from Gary Schulz, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, "Parkway
Place Retail Center Preliminary Environmental Review," November, 28, 1994
T. Conversation between Dale Morimoto, Environmental Program Manager, WSDOT, and Diana
Painter, November 29, 1994
U. Conversation between Bob Kimmerling, Materials Laboratory, WSDOT, and Diana Painter,
December 1, 1994
DESCRIPTION OF'I'HE PROPOSAL
Proposal: The applicant proposes demolishing a 216,000 square feet of office space and construction
approximately 150,000 square feet of retail space.
Existing site: A nine -story concrete slab and beam, brick -clad office building currently exists on the
site. It is sited in the center of the 15 acre site, surrounded by parking and flanked on the northeast and
southeast corners (originally part of this parcel) by two restaurants. A cooperative parking
arrangement exists between the restaurants and the owner of this property. The west half of the site
consists of a wooded hillside with two drainage ways, draining from west to east, and into the existing
storm sewer system.
Surrounding land use: Retail businesses and restaurants exist north of the site; a warehouse /retail
outlet is located on the southern boundary; to the east is Southcenter Parkway, which provides access
to the site, with retail businesses across the street; and to the west is the right -of -way to Interstate 5.
Page 2
Project description: Demolition of the existing office building involves salvaging the brick and steel,
and recycling other building materials by crushing them and using them for fill in what is now the
basement of the existing office building. The next phase of the project involves excavating and
constructing a 5' to 36' retaining wall at what is now the toe of the existing slope, on the west edge of
an abandoned railroad bed. Soil from this excavation will also be used for fill on -site. The next phase
involves re- location of utilities where applicable. The most significant re- location will be a 48"
pressurized storm sewer line, which is located under the footprint of the proposed building.
Two one -story concrete tilt -up structures will be constructed on the site, ranging in height from 26' to
48'. One approximately 32,000 square foot retail store will be located on the southern portion of the
site. The larger structure, approximately 125,000 square feet, will house three retail outlets. The
structures will be site from 220' to 375' west of the Southcenter Parkway, but will be oriented toward
the Parkway. Some of the existing parking area and mature landscaping will be retained. Other
portions of the parking lot will be re- striped, and new landscaping added. Oil water coalescing plates
will be installed in the storm system for all parking areas. New landscaping will be added, and some re-
forestation of the hillside will be undertaken.
Access: Existing access to the site will be retained. The primary entry will be at the center of the
eastern boundary, where there is a traffic signal. Secondary entries are located at the northeast and
southeast corners of the site, and will also be retained. These will serve as truck and fire access for the
new project, as well as access to the existing restaurants. An existing bus stop and bus shelter in the
northeast corner of the site will remain.
Sensitive areas: Classified sensitive areas on the site include Class 3 slopes from the railroad bed to
the western boundary of the site; a Class II wetland at the south end of the property; and a Type 2
Watercourse near the north boundary of the property. A portion of the slope will be excavated in
conjunction with this project and retained with a soldier pile retaining wall. Erosion controls and
revegetation will be required in conjunction with construction. The wetland will be protected with a
25' vegetated buffer. The watercourse will not be affected by this project.
Page 3
PRINCIPAL CHECKLIST ITEMS
1. EARTH
Excavation of Hillside- In response to question B. le the SEPA Checklist notes that "8- 10,000 cubic
yards of soil will be removed from the hillside and placed as fill". This excavation is part of work
intended to increase the level area on the site and could actually involve as much as 14,000 cubic yards
of cut from the hillside.
Retaining Wall- A retaining structure would be constructed to stabilize the exposed surface of the
excavation. As originally proposed, the structure would be a tied -back soldier pile wall approximately
700 feet long and varying in height between 5 and 36 feet depending on topography. A 48" storm
sewer, currently located at the toe of the slope and running north - south, will be relocated so that its
centerline is approximately 10 feet east of the new wall. In a report dated 10 November 1994
(document "L "), the applicant's engineer recommended that the wall be constructed as follows: The
soldier piles should be embedded a minimum of 15 feet below the planned base of excavation. Passive
resistance available on the piles extending below the level of excavation was determined using an
equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot applied to a width equal to 2.5 times the diameter
of the piles or the spacing between the piles, whichever is less. As the excavation progresses
downward, timber lagging would be installed between the soldier piles to limit spalling and loosening
of soil in back of the wall and to provide a smooth surface against which to place drainage material.
The permanent facing for the wall (such as cast -in- place, precast, or sprayed concrete) would then be
installed against the drainage material. (This Mitigated DNS requires, among other conditions, that
concrete facing be installed over the wood lagging.)
Erosion Control- In response to question B.lh the SEPA Checklist notes that "Earthwork activities
should be done during periods of dry or intermittently wet weather ". Given that the project is
constrained by a very tight schedule that anticipates construction beginning in early spring it appears
unlikely that earthwork activities could be accomplished during other than wet weather. Accordingly,
careful adherence to effective measures for the control of erosion is very important. A set of measures
are detailed by a report from Bush, Roed, & Hitchings, November 10, 1994 (document "M"). They
include erecting a filter fabric fence around the existing structure as well as the delineated wetland areas
during demolition, constructing an interceptor swale along the top of the retaining wall so that drainage
is carried north and south, installing a filter fabric fence and interceptor swale along the eastern limit of
clearing so that run -off is carried to sediment traps, wetting demolition materials before crushing,
installing filter fabric material in catch basin grates, sweeping paved surfaces, delineating limits of
clearing on the plans, and installation of a rock construction entrance.
2. AIR
Demolition- The demolition of the existing office building carries the potential of significant dust
emissions to the air. The proposal includes salvaging as much of the building as possible, demolishing
Page 4
the shell, and crushing the remaining material small enough to be used as fill on -site. The process is
expected to begin during the winter months and last approximately 60 days. Off -site hauling will
include disposal of wood, carpet, sheet rock, ceilings, and structural steel. Hauling should generate
approximately 100 two way trips and result in no more than 12 loads per day. Concrete will be
crushed on -site by machinery that includes built in water misting. No indication is given of the volumes
of water used for misting nor how the waste water will be processed. The reply to question B.2c
outlines a variety of measures for the control of emissions to the air including spraying of dust
suppressants, truck preparation and cleaning, and misting with water. However, the wording is not
clear as to which, if any measures will be followed.
3. WATER
Surface and Ground water- Surface and ground water on the site flows generally to the northeast.
This indicates that demolition and construction activities should have minimal impact to the classified
watercourse in the northwest corner of the site or the type II wetland at the southwest corner.
According to question B.3a(2), of the SEPA Checklist, the closest construction activity to the
watercourse is 70' down hill and to the southeast.
4. PLANTS
Tree Removal and Replacement Plan- Western portions of the site are designated by the City's
Sensitive Area Inventory as a Sensitive Area -Class 3 slope. Consequently, the City's Interim Tree
Ordinance applies to any removal of trees carried out in preparation for excavation of the site's western
hillside. The applicant submitted a tree replacement proposal based on Tree Ordinance Section 7.9
Exceptions. The Exception uses tree canopy cover guidelines for the project's overall tree retention
and replacement. The proposal is detailed in documents "G ", "H", "K ", and "N".
In exchange for 25,752 square feet of tree canopy removed at the toe of the slope, the project will
include a tree replacement area of approximately 12,500 square feet containing 103 1' -2' saplings
consisting of a mixture of 2/3 Douglas fir and 1/3 big -leaf maple. The area is located along the western
boundary of the site. This is deemed an appropriate exchange because, while the adjacent hillside is an
older, "climax- type" growth of mixed Douglas fir and big -leaf maple; the vegetation on -site is younger,
"pioneer- type" growth composed mostly of big -leaf maple, red alder, and some black cottonwood.
The action removes lower value vegetation and replaces it with more desirable plantings.
In addition to tree removal on the western portions of the site, a large number of mature ornamental
trees will be removed from planting areas in the existing parking area. This will occur because of one
or more of three reasons: the poor condition of some of the trees, the location of new buildings, and
revisions to parking aisles required by current parking codes. None of the trees lost from the parking
area are subject to the City's Interim Tree Ordinance and are not subject to replacement.
Page 5
Wetland Buffer- The Type II wetland identified by item 3. Water is insulated from the project by a 25
foot vegetated buffer. The buffer area will be planted with a mixture of Washington or Polack
hawthorn and willow. Trees planted in this area are not part of the project's Tree Replacement Plan.
7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Asbestos- A background report (Document "C ") on the existing office building prepared by Herrera
Environmental Consultants (signed by Peter Jowise and dated 29 October, 1993) states that asbestos -
containing materials in the building may include "...several types of vinyl sheet flooring, floor and cove
mastic, gypsum board (drywall), and joint compound." If these materials are not completely removed
from the building there is a possibility that asbestos may become airborne during the process of
demolition and the grading of the rubble. PASAPCA regulations require asbestos removal by a
certified asbestos abatement contractor.
14. TRANSPORTATION
Trip Generation Analysis - In response to question B.14f the SEPA Checklist notes that "No new
trips per day or during the AM, Noon, or PM peaks are expected". This means that the proposed
167,000 square feet of retail space will generate less traffic to the surrounding urban area than the
2,227 employees of the now unused office building. This conclusion follows from the assumption that
most driveway trips result from "pass -by" or "diverted linked" trips. These are trips that come from
existing traffic, that is drivers already in the area for other shopping reasons. The applicant asserts that
PM peak trips are more significant for retail uses than Noon trips. Assumptions for trip generation for
the project are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Fifth Edition,
1991. The calculations were verified by Ron Cameron (City of Tukwila, Dept. of Public Works) and
noted in a memo dated 18 November, 1994.
Pedestrian Circulation - In response to question B.14b the SEPA Checklist notes that no buses stop
in front of the property. There is, in fact, a bus stop and shelter on Southcenter Parkway located at the
southeast corner of the property. The SEPA Conditions require retention of the stop and shelter.
16. UTILITIES
Storm Sewer Relocation- According to a memo by Ron Cameron (City of Tukwila, Dept. of Public
Works) dated 18 November, 1994 the relocation of the 48 inch storm sewer must take into account
several issues. Among them, he notes that the line is pressurized and so must be concrete, approval
must be sought if the existing line is reused and a surface water drainage plan maintaining continuous
flow is required.
Easements- According to a memo by Ron Cameron (City of Tukwila, Dept. of Public Works) dated
18 November 1994, storm, sewer, and water lines must be provided with new easements where they
Page 6
are public and these must be recorded. This also applies to relocated lines. Where easements are not
needed they should be abandoned.
MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for this project is appropriate, as no
probable significant adverse impacts on the environment can be foreseen as a result of this
project. The following mitigation measures are required as a part of this project:
1. New easements must be provided and recorded for storm, water and sewer lines that are for
public or mutual use. New easements must be provided for all utilities that are relocated in
conjunction with this project. New easements must include abandonment of existing easements
where applicable.
2. The peer review consultant retained by the City, Shannon & Wilson, reviewed the geotechnical
report for the project. Specific recommendations by Shannon & Wilson with respect to wall
design for hillside stability will be followed in conjunction with applicable permits. This
includes, but is not limited to, the use of a tied -back soldier pile wall, three -foot minimum
freeboard, and concrete facing over wood lagging on the wall (verbal recommendation from
Paul Grant, 11- 29 -94).
3. The conditions established by the City Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schulz, and documented
in his letter of November 28, 1994, will be followed with respect to implementation of the City
tree regulations (TMC 18.54) and Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45) in conjunction with
applicable permits.
4. Storm water drainage will be accommodated per recommendation of the City Department of
Public Works.
5. The transit stop and shelter adjacent to the project must be retained.
6. The ability to comply with City noise and nuisance ordinances (TMC 8.22 and 8.28) must be
demonstrated for planned grading, demolition, crushing and construction activities.
7. The ability to comply with City ordinances governing asbestos removal must demonstrated for
planned asbestos removal.
8. It must be demonstrated that construction of the new 48" storm sewer will not undermine the
stability of the retaining wall in conjunction with applicable permits.
Page 7
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The following code requirements apply to this project, and are included here as background
information only. For complete restrictions and requirements refer to applicable codes and ordinances.
Tree Clearing Ordinance (City of Tukwila Ordinance 1715)
A permit is required for tree clearing only within Sensitive Areas or Sensitive Area Buffers. The Tree
Clearing permit application must include a site plan identifying the location, size and species of all trees,
with a diameter of 4" or more. Also required is a landscape plan showing the location, size and species
of proposed replacement trees. The plan must be reviewed by a professional and must identify
mitigation measures and a time schedule for the work. (The DCD Director may stipulate additional
requirements or may waive or modify the existing requirements.) An application fee is required to
cover costs of permit processing. The DCD Director may require insurance coverage if the work
might present a hazard to people or property. The Director may also require some means of financial
security if the possibility exists of unauthorized clearing in association with the work.
Permit approval depends on several criteria. The design should retain as many trees as
possible; protect retained trees against damage during work; minimize impacts to the surrounding
environment; and where trees are being relocated, utilize best management practices. A final criterion
relates to the ratio of trees removed to trees replaced. For each tree removed of 4" to 8" in diameter,
one replacement tree should be planted; for each tree removed of 8" to 12" in diameter, two
replacement trees should be planted; for each tree removed of 12" to 18" in diameter, four replacement
trees should be planted; for each tree removed of 18" to 24" in diameter, six replacement trees should
be planted; for each tree removed of 24" or more in diameter, eight replacement trees should be
planted. Replacement trees shall be a minimum of 2 -1/2" caliper if deciduous or 6' -8' in height if
evergreen and shall not exceed a density of 70 per acre.
If these requirements cause undue hardship an application may be made for an exception in the
calculation of retention and replacement of trees. Where sites have dense stands of trees the DCD
Director may allow the "canopy cover" approach to calculations. In this case canopy cover of each
new tree shall be calculated at 314 square feet.
Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone (TMC 18.45)
A number of environmental conditions including presence of wetlands, watercourses, or potential
geologic instability may cause an area to be categorized as a Sensitive Area. Wetlands and
watercourses are rated Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 according to sensitivity. These Areas and ratings are
shown on the City of Tukwila, Sensitive Areas Maps, 1990. If a site or portion of a site is zoned as a
sensitive area certain restrictions apply. These include very limited allowable uses and a requirement
for Sensitive Area Buffers. Buffer widths for wetlands are 100' for Type 1, 50' for Type 2, and 25' for
Type 3. Buffer widths for watercourses are 75' for Type 1, 35' for Type 2, and 15' for Type 3.
Buffers for Areas of Potential Geologic Instability are determined on a case -by -case basis. In addition,
Page 8
a setback of 15' is required for all commercial developments. Buffers and setbacks may be decreased
or increased by the DCD Director.
When an application is made for a building permit or land use review, the location of any
sensitive areas and buffers must be indicated on the site plan. Several procedures apply to the process
if a sensitive area is identified. These include: a requirement for a Sensitive Areas study, denial of
development if potential costs and dangers cannot be minimized or mitigated, a pre - development
conference, site monitoring by a specialist, and identification of the boundary between a sensitive area
and its buffer by fencing, a sign, or both.
Land- Altering Ordinance (TMC 16.54)
To control erosion and sedimentation the City of Tukwila requires a permit for any land- altering
activity. This permit applies to activities that that may cause sedimentation or result in a change in a
site's natural cover or topography.
An application for a land- altering permit may include the following:
• A site map and land - altering plan that includes existing and proposed topography, existing and
proposed drainage facilities and protective devices, location of proposed excavations and fills, and
the work schedule.
• An interim erosion and sediment control plan that addresses surface run -off and measures to retain
sediment and control erosion.
• An final erosion and sediment control plan that addresses surface run -off and measures to retain
sediment and oil as well as control erosion.
• A maintenance schedule for permanent erosion control facilities that is binding on all subsequent
owners of the property.
• A work schedule detailing when land- alterations will occur and construction cost estimates for use
in determining amounts for required securities.
• A soils engineering report that addresses soil qualities and conclusions and recommendations
regarding procedures and design.
• An Environmental Checklist and completed environmental review.
• A performance bond and
• Supplemental materials as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director.
The Public Works Director may waive any or all of these.
A fee to cover the cost of plan review is charged for a land- altering permit. The permit is
issued within 40 days of submission of an application provided that the application is consistent with
the ordinance. The Public Works Director must be notified within the 48 hour period prior to
beginning a land- altering activity and the Director must be notified of completion of any control
measures within 48 hours of their completion. Other standard permit requirements include:
• Obtain permission in writing from the Public Works Director prior to modifying the control plan.
• Maintain all drainage systems and control measures.
• Repair any siltation or erosion damages resulting from the work.
• Inspect the construction control measures once a week and make any needed repairs immediately.
• Keep a copy of the control plan on -site.
• Protect adjacent property and sensitive areas from damage during grading operations.
Page 9
The proposed work shall be undertaken in accordance with certain mandatory standards
including the following:
• A permit is required for any land - altering activity.
• All work must be done according to an approved land- altering plan.
• A control zone that restricts all siltation and other adverse impacts must be established between a
land - altering activity and any Sensitive Area Buffer
• Any land- altering activity involving a surface area of more than 6,000 square feet must employ
sedimentation and erosion control devices that meet the design standards of the King County,
Surface Water Design Manual, King County Public Works Department, Surface Water
Management Division, January, 1990.
• Required vegetative groundcover shall be planted within 30 days following the completion of
construction.
Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22)
The City has an established policy to minimize the exposure of citizens to the dangers of excessive
noise. It is also the express intent of the City Council to control the level of noise in a manner that
promotes commerce; the use, value, and enjoyment of property; sleep and repose; and the quality of
the environment. It is unlawful to permit a sound of more than 60 dB(A) to intrude upon a
commercially zoned piece of property from another commercially zoned property. Variances may be
granted following consideration of the relative interests of the applicant, neighboring property owners,
and the general public.
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA Regulations I & II)
PSAPCA is the primary agency enforcing federal, state, and local air pollution standards, laws, and
regulations in King , Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. PSAPCA's major concerns include
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, low- altitude ozone, and air toxics. The demolition of buildings
comes under the jurisdiction of PSAPCA as a result of possible dust and asbestos emissions.
Regulation I, article 9 of PSAPCA makes it unlawful to allow the uncontrolled emissions of dust.
Regulation III, article 4 of PSAPCA makes it unlawful to demolish a building unless all asbestos -
containing materials have been removed.
Before a building can be demolished an "Application to Perform a Demolition" and a $25 fee
must be submitted to PSAPCA. If no asbestos is present, the application must also include a survey
conducted by an AHERA certified building inspector that verifies the building as asbestos free. If
asbestos is present then an "Application to Perform an Asbestos Project" must first be filed by an
asbestos contractor. Abatement should then be conducted and followed by submission of an
"Application to Perform a Demolition ".
Page 10
ADDENDUM: Retaining Wall
(17 January, 1995)
Subsequent to the issuance of the Environmental Checklist there has been some difference of
opinion between the applicant and the City regarding the design of the retaining wall at the rear of the
site.
In a report dated 21 December 1994, the applicant's engineer made several supplementary
recommendations. Among these, the engineer asserts that treated timber lagging would provide a
satisfactory permanent facing for the wall; that even without concrete facing a 50 -year life warranty
could be provided. The engineer also reduces the assumption for equivalent fluid pressure from 300
pounds per cubic foot to 250 pounds per cubic foot. In addressing concerns about the proximity of the
storm sewer the engineer suggests that, during construction, no more than 20 feet of the trench should
be open at one time. Additionally, open portions of the trench should be supported by a braced
support system and any future excavation should be accompanied by bracing extending from the base
of the exposed portion of the soldier piles across the trench and bearing against the future building.
In replying to these supplementary recommendations the peer review consultant working for
the City of Tukwila, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., took issue with two important points. A report dated 5
January 1995 suggests that the construction process for the 48" storm sewer will significantly
compromise the passive resistance available for the wall. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. instead suggest that
the design assume that the lateral support the wall is provided not at the parking level but by the base
of the excavation for the sewer line. This would require an additional row of tie - backs. Furthermore,
the report disagrees that treated wood lagging is an adequate facing material. Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
stress the importance of using shotcrete or preformed concrete panels as facing material for the wall.
In a memo dated 10 January, 1995, Ron Cameron (City of Tukwila, Dept. of Public Works)
confirmed the opinions of the City's peer review consultant regarding assumptions for passive
resistance and facing materials. He also noted that WSDOT standards require concrete. A second
memo, dated 12 January, 1995, by Gary Shulz (City of Tukwila, Dept. of Community Development)
also concurs with the recommendations of the peer review consultant. In addition, he recapitulates
Checklist condition number 8 which cautions against compromises to retaining wall stability caused by
relocation of the sewer line and he points out that there may be liability issues for the city if the storm
sewer is installed using special techniques. The applicant was officially informed of the City's support
of these opinions in a letter dated 24 January, 1995 by Jack Pace, acting chair, Development Review
Committee, City of Tukwila.
During a meeting on the 27th of January, 1995 between City staff and the applicant's engineer,
some reconciliation was established between the different positions. Shotcrete reinforced with wire
mesh and sprayed directly on the excavated hillside is being considered by the applicant for the
retaining wall. The City is not requiring wood lagging as part of the wall design. In addition, the
applicant is examining the possibility of relocating the storm sewer line to the east side of the new
building. If this is not possible then passive resistance for the wall will be assumed to begin at the level
of the trench bottom and an additional row of tie -backs will be added.
Page 11
MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for this, project,is appropriate,
as no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment can be foreseen as a result
of this project. The following mitigation measures are required. as a part of this project:
1. New easements must be provided and recorded for storm, water and sewer lines that
are for public or mutual use. New easements must be provided for all utilities that
are relocated in conjunction with this project. New easements must include
abandonment of existing easements where applicable.
2. The peer review consultant retained by the City, Shannon & Wilson, reviewed the
geotechnical report for the project. Specific recommendations by Shannon & Wilson
with respect to wall design for hillside stability will be followed in conjunction with
applicable permits. This includes, but is not limited to, the use of a tied -back soldier
pile wall, three -foot minimum freeboard, and concrete facing over wood lagging on
the wall (verbal recommendation from Paul Grant, 11- 29- 94)..... .
3. The conditions established by the City Urban Environmentalist, Gary Schulz, and
documented in his letter of November 28, 1994, will be followed with respect to
implementation of the City tree regulations (TMC 18.54) and Sensitive Areas
Ordinance (TMC 18.45) in conjunction with applicable permits.
4. Storm water drainage will be 'accommodated per recommendation of the City
Department of Public Works.
5. The transit stop and shelter adjacent to the project must be retained.
6. The ability to comply with City noise and nuisance ordinances (TMC 8.22 and 8.28)
must be demonstrated for planned grading, demolition, crushing and construction
activities.
7. The ability to comply .with. City ordinances governing .. asbestos removal must
demonstrated for planned asbestos removal.
8. It must be demonstrated that construction of the new 48" storm sewer will not
undermine the stability of the retaining wall in, conjunction with applicable permits.
5
s/94 10:04 k'A1 206 8 6050
12/01'94 19:58
IOW Wasfilntiton St.b.
Osis rtmont of Transportation
f
Prom:
GEOENGINEERS
2SDOT MATERIALS LR
T. M. Allen/R. E. Kimmerling
Field Operations Service Support Center
Materials Laboratory Oeoteclunical Branch, 47365
THONe 586 -7659 3CAN 321 -7659
rwx 586 -4611 sCAN FAx 321 -4611
To; Bert Pschundcr
GeoEngineers
RE:
Parkway Place Project
Geotcchnical Engineer Report Review Comments
002
Memorandum
December 1, 1994
M requested, we have reviewed the geotechnical report r the subject project as it relates
to the proposed retaining wall to be constructed on the w st side of the site, below the
nott)ibound lanes of Interstate 5 in Tukwila, Washington.
The selection of a tied -back soldier pile wall as the prefc icd wall type appears.
appropriate. We request the opportunity to review and o4nument on the plans and
specilleations for the wall. We have no further commen4 at this time.
If you have questions or require further information, pleai4e contact Robert Kinuucrling at
586 -7659 (SCAN 321 - 7659).
TIvIA:rek
REK
�J 003
i i1 �ii • i
• •
Landscape Architecture
November 10, 1994
Diana Painter, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
Dept. of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100
Tukwila, WA 98109
RE: Parkway Place
Dear Ms. Painter:
NOV 1 199
DEVELOP ivk• r
In response to your letter dated October 31, 1994, to Mr. Howard Turner as per the subject site, I
have assembled responses to various issues as related to the site's environmental and landscape
architectural concerns.. LandPlan P.S. in concert with TALASAEA, Resource and Environmental
planners, have addressed the site's sensitive areas and vegetative matters. Specifically, the
following items are enclosed for your overall review:
1. Sensitive areas study report (conducted and assembled by TALASAEA)
2. Tree inventory and removal plan
3. Landscape /tree replacement plan
In addition, a professional review and recommendation is submitted herein per city of Tukwila's
Interim Tree Ordinance.
1. General observations of the site's existing ornamental plant materials is that such material is
fair to poor in overall quality within the parking lot planters. Quality of plant material
improves around the existing building and perimeters. Existing vegetation adjacent
Southcenter Parkway is to be retained as well as a majority of the planters south of the
existing driveway access.
6 0 0
Main Street
Suite D,
Edmonds,
Washington
9 8 0 2 0
(206) 776-4932
(Fax) 774 -7803
Page 2 - Letter to Diana Painter of City of Tukwila RE: Parkway Place
2. Protection measures would be undertaken to provide protection during construction. Such
measures would include fencing around a tree's "drip- line" and minimum cut/fill within a
tree's root zone area.
3. The site's western four -acre area entitled Parcel "B" would have 25,752 square feet (s.f.) of
existing vegetation disturbed. Such vegetation consists primarily of "pioneer" type species
in plant succession ecological terminology. Because of the short lived nature of such
species, 30 -40 years, a lower value is attributed. The removal of such vegetation is
proposed to have the replacement trees as per "tree canopy" replacement ratio -- one tree
per 314 square foot of removed vegetation, equaling 82 trees. Use of the "canopy"
methodology was selected due to the dense nature of tree growth and steeply sloped
portions of the "sensitive- slope" area. Specific on -site locations have been chosen for tree
enhancement: "Climax type" species with a higher value are to be planted within a plateau
area near the site southwest corner. Tree species include Big -leaf maple and Douglas fir
species. Wetland buffer -type trees, hawthorns and willow trees, 29 or more scheduled to
supplement a wetland buffer adjacent the site's wetland.
An exception to the City's tree ordinance is requested. Justification to this request can be
substantialed by the following:
1. Eleven of the site's 15 acres are in a developed state and provide a minimum aesthetic value.
2. The proposed removal of an additional 25,752 s.f along the site's west slope area has .
minimum impact due to the nature of the vegetative material; e.g., alder and black
cottonwood.
3. Total tree removal plant quantities remain consistent with the "canopy" criteria count of 82
separate trees. Size has been reduced within the native rectangular area within the
southwest corner to better insure plant survival and rapid growth. Adjacent the site's
wetlands area larger caliper size has been suggested, 3/4 -11/4" cal., to provide a more visible
impact.
4. Existing plant material within planters are to be replaced with healthy "similar" species, 2-
2'/x" cal. This will provide great enhancement of the area which has current questionable
tree viability.
5. The granting of the exception/standard reduction will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity.
Page 3 - Letter to Diana Painter of City of Tukwila RE: Parkway Place
If you should have any questions or request additional information, please don't hesitate to call.
Thank you.
T. Shawn Parsons
PrincipalRegistered Landscape Architect #307
cc: Roy Bennion, Parkplace Partner
Howard Turner, Turner & Associates
John Anderson, Bush, Roed, & Hitchings
Bill Shiels, Talasaea Consultants
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Diana Painter, DCD Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD Urban Environmentalist
DATE: November 28, 1994
RE: Parkway _Place Retail Center #L94 -0084 - Preliminary
Environmental Review.
I have reviewed the project site studies and planned proposals for this project. Also, I have
visited much of the undeveloped portion of the site to provide recommendations for the
SEPA file and BAR review. My comments focus on project compliance with the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance (SAO, #1599) and the Interim Tree Ordinance ( #1715).
This review includes 1) Sensitive areas study report, 2) Tree inventory & removal plan, 3)
Landscape /tree replacement plan, 4) Geotechnical report, and 5) SEPA checklist. The
following recommendations have been discussed with the Department of Community
Development Director.
SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE/WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
I. TMC Chapter 18.45.040 contains a provision to allow wetland buffer reduction when
enhancement is appropriate and approved by the DCD Director. Because the on -site
wetland buffer area has been altered and lacks significant native vegetation, the proposed
reduction in . buffer width is appropriate. However, the applicant must apply the SAO
requirements for wetland alterations separately from other site development modifications
that require tree replacement by the Tree Ordinance.
The buffer enhancement plan is considered conceptual and will be reviewed under the
guidelines of the SAO. Tree replacement for loss on other areas of the site cannot be
transferred to the wetland buffer zone.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Parkway Place Memo
November 28, 1994
Page 2
II. Site reconnaissance found additional wetland area extending off -site but just north of the
delineated wetland on the site. Although the additional wetland area is off -site, the 50 -foot
buffer zone is on the project site. A field measurement indicated that the buffer zone could
extend about 20 feet onto the project site. Since the on -site buffer is part of an old railroad
bed, it could be considered for buffer reduction with enhancement.
M. Wetland boundary and buffer need to be identified on all site maps. A 15 -foot building
setback line should be shown to extend from the outer edge of the proposed wetland buffer
area (TMC 18.45.040).
W. Following the standards of the SAO, the buffer enhancement plan will use native plants
to incorporate diversity and function.' TMC 18.45.040 (c)(3)(A)(ii) states The plan must
include a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and
provides additional protection for the wetland or watercourse functions and values. The
proposed enhancement only includes two species, willow and hawthorn.
v-TREE ORDINANC c 1
I. The applicant has submitted a tree replacement proposal based on Tree Ordinance
Section 7.9 Exceptions. The Exception uses tree canopy cover guidelines for the project's
overall tree retention and replacement. This replacement guideline is particularly
appropriate because the area of trees to be removed is comprised of dense stands of trees.
The dense composition of young trees would be costly to identify and map as "significant
trees" on an individual basis.
As discussed above, the tree canopy cover approach cannot utilize the wetland buffer area
for replacement. However, it appears that most of the existing forested slope could be
enhanced with native conifer tree species to add an evergreen component, and possibly
provide long term slope stability. Two- to four -year old seedlings may be appropriate for
forest enhancement plantings.
The area where tree removal is to occur has at least four tree species. Sheet L1
Landscape/Tree Replacement Plan shows planting of only one species (bigleaf maple) in the
Tree Replacement Area. The tree replacement plan should also incorporate more species
diversity.
Parkway Place Memo
November 28, 1994
Page 3
II. As requested by Park Place Partners (Letter 10/31/94), tree removal was permitted on
the site to accommodate the required geotechnical investigation. The written request was
approved based on minimal tree disturbance including an 8 -foot wide cleared trail. The
impacts appear to be greater than described and the area that was cleared for a trail ranges
from 14 - 19 feet in width.
In response to the City's concerns, a tree inventory for the permitted clearing was submitted
by Park Place Partners (Letter 11/2/94). A total of fifty trees were inventoried and mapped
as potential tree loss from the slope area. Tree removal and replacement for this disturbed
area will be subject to the standards of the Tree Ordinance but not allowed the use of
Section 7.9 Exceptions. Specifically, the disturbed area for geotechnical investigation will
follow the tree replacement guidelines of Section 7.8 C.
Detailed landscaping plans with specifications, planting notes, and performance measures
ect. will be necessary for both wetland buffer enhancement and tree replacement.
SEPA CONDITIONS
I. If feasible, consider saving and relocating the higher quality trees from the existing
landscape plantings.
II. This is a new project with a large amount of impervious surface. Stormwater
management plans should include detention and biofiltration using grass -lined swales and /or
a water quality pond. If the entire site is to be re- developed, the standards of the King
County Surface Water Design Manual should apply.
cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director
•
PARK PLACE PARTNERS
800 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 3700
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
208/624 -1444
10 November 1994
Ms. Diana Painter, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila Dept. Of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Blvd.. Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98109
RE: Parkway Place
Dear Ms. Painter:
" 7-. ". V/V E
211 91994
DEVELOPMENT
As we have discussed and in response to your October 31 letter to Mr. Howard Turner,
strict compliance with City of Tukwila Ordinance 1715 creates undue hardship on the
applicant with respect to project feasibility. Consequently, we are requesting by this letter
combined with the request contained in the letter to you from Landplan P.S. dated
November 10, 1994, that an exception under Ordinance 1715, Section 7.9 be granted,
specifically under the Canopy cover provision 7.9(D)(1).
We believe we comply with the exception requirements in Section 7.9(B), as outlined
below.
1) The owners have signed letters of intent from tenants representing 155,000 square feet
of building area. Howard Turner has designed the project to accommodate the tenants
and the parking required by the code. Because the sensitive slope area to be removed
contains a high tree count, too high to individually measure and plot each tree, we need to
apply canopy cover conditions. If tree replacement were called for at the ratio of one tree
per 314 SF (138 trees per acre) at a maximum of 70 trees per acre, we would have to add
+51,400 SFof area for tree planting to replace the 25,752 SF of canopy lost from the steep
slope. The resulting loss of building and parking area would jeopardize project feasibility.
2) The 25,752 SF of sensitive slope canopy to be removed is largely behind the proposed
buildings and at a height lower than the proposed building. This will be mostly screened
D: \W IN WORDIPARKPLAWREE.DOG 1 1/394
from public view. The site will remain over 20% canopy as a percent of total site required
in 7.9 (D) (1). Even though not required by the ordinance, we have proposed extensive
replanting on the site. Parking islands will be planted to code. An "island" area of 16,850
SF which buffers the wetlands area on the site's southwest corner will be landscaped and
an unplanted and/or underplanted hillside bench of over 13,000 SF will be planted into
maples and Douglas fir. The new (non parking lot) areas to be planted exceed the
sensitive slope area canopy to be removed. We are excited by this plan because it
enhances the wetlands buffer and considerably upgrades the visible trees along Tukwila's
west bench. As reported in the Talasaea report dated 11/10/94, the old growth hillside
was at one time predominantly maple and fir. The understory of existing stand of
alder /cottonwood supports small maple. The proposed planting helps the existing natural
process speed up, producing a healthy stand of "climax type" new trees for future
generations to observe on the hillside. I believe this plan complies with all of the criteria
listed in Section 5.2 of the Ordinance.
3) Public welfare is not impacted by the plan. Rather than a detriment, the plan enhances
the visible hillside and brings the "flat" part of the site into code compliance. A long term
benefit is provided.
Strictly speaking, the site, when redeveloped, will contain approximately 27.4% canopy
cover, considerably above the 20% criteria applied to canopy method criteria in section
7.9 (D) (1.). Technically, if exception is granted, no new planting would be required. We
propose our plan to go beyond the required, but in a way our consultants believe will
serve the site and surrounding areas best for the long term future. Therefore, we request
the exception.
Please contact me with any comments or questions.
Sincerely
PARK PLACE PARTNERS
Bennion
D \WINWORDPAAKPWC\7REE.DOC /11/3!94
PARK PLACE PARTNERS
800 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 3700
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
206/624 -1444
31 October 1994
Ms. Diana Painter
Associate Planner, City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Parkway Place - Design Review # L94 -0084
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Canopy Removal
Dear Ms. Painter:
NOV 1 sl 1994
DEVELOPivu_i .
At the BAR hearing of last Friday, the 28th, City of Tukwila required various engineering and geo-
technical investigations on the hillside to the west of the current office building. Accomplishing the
soils tests will involve placement and movement of drilling equipment on the hillside. Removal of
minor portions of the tree canopy will be necessary to place and move the drilling equipment.
Please consider this letter a request for interim Exception under Section VII of the Tree
Clearing Ordinance, Item 7.9. Parkway Place Partners will formally apply for a tree clearing
permit once site redevelopment has been approved by City of Tukwila.
All vegetation on the hillside in question was entirely removed within the last thirty years. The
hillside naturally revegetated with various deciduous tree species including maple, cottonwood and
alder. The stem count per acre is higher than current forest practices for managed native stands -
higher than one stem per square foot in many areas.
The applicant, Parkway Place Partners, has filed a plan for redevelopment of the site. Once
project approval is received from City of Tukwila a very minor portion of the hillside will be
removed. All removal of any vegetation will be in strict compliance with Ordinance 1715.
Therefore, any vegetative removal in conjunction with geo- technical testing should be subject to the
canopy removal permit we will apply for in conjunction with the redevelopment project.
The following discussion addresses the three criteria for Exception under Section 7.9 of the
Ordinance:
1. Strict compliance with the provisions of the ordinance will jeopardize project
feasibility and reasonable use of the property. The testing required by the city and SEPA
involves three drilling sites on the hillside. Pursuant to the timeline mandated by City of Tukwila,
our work must be accomplished and results submitted to the city not later than November 10.
Allowing one day for site testing and 5 business days for analysis and reporting, indicates our need
for canopy removal approval not later than Thursday, November 3.
BACITY.DOCJ11 /1/94
2. Removal, replacement and mitigative measures proposed arm consistent with Section
5.2 of the Ordinance. Most important is the fact that only a very minor portion of the canopy will
be removed as a result of testing. The site crews will be directed by our representatives on site to
remove as few stems as possible and to minimize the impact of machinery on vegetation.
Visual impacts will not occur as the area in question is not visible to any residential area and is
screened from traffic and other public exposure by the adjacent nine story office building.
Increases in run-off and erosion will not likely occur, given the density of hillside vegetation and
the proposed location of test sites. The drilling equipment will travel along a relatively flat
topographic bench, changing course only to avoid tree removal, where necessary. The pathway
created will be about 8 feet wide and 500 feet long.
The canopy/trees subject to removal under the testing program will be classified and the location
referenced on a site topographic map.
Tree root systems will not be disturbed as the machinery will not excavate other than drilling sites.
If allowed to revegetate, the portion of canopy removed would "in -fill" within a very short period
of time and be unnoticeable after the spring `95 growing season.
3. Granting of the exception will not be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare.
The testing will be beneficial to the public welfare because:
1) The testing will support the city mandate for responsible development
2) Testing will remove a very narrow strip of canopy, amounting to a "thinning" of
the canopy. This is a desirable forest practice.
3) The trees removed will be in the area of proposed canopy removal once the retail
project commences. The canopy removal will be mitigated on site per the
requirements of Ordinance 1715.
If you have any question or comments, please call. Coordinating the equipment and crews will
require additional lead time; we will appreciate a timely response to our request for exemption. We
Iook forward to working together with the City of Tukwila on this project.
Sincerely,
PARK PLACE PARTNERS
e ACZTV.00ai I /V94
NOV 1 91994
t.: r
DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY REPORT FOR BAR REVIEW
PARKWAY PLACE REDEVELOPMENT
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS
2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST
SEATTLE, WA 98102
PHONE:(206) 323 -4144
CONTACT: JOHN E. ANDERSON, P.E.
November 10, 1994
111io1g4
EXPIRES 12/1/0..., ...I
Parkway Place is a 15.54 acre site as delineated on the architect's
site plan. The project is located along Southcenter Boulevard in
Tukwila, Washington. Located on the site is a 9 story office
building which was occupied by Boeing. The tenant has moved out of
the facility and the owner is looking to find a more viable use for
the property. This proposal would demolish the existing building
and construct approximately 3.5 acres of retail space on the
property.
There are several existing utility lines and easements across the
site. We have used an ALTA survey and topographic information
prepared by Chadwick Surveying and Engineering to determine how the
utility lines would be routed through the site under the new
layout. A new section has been added to this report to discuss the
exiting utilities in more detail. This section has been added in
response to the City of Tukwila letter dated October 31, 1994.
The existing site is generally flat. A steep slope rises on the
west side of the property to Interstate 5. The slope is covered
with trees and thick underbrush. A railroad easement is located
along the toe of slope. It is my understanding that the railroad
easement vacation process is nearly completed. The 9 story
building is located approximately midway between the railroad
easement and Southcenter Boulevard. The existing building has a
footprint of approximately 24,981 square feet. The remainder of
the site is covered by asphalt parking and landscaping. Detailed
surface area coverage calculation have been prepared and are shown
on page 4 of this report.
Two other building share the existing parking and access points to
Southcenter Boulevard. Each of the buildings are located on
segregated parcels and have not been included in the area count for
the Parkway Place project. These structures are to be remain after
the completion of the shopping center. Some grading of the parking
area between the two building may be necessary for the construction
of the new retail building. Final design will also require
coordination of utility connections for the sewer and water main
relocation. This subject will be discussed in more detail in the
new section of the report.
Redevelopment of this site will include the construction of two
retail buildings. A 32,370 square foot building in the southwest
corner and a 133,143 square foot building along the western
boundary of the slope. The 133,143 square foot building will cover
the area occupied by the existing 9 story office building. Some of
the existing utility lines serving the site will have to be routed
around the new buildings. This includes extending a water main
loop around the west side of the new buildings, relocation of an
existing 48 inch storm pipe and routing the existing sanitary sewer
main around the east side of the buildings. The new buildings have
been located so that the existing 66 and 54 inch storm drainage
pipes from the southern off -site areas do not have to be relocated.
Existing parking areas will the retained to the greatest possible
extent. Some additional parking will be gained along the west side
of the 133,143 square foot building with the relinquishment of the
railroad easement. The new building has been located further west
than the existing 9 story building. This will require construction
of a retaining wall along the western margin of the site plan.
Discussions with the owner have included using a solder pile wall
or a soil nailed wall. The advantage of using this type of
retaining structure is that it can be constructed with minimal
disturbance to the areas above the top of wall.
There is a public storm drainage system servicing the site from
Southcenter Boulevard. Storm water will be collected in catch
basins and conveyed using underground pipe. Much of the existing
storm system in the vicinity of the existing building will be
abandon. The site has been graded so that finished grade
elevations around the new buildings are higher than the existing
grade. Therefore the storm water will sheet flow to the existing
catch basins located in the eastern parking areas. Loading docks
on the western side of the buildings are the only locations where
a new storm collection system will have to be installed.
The proposed site plan reduces the net parking area by
approximately 1.5 acres. Since the area subject to vehicular
traffic will be reduce, there should be a corresponding improvement
in storm water quality discharged to the downstream system.
Oil /water separator vaults with coalescing chambers and high flow
bypasses will also be installed to improve water quality prior to
discharge to the downstream system.
The site is served by public sewer. Redevelopment of the site to
a retail center will significantly reduce the sanitary sewer
discharge. The 9 story office building contained approximately
214,600 square feet of floor space and supported a population of
approximately 2,230 people. The proposed 165,513 square feet of
retail space will reduce the sewer discharge by approximately
31,650 gpd based on the D.O.E. Table No. 2 for new system design.
Therefore redevelopment of this site to a retail facility will
benefit the existing sewer system.
SURFACE AREA COVERAGE
Existing site: 676,948 SF
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE
(15.54 AC)
Redeveloped site: 676,948 SF
IMPERVIOUS ROOF AREA
IMPERVIOUS A.C. AREA
IMPERVIOUS RAIL AREA
PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE
PERVIOUS WEST SLOPE
= 24,981 SF (0.57 AC)
• 383,677 SF (8.81 AC)
= 26,136 SF (0.6 AC)
= 88,807 SF (2.04 AC)
• 153,347 SF (3.52 AC)
(15.54 AC)
• 165,513 SF
318,344 SF
= O AC
= 57,967 SF
• 135,124 SF
(3.80 AC)
(7.31 AC)
(0.0 AC)
(1.33 AC)
(3.10 AC)
3
1'
ADDITIONAL UTILITY INFORMATION
Storm Drainage System:
There are two major drainage courses draining beneath the
Interstate 5 and conveyed through the site. The most northerly
course discharges from a 48 inch culvert approximately 70 feet west
of the northwest property corner. At the discharge point, a
concrete energy dissipator with "V" notched weirs on the bottom
side has been installed. Storm water flows east from the discharge
in a 15 foot wide grass lined ditch to a 48 inch concrete culvert
located approximately 20 feet east of the northwest property
corner. The grass lined ditch area has been classified as a Class
4 steam. All work related to the Parkway Place project will occur
outside the stream area. There is a concrete box inlet with a
heavy steel trash rack at the 48 inch intake. From this point the
storm water is conveyed in the 48 inch culvert approximately 145
feet to a 45 degree bend in the line. The bend directs the flow in
a southeasterly direction toward a manhole located within the drive
lane of the Parkway Place parking lot.
An 11 foot wide concrete spillway has been constructed above the 48
inch culvert between the intake and 45 degree bend. The spillway
directs the overflow to 2 -30 inch CMP culvert inlets located at the
edge of parking, approximately 60 feet north of the northwest
property line. The overflow lines convey the storm water easterly
to Southcenter Boulevard and then northward in the street system.
Therefore, once the inlet capacity of the 48 inch culvert is
exceeded, the flow is routed to a separate storm system.
Storm water flow in the 48 inch culvert is turned southward at the
most northern manhole. John Howard, with the City of Tukwila,
opened the manhole structure for my observation. The manhole has
a round lid at the asphalt paving surface which covers•a locking
lid on the pipe. It is my understanding that the locking lid is
required because the 48 inch pipe flows under pressure during
heavier rainfall events or when the river is at a higher elevation.
At the time of my observation, there was approximately 6 inches of
water flowing in the pipe. Stones with a diameter of approximately
one foot were also observed at the bottom of the pipe.
From the manhole the 48 inch pipe conveys the storm water
approximately 850 south. The pipe is deflected 21 degrees to the
west approximately 570 feet south of the manhole. Approximately
180 feet south of the bend, the pipe is deflected 64 degrees to the
east. The 48 inch pipe then extends 90 feet where it connects to
a 66 inch culvert. Connection to the 66 inch pipe is accomplished
using a wye. The 66 inch culvert then conveys the storm water
easterly to Southcenter Boulevard.
The second off -site drainage course discharges from an arched
culvert on the east side I -5 located near the southwest property
corner. The discharge flows into a fenced pool area. The pool
flows into a 54 inch culvert which conveys the storm water
easterly. The culvert is located just south of the southwest
property line. There is an asphalt maintenance road above the
culvert between the Parkway Place parking lot and the pool area.
The 54 inch pipe is connected to the 66 inch culvert which also
conveys the storm water from the 48 inch pipe discussed above. It
does not appear that any manholes exist along the 54 inch pipe
between the pool and 66 inch pipe.
48" Storm Relocation:
The existing 48 inch storm pipe will have to be abandon because the
new buildings will be located over the line. The new line will be
located approximately 30 west of the existing location. The only
other gravity line on the west side of the project is a 12 inch
sanitary sewer main. The sewer main will be relocated to the east
side of the new building, and therefore will not present a problem.
Since the new storm line will be located further west, the
connection at the north end will be made at a higher elevation.
The new pipe can therefore be installed with a greater slope than
provided by the existing. This will increase the gravity flow
capacity of the 48 inch pipe.
The new line will be constructed so that access points do not
exceed 400 feet. Details of the access point will have to be
worked out with the city. It is anticipated that a bolt down lid,
similar to the existing, will be provided.
Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will not alter the basin
characteristics. The new line will remain a conveyance system for
off -site flows only. No catch basin for on -site drainage will be
connected to the new line. Therefore drainage from the site will
not enter the pipe during or after construction.
The abandon section of 48 inch pipe will either be filled with
control density backfill or dug up and crushed. Economics will
determine which method of abandonment will used. This issue will
be reviewed more closely during the preparation of construction
documents.
Sanitary Sewer System:
The sanitary sewer main enters the site from the south near the
southeast property corner. In the southern driveway, the sewer
main is turned west and extends approximately 675 feet to a manhole
located west of the asphalt parking lot. The sewer then angles
northward to the loading dock area on the west side of the existing
9 story building. The manhole for the building connection is
approximately 17 feet deep. There is an electronic flap gate on
the building service line to prevent sewer from flowing into the
building line. From this manhole the sewer main continues
northward approximately 640 feet to a manhole located in the
northwest corner of the site. This manhole also collects flows
from areas north of the Parkway Place site. From the manhole in
the northwest corner of the site, the flow is turned eastward
toward Southcenter Boulevard. The sewer main crosses beneath
Southcenter Boulevard and then turns northward.
It appears the primary reason the sewer was extended to the west
side of the Parkway site was to provide a future connection point
for property to the west. Since the main was extended the longest
possible route, it became relatively deep along the western side
of the project. The existing 9 story building required a deep
building sewer service to the basement and therefore the additional
depth was justifiable.
The new site plan locates a building over the existing sewer main.
Therefore the sewer will have to be relocated. A deep sewer is not
required since the new building will be slab on grade. This allows
a greater flexibility in determining a new location for the sewer
main.
Finished grades on the east side of the site are 3 to 4 feet lower
than on the west side. Locating the sewer main on the east side of
the new building would take advantage of the lower finished grades.
A sewer main located on the east side of the building would extend
a shorter distance than the existing line. The shorter distance
between existing flow line grades means the new section will have
a greater slope than the existing pipe. Finished grade elevations
will be significantly higher for any developments west of the
Parkway Place project. Therefore a deep sewer connection depth is
not required for the future areas. A new sewer stub can be
extended to the west property line at a shallower depth. It
appears the logical location for the new sewer main is on the east
side of the new buildings.
The existing sewer main will have to remain in operation during
construction of the new main. This can be accomplished by setting
a new manhole structure on the existing main at the lower
connection point. The existing pipe will extend through the new
to
1
structure and continue to convey the flow. From the manhole, new
sewer pipe will be installed southward to the existing main. A new
manhole will be set over the existing main at the higher connection
point. Again the existing pipe will extend through the new manhole
conveying the flow to the existing downstream pipes. The new sewer
run will be tested and approved prior to routing the flows into
them. Once approved, the existing pipe within the manhole will be
removed and the manhole bottoms channeled to direct the flow into
the new sewer pipe.
Water Service:
A dead end 10 inch water main currently serves the Parkway Place
site. The dead end line also appears to be the only service for
the adjacent properties on the north and south side of Parkway
Place. The water main enters the site from Southcenter Boulevard,
just north of the center driveway. The water main has a pressure
of approximately 150 psi, and therefore fire flow is not in
question.
The water main will be looped around the new buildings. This is
necessary to adequately provide the fire hydrant spacing. The
existing dead end water main will have to be connected to another
main so that the loop has two sources. This will allow sections of
the main to be isolated for maintenance without shutting down the
water supply for the entire system. A second feed will also be
required by the fire marshal. The new connection could be made to
the main in Southcenter Boulevard. It is my understanding that a
water main has been extended to the west side of Southcenter
Boulevard south of the Parkway Place project. This also maybe a
location for a second connection. Viability of this connection
will depend on the distance south and the willingness of the
adjacent property owners to allow a water main extension across
their property. The location of the second connection will be
determined during the preparation of the construction documents.
The connection to the Southcenter Boulevard main would require
boring. Therefore we would like to pursue the connection to the
main on the west side of the street first.
Temporary Erosion Control and Grading:
One of the first tasks will be the demolition of the existing
building. It is my understanding that the building will be
demolished using a crane and wrecking ball. This process will
8
require a relatively small area for stock piling the material and
moving the construction equipment around the existing structure.
During this phase, most of the existing asphalt paving will be
retained. An area will dedicated for stock piling the material.
The area will be enclosed with filter fabric fence to prevent silt
laden storm water run -off from entering the existing storm system.
Since the material will consist of crushed brick and concrete,
siltation should not be a significant problem.
A wetland exists in the southwest corner, just outside the parking
lot area. The wetland has been delineated by a wetland specialist
and located by a field survey crew. Since the existing parking lot
drains from west to east, storm water run -off control should not be
a problem during construction. The new site plan has been design
so that new paving will not extend beyond the existing pavement in
the vicinity of the wetland. A filter fabric fence should be
installed prior to starting demolition so that the wetland can be
clearly identified. The filter fabric fence will also prevent silt
laden storm water from entering the wetland during construction.
The next phase will be intensive grading for the preparation of
building pads and construction of the retaining wall along the
western side of the project. The retaining wall will be
constructed from the top -down. Therefore the slope above the wall
will not have to be cut back for construction. This will help
minimize the disturbance to the slope above the wall. Material
excavated from the slope during the retaining wall construction
will be placed directly on the building pads and compacted in
lifts.
There is an existing ditch along the western edge of paving which
conveys the hillside drainage to the north and south. The section
which drains to the south flows into the wetland. Construction of
the retaining wall and building pads will destroy the existing
ditch. An interceptor swale will be constructed at the top of wall
to convey the hillside drainage north and south. The interceptor
swale will prevent storm water from flowing over the top of wall
during construction and after the wall is completed. The section of
swale draining southward will be tied back into the wetland,
preserving the existing wetland hydrology.
Filter fabric fence will be installed along the eastern limit of
clearing. An interceptor swale will be constructed along the
western side of filter fence. The swale will convey storm water
run -off from the disturbed areas to sediment traps. This system
should provide adequate protection for the downstream system.
Crushed material from the existing building will be used to cap the
building pads and graded parking areas. The crushed material will
provide a surface which is resistant to erosion.
1
Other Best Management Practices will also be implemented to reduce
the impacts to off -site areas. These include wetting the
demolition materials being crushed and graded areas to reduce dust,
installing filter fabric material in catch basin grates, sweeping
parking lot and road surfaces, delineating limits of clearing on
the plans and installation of a rock construction entrance. Site
grade will be established to produce a balanced earthwork volume.
This will help reduce truck traffic outside the project area during
construction. These measures represent the minimum requirements
which will be shown on the construction documents.
Final Drainage System:
The off -site drainage tightline system will retain the same
function as the existing site. Relocation of the 48 inch pipe will
not change the flow characteristics of the system. If the northern
48 inch pipe system inlet capacity is exceeded, then the storm
water will follow the existing overflow route. The new building
has been located so that the north face does not extend into the
existing overflow route. If there is a failure of the overflow
route, storm water will flow overland to the Southcenter Boulevard
system. The building will not be flooded if this occurs.
Buildings have also been located outside the overflow route for the
southern 54 inch pipe system. If the inlet capacity of the 54 inch
pipe is exceeded, or there is a failure, storm water will flow
overland to the wetland area. This is the same route followed
under the existing site plan. The building will not be flooded if
this situation occurs.
A swale will be constructed along the top of retaining wall at the
western slope. From the retaining wall high point, the swale will
convey storm water north and south along the top. At the point
where the retaining wall is no longer required, the swales will be
connected into the existing ditches. Therefore the existing
drainage courses will be preserved. This is critical for the
southern drainage course since it supplies water to the wetland.
Drainage from the new parking lot will be collected by the existing
catch basins. Underground pipe from the new catch basins at the
loading docks will convey the storm water to the existing storm
drainage system. The existing storm drainage system discharges
untreated storm water directly into the Southcenter Boulevard
system. Since this is no longer an acceptable practice, oil /water
separation vaults with a coalescing chamber will be installed at
the existing discharge points. This method of water quality
improvement is widely accepted for existing storm system retrofit
in urban areas. The water quality vaults will be sized for a 6
month -24 hour storm event according to
Standards. Storm water flows greater
event will be routed around the vault
assures the oils and sediment trapped
flushed to the downstream system.
D.O.E. Storm Water Design
than the 6 month -24 hour
in a bypass system. This
within the vault are not
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Diana Painter, DCD Associate Planner
FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD Urban Environmentalist
DATE: November 28, 1994
RE: Parkway Place Retail Center #L94 -0084 - Preliminary
Environmental Review.
I have reviewed the project site studies and planned proposals for this project. Also, I have
visited much of the undeveloped portion of the site to provide recommendations for the
SEPA file and BAR review. My comments focus on project compliance with the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance (SAO, #1599) and the Interim Tree Ordinance ( #1715).
This review includes 1) Sensitive areas study report, 2) Tree inventory & removal plan, 3)
Landscape /tree replacement plan, 4) Geotechnical report, and 5) SEPA checklist. The
following recommendations have been discussed with the Department of Community
Development Director.
SENSITIVE AREAS ORDINANCE/WETLAND ENHANCEMENT
I. TMC Chapter 18.45.040 contains a provision to allow wetland buffer reduction when
enhancement is appropriate and approved by the DCD Director. Because the on -site
wetland buffer area has been altered and lacks significant native vegetation, the proposed
reduction in buffer width is appropriate. However, the applicant must apply the SAO
requirements for wetland alterations separately from other site development modifications
that require tree replacement by the Tree Ordinance.
The buffer enhancement plan is considered conceptual and will be reviewed under the
guidelines of the SAO. Tree replacement for loss on other areas of the site cannot be
transferred to the wetland buffer zone.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Parkway Place Memo
November 28, 1994
Page 2
U. Site reconnaissance found additional wetland area extending off -site but just north of the
delineated wetland on the site. Although the additional wetland area is off -site, the 50 -foot
buffer zone is on the project site. A field measurement indicated that the buffer zone could
extend about 20 feet onto the project site. Since the on -site buffer is part of an old railroad
bed, it could be considered for buffer reduction with enhancement.
III. Wetland boundary and buffer need to be identified on all site maps. A 15 -foot building
setback line should be shown to extend from the outer edge of the proposed wetland buffer
area (TMC 18.45.040).
IV. Following the standards of the SAO, the buffer enhancement plan will use native plants
to incorporate diversity and function. TMC 18.45.040 (c)(3)(A)(ii) states The plan must
include a variety of native vegetation that improves the functional attributes of the buffer and
provides additional protection for the wetland or watercourse functions and values. The
proposed enhancement only includes two species, willow and hawthorn.
TREE ORDINANCE/PERMIT
I. The applicant has submitted a tree replacement proposal based on Tree Ordinance
Section 7.9 Exceptions. The Exception uses tree canopy cover guidelines for the project's
overall tree retention and replacement. This replacement guideline is particularly
appropriate because the area of trees to be removed is comprised of dense stands of trees.
The dense composition of young trees would be costly to identify and map as "significant
trees" on an individual basis.
As discussed above, the tree canopy cover approach cannot utilize the wetland buffer area
for replacement. However, it appears that most of the existing forested slope could be
enhanced with native conifer tree species to add an evergreen component, and possibly
provide long term slope stability. Two- to four -year old seedlings may be appropriate for
forest enhancement plantings.
The area where tree removal is to occur has at least four tree species. Sheet L1
Landscape/Tree Replacement Plan shows planting of only one species (bigleaf maple) in the
Tree Replacement Area. The tree replacement plan should also incorporate more species
diversity.
Parkway Place Memo
November 28, 1994
Page 3
II. As requested by Park Place Partners (Letter 10/31/94), tree removal was permitted on
the site to accommodate the required geotechnical investigation. The written request was
approved based on minimal tree disturbance including an 8 -foot wide cleared trail. The
impacts appear to be greater than described and the area that was cleared for a trail ranges
from 14 - 19 feet in width.
In response to the City's concerns, a tree inventory for the permitted clearing was submitted
by Park Place Partners (Letter 11/2/94). A total of fifty trees were inventoried and mapped
as potential tree loss from the slope area. Tree removal and replacement for this disturbed
area will be subject to the standards of the Tree Ordinance but not allowed the use of
Section 7.9 Exceptions. Specifically, the disturbed area for geotechnical investigation will
follow the tree replacement guidelines of Section 7.8 C.
Detailed landscaping plans with specifications, planting notes, and performance measures
ect. will be necessary for both wetland buffer enhancement and tree replacement.
SEPA CONDITIONS
I. If feasible, consider saving and relocating the higher quality trees from the existing
landscape plantings.
II. This is a new project with a large amount of impervious surface. Stormwater
management plans should include detention and biofiltration using grass -lined swales and /or
a water quality pond. If the entire site is to be re- developed, the standards of the King
County Surface Water Design Manual should apply.
cc: Rick Beeler, DCD Director
m
flJ SHANNON &WILSO CONSULTANTS
January 5, 1995
City of. Tukwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attu: Mr. Ron Cameron, City Engineer
RE: GEOTECBNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED PARKWAY PLACE
RETAIL CENTER
Sr, Al TLE
HANFORD .
FAIRBANKS
AND10RAra
SAINT LC)UIS
BOSTON
1494
This letter supplements our correspondence of November 28, 1994, and responds to
geotechnical design recommendations contained in a December 21, 1994, memorandum from
GeoEngineers addressed to Mr. Roy Bennion, regarding the design and construction of the
soldier pile wall at the Parkway Place Retail Center in Tukwila. Many of the items
discussed in the memorandum by GeoEngineers provide a satisfactory response to issues
mentioned in our correspondence of November 28. Specifically, GeoEngineers has
recommended a revised freeboard height of 3 feet to allow for greater accumulation of
debris at the top of the wall. Similarly, GcoEngineers has revised the pressure diagram at
the top of the wall to avoid discontinuities in the pressure distribution. Although not
discussed in the December 21 memorandum, we understand that the wall design will also
include a fence to meet requirements established by the city of Tukwila.
However, there are still several issues which require resolution through either revising the
design recommendations or providing clarification in the plans and specifications. These
outstanding issues are briefly described below.
WALL D $IGN
Apparent Earth Pressures
The GeoEngineers report of November 10, 1994, recommended a maximum earth pressure
value of 60 H for the wall design where H represents the height of the wall (in feet) and the
400 NORTH 34TH STREET, SUITE 100
P,O. BOX300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON A8103
206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777
W- 6871 -01
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
ranuary 5, 1995
Page 2
SHANNON bWILSON, INC.
pressure is expressed in units of pounds per square foot (psf). Shannon & Wilson's review
letter of November 28, 1994, indicated that this was a conservative pressure for the wall
design. GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, revised this maximum pressure to a
value of 45 (11 +3), without providing any justification for the reduction in the wall pressure
from the original value. of 60 Fi. Subsequently; we Learned from GeoEngineers that their
original design pressure was based upon another project and had not been specifically
tailored for this site. Upon further consideration they had decided to revise this earth
pressure to be more in keeping with the actual conditions at the Parkway Place •
Development. In our opinion, the revised pressure of 45 (13+3) is reasonable and consistent
with the soil properties estimated for the hillside.
Active_Earth Press:
_um
GeoEngineers' report of December 10, 1994, recommended active earth pressures
corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 23 pcf to act on the portion of the soldier pile
wall embedded below the base of the excavation. Shannon & Wilson's review letter of
November 28, indicated that this equivalent fluid pressure was not consistent with other
parameters provided for the wail design and should be reviewed. GeoEngineers' memo of
December 21, 1994, clarified this issue by revising the active earth pressure to an equivalent
fluid weight of 34 pcf and indicated that this pressure was derived considering that the
groundwater table may be close to the ground surface at the base of the wall. • Under this
assumption, we concur that the active earth pressures on the embedded portions of the
soldier piles are reasonable for design.
Resistance
GeoEngineers' position for the design of passive resistance acting on the embedded portion
of the soldier pile is that the passive resistance should commence at the base of the
excavation and be computed corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf which
would act on an area equal to two and a half times the diameter of the soldier piles.
Although a 48- inch - diameter storm sewer line will be constructed within 10 feet of the face
of the wall, GeoEngineers contended in their correspondence of December 21, 1994, that
construction of the sewer line in short segments and using a trench box would be adequate to
provide this passive resistance to the permanent tieback wall.
W-6871-01
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Page 3
SHANNON EIWILSON. INC.
The passive resistance issue is one of the major areas of disagreement that we have with
GeoEngineers in the philosophy of the wall design. The basis of our disagreement is that
we feel that the sewer line cannot be constructed to provide passive support to' the wall
corresponding to the design assumptions. The basis for our position includes the following.
First, while trench box construction is a common procedure used to install sewer lines,
trench boxes are typically designed to resist active earth pressure and not the passive eartli
pressures which axe assumed for design of the shoring wall. It is anticipated that any
analysis of a trench box for passive earth pressures would indicate that the trench box is
overstressed and would not support the applied load. Secondly, construction with a trench
box typically involves partially back filling around the sewer pipe and then pulling the trench
box to a new position while the remainder of the pipe is backfilled. This leaves a portion of
the pipe unsupported while the remaining of the backfiill is placed. Under this condition,
there is no passive resistance above the point where the backfill is stopped. Hence, this
leads to discrepancy between the actual conditions and the design assumptions. The third
factor is that even if a trench box could be completely baekfilled prior to pulling the trench
box, there will exist a void space between the backdill and the adjacent soil as the trench box
is advanced. This would ultimately result in some relaxation and lateral movement, hence
violating the design assumption for the shoring wall.
Therefore, in our opinion, the most appropriate design of the shoring wall is to assume that
the lateral support to the wall is provided not by the base of the excavation at the parking lot
level but by the base of the excavation for the sewer line. This effectively shifts the base of
the excavation as much as 8 to 10 feet below the base of the parking lot. This would
essentially require an additional row of tiebacks at about the level of the parking lot to
provide adequate support for the wall to construct the storm sewer line. In our opinion, this
is the most reasonable and appropriate design procedure that should be used for the wall
design. Without accounting for this loss of lateral support for the excavation of the sewer
1 :ne, it is anticipated that the base of the shoring wall may become overstressed and
displaced laterally towards the storm sewer line excavation.
GeoEngineers' report of November 10, 1994, did not provide definitive recommendation for
a permanent facing for the tieback wall. Although the report alluded to a possibility that
concrete facing may be used on the wall, the report did not specifically recommend the use
W- 6871 -01
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Pagc4
SHANNON fsWILSON, INC.
of a concrete facing material. GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, provided a
position that treated timber lagging would be the permanent facing for the planned retaining
wall, and that this facing would have a 50 -year warranted life. Furthermore, their memo of
December 21, 1994, dismissed the use of shotcrete lagging on the basis that it may crack
under tieback stressing and that it would be difficult to install drainage behind a shotcrete
wall.
The design recommendation for the lagging is another major area in which we disagree upon
the design philosophy of the wall. While the buildings at the site may have a relatively
short life span, as is evidenced by the life of the current structure, it is our opinion that the
wall may be a permanent fixture at the site with a life of 50 years or longer. Under these
conditions, we consider it imperative that it have a more permanent facing than treated
timber lagging. In our opinion, shotcrete or preformed concrete panels are appropriate wall
•
facing material and should be used instead of treated timber lagging. Our concern for
treated timber lagging is that there are no examples of permanent tieback walls with treated
timber lagging that have performed satisfactorily for a span of 50 years. Whereas, there are
numerous examples of 50 -year old concrete retaining walls that have provided satisfactory
service. Although the issue of cracking of the concrete during stressing and potential
deterioration of the reinforcing mesh was discussed by GeoEngineers, it is our opinion that
if this is perceived to be a design issue that epoxy - coated reinforcing material may be used
in the wall construction. Finally, numerous soil nail walls using shotcrete facing have been
constructed using prefabricated drainage material behind the walla Hence, constructability is
not a major issue to rule out the concrete Facing. for the wall design. In summary, we feel
that use of the treated timber lagging is. an inappropriate design solution for a. long -term wall
at this location and that a permanent wall facing using shotcrete or precast concrete panels is
more appropriate considering the importance of the project.
Miscellaneous Det is
With the exception of the passive resistance at the base of the wall and the wall facing
material, we believe that most of the major design issues for the wall have been addressed
by GeoEngineers. However, there are still a number of details that will need to be reviewed
on the design drawings and specifications to confirm the adequacy of the wall design. One
of the details is drainage provisions behind the face of the wall. Specifically, while the
GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, suggested full face coverage with a drainage
W- 6871 -01
City of Tukwila
Atm: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Page 5
SHANNON &WILSON. INC.
material such as Miradiain 6000, it is not clear whether this refers to full face coverage over
the entire length of the wall . or if it refers to full face coverage in zones of observed
seepage. Such drainage details are quite important with the use of a permanent concrete
wa11 facing. Therefore, these details would need to be worked out in the review of the
design drawings. Similarly, we would need to review the design drawings to confirm the
adequacy of the drainage at the base of the wail and confirm connection details with storm
drain lines in the area.
Please call if there are any questions on this letter.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
W. Paul Gant, P.E.
Vice President
WPG:EAS /dgw
Enclosure: Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
cc: Robert Kimmcrling - WSDOT
W6871- 01.1X21W6671- 1kd/dgd
W- 6871 -01
AIM SHANNON & WILSON, INCConsultants
Geotechnical and Environmental
•
w- 6871 -01
Attachment to Report
Dated: January 5, 1995
To: City of Tukwila
. Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
Page 1 of 2
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering /. •
Subsurface Waste Management (Remediation) Report
GEOTECI3NYCAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS.
Consalting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of Specific individuals A report prepared for a civil
engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant
preps your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report •
for its intended purpose without feat conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than
that originally contemplated without fast conferring with the geotecbnical engineer /geoscientist.
AN ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering /subsurface waste management (remediation) report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed
to consider a unique set of project- specific factors. Dependix g on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure
and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its
orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -
of-service limitations imposed by the client To help avoid costly problems, have the consulting engineers) /scientist(s) evaluate how
any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report, may affect the recommendations. Unless your consulting geotechnical/
civil engineer and/or scientist indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: 1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed
(for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of
an uazafrigerated one or chemicals are discovered on or new the site); 2) when the son, elevation, or configuration of the proposed
project is altered; 3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; 4) when there is a change of ownership;
or 5) for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical /civil engineers and/or scientists cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may occur if they are not cotrsutted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDMONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural changes or human influence Because a geotechnicaVwaste management
engineering report is based on conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on an engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by tuna Ask the geotecltnicallvtaste management consultant
to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction strata. For ex ample, groundwater conditions coramonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods. earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/nastc management report: The geotechnicallcivil
engineer and/or scientist should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tarn are
necessary.
MOST GEOTECRNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be fir more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled
may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can
work together to help minimire their impact. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particu-
larly beneficial in this respect.
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that
conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual
Geo`j Engineers
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk Lovelace/DEM
Bert Pschunder, Jack Tuule
December 21, 1994
FILE: 3944- 002 -R01
SUBJECT: Revised Soldier Pile Wall Design Parameters, Parkway Place
Redmond
This memorandum summarizes our recommendations for revised design parameters for the
soldier pile and tieback wall to be constructed on the west side of the three - building complex for the
proposed Parkway Place retail development in Tukwila, Washington. These recommendations are
intended to supplement the recommendations given in our report of geotechnical engineering. services
dated November 10, 1994, and have been discussed with Mr. Paul Grant of Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
and Mr. Kirk Lovelace of DBM,, lnc. Our memorandum is intended in part to address comments
provided. by Mr. Grant in a letter to the city of Tukwila dated November 28, 1994. The comments
relate to a review of our November 10, 1994 report.
FREEBOARD
We originally recommended a freeboard of 2 feet between the top of the wall and the ground
surface behind the wall to provide protection against soil and vegetative debris which might ravel
down the slope. We agree that increasing the freeboard to at least 3 feet will provide better protection
from ravelling debris and also more safety for individuals walking behind the wall. We understand
frorn Mr. Lovelace that the incremental cost of providing 3 feet vs. 2 feet of freeboard is minor. The
3 feet of freeboard also reduces liability exposure for the owner resulting from injury or damage to
_ people and vehicles below the wall if the debris were to overtop the wall.
ACTIVE PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN
For cantilever wall sections or where only one row of tiebacks is used, we recommend using a
triangular soil pressure distribution based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pcf (pounds per cubic
foot). For sections of the wall where two or more rows of tiebacks will be used, we recommend that
the lateral soil loads on the wall be determined using a triangular soil pressure distribution varying
from 0 to (45) (H +3) down to a depth of 0.2H, where H is the distance from the ground surface
behind the top of the wall to the base of the excavation. Below a depth of 0.2H and extending to the
base of the excavation, a. uniform lateral soil pressure of (45) (H +3) should be used. These soil
pressure values take into account the presence of accumulated debris at the top of the wall.
MEMORANDUM to:
December 21, 1994
Page 2
Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk Lovelace/DBM
Lateral soil loads acting on the embedded portion of the soldier piles should be computed on the
basis of a uniform pressure distribution of (34) (H +3) plus an equivalent fluid pressure of 34D, where
D is the depth of the soldier pile embedment below the base of the excavation. These active pressure
components should be applied to a width equal to the diameter of the soldier pile hole. These
pressures are based on a simplified distribution which represents an average of two extreme ground
water conditions: (1) ground water level at the base of the excavation, and (2) ground water level
below the tip of the soldier piles. In actuality, the ground water level will likely be at about 8 feet
below the planned depth of cut, or at about mid - height of the embedded portion of the soldier piles,
assuming an embedment of 15 feet.
LAGGING
Properly treated and installed timber lagging will, in our opinion, provide a satisfactory •
permanent facing for the planned retaining wall. With current treatment procedures we are advised
that a 50 -year life warranty is provided. Careful field treatment of fresh cut faces in the lagging will
be needed to maintain the warranted life of the lagging. ' Otherwise, the relative ease of installation
and the better drainage provided through the lagging has distinct advantages over other, types of
lagging such as shotcrete. Any system of lagging must be installed as the excavation proceeds
downward. In 'the case of shotcrete, the installation procedure snakes it difficult to install and maintain
a continuous drainage blanket between the soil and the concrete. In addition, tieback stressing is
likely to result in cracking of the shotcrete which could have an adverse effect on the life span of the
lagging if the mesh reinforcing becomes exposed to moisture infiltration through stressing - induced
cracks. Therefore, with the assurances of longevity warranted by the lagging supplier, we recommend
the use of timber lagging for the retaining wall.
Lagging pressures should be taken as one -half of the active soil pressures provided above.
PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Passive resistance available on soldier piles extending below the level of excavation can be
determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot applied to a width of 2.5
times the soldier pile hole diameter or the pile spacing, whichever is less. This equivalent fluid
pressure also represents the average of the two ground water conditions described above, and includes
a factor of safety of 1.5.
We understand that the existing 48- inch- diameter storm sewer which crosses the three- building
complex site will be relocated to an alignment with the centerline about 10 feet from the face of the
wall. Construction of the new storm sewer would remove a significant amount of passive resistance
available for the soldier piles if the entire trench (planned to be about 8 to 10 feet deep) is open at one
time. We recommend that the sewer be constructed in segments such. that no more than 20 feet of
trench is open at any one time. We recommend that bedding and bath -fill for the full trench section
around and over the sewer pipe consist of clean sand and gravel compacted to at least 95 percent of
MEMORANDUM to
December 21, 1994
Page 3
Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk Lovelace /DBM
t. `; •
the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557. The fill will likely need to
be placed in thin (less than 6 inches loose thickness) lifts and lightweight, hand - operated equipment
used to achieve proper compaction around the pipe. The open portion of trench should be fully
supported with a trench box or other braced support system so that sufficient transfer of soil loads can
take place across the trench..
Excavaxion for any future repairs of the storm sewer should also be limited to 20 -foot segments
of trench. Bracing extending from the base of the exposed portion of the soldier piles across the
trench and bearing against the future building could be used to help maintain the integrity of the
soldier pile wall during such repairs. The capability of the building to withstand such lateral bracing
loads should be checked by a structural engineer and could require some modification of the
foundation design to accommodate such loading.
WALL DRAINAGE
Seepage from the face of the soil mass retained by the wall should be controlled by placing
sheets of pre - fabricated composite drains such as Miradrain 6000 or equal over the entire exposed soil
face as the wall is constructed. The sheets should be overlapped as necessary to provide a continuous
flow path to the base of the wall. A drab consisting of a 6 -inch rigid wall PVC pipe should be placed
at the base of the wall to collect water from the prefabricated drains The PVC pipes should extend to
suitable disposal points.
• o •
Other, design parameters for tied -back soldier pile walls provided in our November 10, 1994
remain applicable. We trust that this information will be satisfactory for final design of the wall.
PROJECT:
DATE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
FILE NUMBER:
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE
Parkway Place
December 1, 1994
To demolish a 9 -story office building and construction
150,000 sq. ft. of retail space
17501 Southcenter Parkway
Howard Turner, Architect, Turner & Associates
Michael Sandorffy, Developer, Park Place Partners
L94 -0085 SEPA
THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION: Mitigated Determination of Non - significance
Issued December 1, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD
The environmental review of this proposal consisted o an analysis based on the following
documents included in the environmental record:
A. SEPA Checklist, revised, dated November 10, 1994
B. Report from Arthur D. Little, "Environmental Baseline Assessment," April 29, 1993
C. Letter from Peter Jowise, Herrera Environmental Consultants, "Parkway Plaza
Building Inspection," October 29, 1993
D. Report from Envirobusiness, Inc., "Phase II Limited Subsurface Investigation,"
November 12, 1993
E. Letter from Mark Jacobs, TP &E, "Parkway Place Boeing Site Trip Generation
Study," September 15, 1994
F. Letter from Blayne Leingag, R.W. Rhine, "Parkway Plaza Building; Demolition,"
September 23, 1994
1
G. Letter from Michael Sandorffy, Parkway Place Partners, "Canopy Removal," October
31, 1994
H. Report from Talasaea Consultant, "Parkway Place Retail Center Sensitive Areas
Ordinance Report," November 1994
I. Letter from Blayne Leingang, R.W. Rhine, "Parkway Place," November 7, 1994
J. Letter from Mark Jacobs, TP &E, "Parkway Place Boeing Site Midday Trip
Generation," November 9, 1994
K. Letter from Shawn Parson, LandPlan, "Parkway Place," November 10, 1994
L. Report from GeoEngineers, "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed
Parkway Place," November 10, 1994
M. Report from Bush, Roed & Hitchings, "Preliminary Report for BAR Review,:
November 10, 1994
N. Letter from Michael Sandorffy, Parkway Place Partners, "Canopy Removal,"
November 10, 1994
O. Plans and Drawings by Howard Turner & Associates, November 10, 1994
P. Letter from Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila Public Works, "Parkway Place,"
November 18, 1994
Q. Letter from Paul Grant, Shannon & Wilson, "Geotechnical Review, Proposed
Parkway Place Retail Center," November 28, 1994
R. Letter from Doug Johnson, Metro, "Transit Issues and the Parkway Place Retail
Center," November 28, 1994
S. Letter from Gary Schulz, City of Tukwila Department of Community Development,
"Parkway Place Retail Center Preliminary Environmental Review," November, 28,
1994
T. Conversation between Dale Morimoto, Environmental Program Manager, WSDOT,
and Diana Painter, November 29, 1994
U. Conversation between Bob Kimmerling, Materials Laboratory, WSDOT, and Diana
Painter, December 1, 1994
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
Proposal: The applicant proposes demolishing a 216,000 square feet of office space and
construction approximately 150,000 square feet of retail space.
Existing site: A nine -story concrete slab and beam, brick -clad office building currently exists
on the site. It is sited in the center of the 15 acre site, surrounded by parking and flanked
on the northeast and southeast corners (originally part of this parcel) by two restaurants.
A cooperative parking arrangement exists between the restaurants and the owner of this
property. The west half of the site consists of a wooded hillside with two drainage ways,
draining from west to east, and into the existing storm sewer system.
Surrounding land use: Retail businesses and restaurants exist north of the site; a
warehouse /retail outlet is located on the southern boundary; to the east is Southcenter
2
Parkway, which provides access to the site, with retail businesses across the street; and to
the west is the right -of -way to Interstate 5.
Project description: Demolition of the existing office building involves salvaging the brick
and steel, and recycling other building materials by crushing them and using them for fill in
what is now the basement of the existing office building. The next phase of the project
involves excavating and constructing a 5' to 36' retaining wall at what is now the toe of the
existing slope, on the west edge of an abandoned railroad bed. Soil from this excavation will
also be used for fill on -site. The next phase involves re- location of utilities where applicable.
The most significant re- location will be a 48" pressurized storm sewer line, which is located
under the footprint of the proposed building.
Two one -story concrete tilt -up structures will be constructed on the site, ranging in height
from 26' to 48'. One approximately 32,000 square foot retail store will be located on the
southern portion of the site. The larger structure, approximately 125,000 square feet, will
house three retail outlets. The structures will be site from 220' to 375' west of the
Southcenter Parkway, but will be oriented toward the Parkway. Some of the existing parking
area and mature landscaping will be retained. Other portions of the parking lot will be re-
striped, and new landscaping added. Oil water coalescing plates will be installed in the
storm system for all parking areas. New landscaping will be added, and some re- forestation
of the hillside will be undertaken.
Access: Existing access to the site will be retained. The primary entry will be at the center
of the eastern boundary, where there is a traffic signal. Secondary entries are located at the
northeast and southeast corners of the site, and will also be retained. These will serve as
truck and fire access for the new project, as well as access to the existing restaurants. An
existing bus stop and bus shelter in the northeast corner of the site will remain.
Sensitive areas: Classified sensitive areas on the site include Class 3 slopes from the railroad
bed to the western boundary of the site; a Class II wetland at the south end of the property;
and a Type 2 Watercourse near the north boundary of the property. A portion of the slope
will be excavated in conjunction with this project and retained with a soldier pile retaining
wall. Erosion controls and revegetation will be required in conjunction with construction.
The wetland will be protected with a 25' vegetated buffer. The watercourse will not be
affected by this project.
PRINCIPAL CHECKLIST ITEMS
Earth
Mention excavation of hillside
Discuss erosion control (says will do it during dry months, in January?)
Air
Discuss impacts of crushing operation, demolition
3
Surface water
No surface water impacts. See below.
Ground water
Ground water on the site flows generally to the northwest. This would indicate that
demolition and construction activities would have minimal impact to the classified
watercourse in the northeast corner of the site. According to the SEPA Checklist,
the closest construction activity to this watercourse is 70'.
Vegetation
Mention trees removed from landscaping, trees removed from hillside, tree
replacement plan and vegetated wetland buffer
Noise
Mention noise during grading, construction, demolition, crushing
Environmental health
Mention asbestos in referenced in report
Aesthetics
Mention detailing of wall
Transportation
Problems with trip generation analysis
No intersection impact analysis
Transit stop /shelter to be retained
Provide ped access
Utilities
Mention need for shoring up wall while utilities relocated.
Mention coordination between storm sewer relocation and interference with WSDOT
storm drainage line.
MITIGATED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Issuance of a Mitigated Determination of Non - significance for this project is appropriate,
as no probable significant adverse impacts on the environment can be foreseen as a result
of this project. The following mitigation measures are required as a part of this project:
1.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The following code requirements apply to this project, and are included here for information
only.
o Puget Sound Air Quality permit.
o Mitigation measures during construction, including . . . . will be reviewed in
conjunction with individual permits - and established.
o Tree permit -
4
o LAO, SAO
o Noise ordinance
o Utilities, etc.
.:: !
01/05/85 11:08 FAX 206 633 6777
SHANNON & WILSON
=Ali SHANNON F�WILSON, INC.
Ianuary: 5, 19951
City of ZLkwila
Public Works Department
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
'llikvvila, Washington 98188
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron, City Engineer
RE: CEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED PARKWAY PLACE
RETAIL CENTER
: S' xtt�1G.". L: rt14RR :3n3,1L- 1i`SiuAtRi.'Y.4t4'C'; S.:Y1dAf.YtalWi'tttt•:vn
002
Sr.AT fLE
HANFORD
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
SAINT LOUIS
BOSTON
1464
This letter supplements our correspondence of November 28, 1994, and responds to
geotechnical design recommendations contained in a December 21, 1994, memorandum from
GeoEngineers addressed to Mr. Roy Bennion, regarding the design and construction of the
soldier pile wall at the Parkway Place Retail Center in 'ltikwila. Many of the items
discussed in the memorandum by GeoEngineeis provide a satisfactory response to issues
mentioned in our correspondence of November 28. Specifically, GeoEngineers has
recommended a revised freeboard height of 3 feet to allow for greater accumulation of
debris at the top of the wall. Similarly, GeoEngineers has revised the pressure diagram at
the top of the wall to avoid discontinuities in the pressure distribution. Although not
discussed in the December 21 memorandum, we understand that the wall design will also
include a fence to meet requirements established by the city of Tukwila.
However, there are still several issues which require resolution through either revising the
design recommendations or providing clarification in the plans and specifications. These
outstanding issues are briefly described below.
WAr,L DESIGN
apparent Earth Pressut
The GeoEngineers report of November 10, 1994, recommended a maximum earth pressure
value of 60 H for the wall design where H represents the height of the wall (in feet) and the
40U NORTH 34TH STREET•SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE. WASHINGTON A8103
206.632.8020 FAX 206'633.6777
W-6871-01
01/05/95 11:08 FAX 206 633 6777
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Page 2
SHANNON & WILSON
SHANNON %,AILSON, INC.
pressure is =pressed in units of pounds per square foot (psf). Shannon & Wilson's review
letter of November 28, 1994, indicated that this was a conservative pressure for the wall
design. GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, revised this maximum pressure to a
value of 45 (H +3), without providing any justification for the reduction in the wall pressure
from the original value of 60 H. Subsequently, we learned from GeoEngineers that their
original design pressure was based upon another project and had not been specifically
tailored for this site. Upon further consideration they had decided to revise this earth
pressure to be more in keeping with the actual conditions at the Parkway Place
Development. In our opinion, the revised pressure of 45 (H +3) is reasonable and consistent
with the soil properties estimated for the hillside.
Active Earth Pressure
GeoEngineers' report of December 10, 1994, recommended active earth pressures
corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 23 pcf to act on the portion of the soldier pile
wall embedded below the base of the excavation. Shannon & Wilson's review letter of
November 28, indicated that this equivalent fluid pressure was not consistent with other
parameters provided for the wall design and should be reviewed. GeoEngineers' memo of
December 21, 1994, clarified this issue by revising the active earth pressure to an equivalent
fluid weight of 34 pcf and indicated that this pressure was derived considering that the
groundwater table may be close to the ground surface at the base of the wall. Under this
assumption, we concur that the active earth pressures on the embedded portions of the
soldier piles are reasonable for design.
Passive Resistance
GeoEngineers' position for the design of passive resistance acting on the embedded portion
of the soldier pile is that the passive resistance should commence at the base of the
excavation and be computed corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf which
would act on an area equal to two and a half times the diameter of the soldier piles.
Although a 48 -inch- diameter storm sewer line will be constructed within 10 feet of the face
of the wall, GeoEngineers contended in their correspondence of December 21, 1994, that
construction of the sewer line in short segments and using a trench box would be adequate to
provide this passive resistance to the permanent tieback wall.
W-6871-01
x6003
01/05/95 11:09 FAX 206 633 6777
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Page 3
SHANNON & WILSON
f1 004
SHANNON WILSON. INC.
The passive resistance issue is one of the major areas of disagreement that we have with
GeoEngineers in the philosophy of the wall design. The basis of our disagreement is that
we feel that the sewer line cannot be constructed to provide passive support to the wall
corresponding to the design assumptions. The basis for our position includes the following.
First, while trench box construction is a common procedure used to install sewer lines,
trench boxes are typically designed to resist active earth pressure and not the passive earth
pressures which are assumed for design of the shoring wall. It is anticipated that any
analysis of a trench box for passive earth pressures would indicate that the trench box is
overstressed and would not support the applied load. Secondly, construction with a trench
box typically involves partially backfilling around the sewer pipe and then pulling the trench
box to a new position while the remainder of the pipe is backfilled. This leaves a portion of .
the pipe unsupported while the remaining of the backfill is placed. Under this condition,
there is no passive resistance, above the point where the backfill is stopped: Hence, this
leads to discrepancy between the actual conditions and the design assumptions. The third.
factor is that even if a trench box could be completely baclffilled prior to pulling the trench
box, there will exist a void space between the bacll and the adjacent soil as the trench box
is advanced. This would ultimately result in some relaxation and lateral movement, hence
violating the design - assumption for the shoring wall:
Therefore, in our opinion, the most appropriate design of the shoring wall is to assume that
the lateral support to the wall is provided not by the base of the excavation at the parking lot
level but by the base of the excavation for the sewer line. This effectively shifts the base of
the excavation as much as 8 to 10 feet below the base of the parking lot. This would
essentially require an additional row of tiebacks at about the level of the parking lot to
provide adequate support forwall to construct the storm sewer line. In our opinion, this
is the most reasonable and appropriate design procedure that should be used for the wall
design. Without accounting for this loss of lateral support for the excavation of the sewer
?:ne, it is anticipated that the base of the shoring wall may become overstressed and
displaced laterally towards the storm sewer line excavation.
GeoEngineers' report of November 10, 1994, did not provide definitive recommendation for
a permanent facing for the tieback wall. Although the report alluded to a possibility that
concrete facing may be used on the wall, the report did not specifically recommend the use
W- 6871 -01
01/05/95
11:09 FAX 206 633 6777
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
January 5, 1995
Page 4
SHANNON & WILSON
C.
SHANNON WILSON. INC.
of a concrete facing material. GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, provided a
position that treated Limber lagging would be the permanent facing for the planned retaining
wall, and that this facing would have a 50 -year warranted life. Furthermore, their memo of
December 21, 1994, dismissed the use of shotcrete lagging on the basis that it may crack
under tieback stressing and that it would be difficult to install drainage behind a shotcrete
wall.
The design recommendation for the lagging is another major area in which we disagree upon
the design philosophy of the wall. While the buildings at the site may have a relatively
short life span, as is evidenced by the life of the current structure, it is our opinion that the
wall may be a permanent fixture at the site with a life of 50 years or longer. Under these
conditions, we consider it imperative that it have a more permanent facing than treated
timber lagging. In our opinion, shotcrete or preformed concrete panels are appropriate wall
facing material and should be used instead of treated timber lagging. Our concern for
treated timber lagging is that there are no examples of permanent tieback walls with treated
timber lagging that have performed satisfactorily for a span of 50 years. Whereas, there are
numerous examples of 50 -year old concrete retaining walls that have provided satisfactory
service. Although the issue of cracking of the concrete during stressing and potential
deterioration of the reinforcing mesh was discussed by GeoEngineers, it is our opinion that
if this is perceived to be a design issue that epoxy - coated reinforcing material may be used
in the wall construction. Finally, numerous soil nail walls using shotcrete facing have been
constructed using prefabricated drainage material behind the wall. Hence, constructability is
not a major issue to rule out the concrete facing. for the wall design. In summary, we feel
that use of the treated timber lagging is. an inappropriate design solution for a long -term wall
at this location and that a permanent wall facing using shotcrete or precast concrete.panels is
more appropriate considering the importance of the project.
Miscellaneous Details
With the exception of the passive resistance at the base of the wall and the wall facing
material, we believe that most of the major design issues for the wall have been addressed
by GeoEngineers. However, there are still a number of details that will need to be reviewed
on the design drawings and specifications to confirm the adequacy of the wall design. One
of the details is drainage provisions behind the face of the wall. Specifically, while the
GeoEngineers' memo of December 21, 1994, suggested full face coverage with a drainage
W- 6871 -01
Ib 005
... _ ................ .......... .. ..... _._..... .. _...... ... .... „.. A.,. ��..,......, w...,: ak.... c; e „rinn,Wav,.. >.�n «zrm:;r.ec.
... ,, .,
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
material such as Miradrain 6000, it is not clear whether this refers to full face coverage over
the entire length of the wall or if it refers to full face coverage in zones of observed
seepage. Such drainage details are quite important with the use of a permanent concrete
wall facing. Therefore, these details would need to be worked out in the review of the
design drawings. Similarly, we would need to review the design drawings to confirm the
adequacy of the drainage at the base of the wall and confirm connection details with storm
drain lines in the area.
Please call if there are any questions on this letter.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC
W. Paul Grant, RE.
Vice President
WPG:EAS /dgw
Enclosure: Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
cc: Robert Kimnierling - WSDOT
W6871 -0I .L'r2/W6871- Ikd/dgw
01/05/95 11:10 FAX 206 633 6777
AIM S WItSOIt, I.
Geotechnicst HANNON and &n Environmental INC.
SHANNON & WILSON
W- 687,1 -01
Abutment toLort
pad: January 5, 1995
'g,: City of Tukwila
. Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
Important Information About Your Geotecbnical Engineering/.
Subsurface Waste Management (Remediation) Report
GEOTECEIrl1CAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS.
X007
Page 1 of 2
Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of /pacific individuals A report prepared for civil
engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant
prepared your report etpreasly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report
for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than
that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geoteclmicat engineerrgeoscientiat.
AN ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT-SPECII<ZC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering /subsurface waste management (mediation) report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed
to consider a unique set of project- specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the genes) nature of the structure
and property involved; its sins and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the silo and ib
orientation; other improvements such u access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -
of- service limiaations imposed by the client. To help avoid wetly problems, have the eonsultirg engineer(s)/scientist(s) evaluate bow
any factors which change aubsequent to the date of the report, may affect the recommendations Unless your consulting geotechnical/
civil engineer and/or scientist indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: 1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed
(for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of
an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the sit); 2) when the sins, elevation. or configuration of the Proposed
project is altered: 3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; 4) when there is a change of ewvnenrhip;
or 5) for application to an adjacent site. Geotchnical/civil engineers and/or scientist; cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may occur if they are not consulted after factors which sere considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be effected as a result of natural changes or human influence. Because a geotechnical/waste management
engineering report is based an conditions which existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on an engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by tines Ask the geoteclrnieal /vtaste management consultmt
to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts. For example; groundwnitter conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the sits and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnicaUwteste management report: The geotechnicaUcivil
engineer and/or scientist should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are
necessary.
MOST GEOTEcRNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT'S.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points when samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface condition& The actual
interface between materials nwry be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicate. Actual conditions in area not sampled
may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent. such situations, you and your consoling can
work together to help mioirnhe their impact. Retaining your consultant m observe subsurface construction operations can be particu-
larly beneficial in this respect.
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY.
The conclusions contained in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminuy becauae they must be based on the assumption that
conditions revealed through selecthe exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual
01/05/25 11:11 FAX 206 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON
Geo -"Engineers
MEMORANDUM
cioos
Redmond
TO: Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk LovelaceJDBM
FROM: Bert Pschunder, Jack Tuttle
DATE: December 21, 1994
FILE: 3944-002 -RO1
SUBJECT: Revised Soldier Pile Wall Design Parameters, Parkway Place
This memorandum summarizes our recommendations for revised design parameters for the
soldier pile and tieback wall to be constructed on the west side of the three- building complex for the
proposed Parkway Place retail development in Tukwila, Washington. These recommendations are
intended to supplement the recommendations given in our report of geotechnical engineering services
dated November 10. 1994, and have been discussed with Mr. Paul Grant of Shannon & Wilson, Inc.
and Mr. Kirk Lovelace of DBM, inc. Our memoranduul is intended in part to address comments
provided. by Mr. Grant in a letter to the city of Tukwila dated November 28, 1994. The comments
relate to a review of our November 10, 1994 report.
FREEBOARD
We originally recommended a freeboard of 2 feet between the top of the wall and the ground
surface behind the wall to provide protection against soil and vegetative debris which might ravel
down the slope. We agree that increasing the freeboard to at least 3 feet will provide better protection
from ravelling debris and also more safety for individuals walking behind the wall. We understand
from Mr. Lovelace that the incremental cost of providing 3 feet vs. 2 feet of freeboard is minor. The
3 feet of freeboard also reduces liability exposure for the owner resulting from injury or damage to
people and vehicles below the wall if the debris were to overtop the wall.
ACTIVE PRESSURES FOR WALL DESIGN
For cantilever wall sections or where only one row of tiebacks is used, we recommend using a
triangular soil pressure distribution based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 70 pcf (pounds per cubic
foot). For sections of the wall where two or more rows of tiebacks will be used, we recommend that
the lateral soil loads on the wall be determined using a triangular soil pressure distribution varying t/
from 0 to (45) (H +3) down to a depth of 0.211, where H is the distance from the ground surface
behind the top of the wall to the base of the excavation. Below a depth of 0.2H and extending to the
base of the excavation, a uniform lateral soil pressure of (45) (H +3) should be used. These soil
pressure values take into account the presence of accumulated debris at the top of the wall.
01/05/96 11:12 FAX 206 633 6777
MEMORANDUM to:
December 21, 1994
Page 2
SHANNON & WILSON
Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk Lovelace/DBM
-Q 0 09 . .
Lateral soil loads acting on the embedded portion of the soldier piles should be computed on the
basis of a uniform pressure distribution of (34) (H +3) plus an equivalent fluid pressure of 34D, where
D is the depth of the soldier pile embedment below the base of the excavation. These active pressure
components should be applied to a width equal to the diameter of the soldier pile hole. These
pressures are based on a simplified distribution which represents an average of two extreme ground
water conditions: (1) ground water level at the base of the excavation, and (2) ground water level
below the tip of the soldier piles. In actuality, the ground water level will likely be at about 8 feet
below the planned depth of cut, or at about mid - height of the embedded portion of the soldier piles,
assuming an embedment of 15 feet.
LAGGING
Properly treated and installed timber lagging will, in our opinion, provide a satisfactory
permanent facing for the planned retaining wall. With current treatment procedures we are advised
that a 50 -year life warranty is provided. Careful field treatment of fresh cut faces in the lagging will
be needed to maintain the warranted life of the lagging. Otherwise, the relative ease of installation
and the better drainage provided through the lagging has distinct advantages over other types of
lagging such as shotcrete. Any system of lagging must be installed as the excavation proceeds
downward. In'the case of shotcrete, the installation procedure makes it difficult to install and maintain
a continuous drainage blanket between the soil and the concrete. In addition, tieback stressing is
likely to result in cracking of the shotcrete which could have an adverse effect on the life span of the
lagging if the mesh reinforcing becomes exposed to moisture infiltration through stressing - induced
cracks. Therefore, with the assurances of longevity warranted by the lagging supplier, we recommend
the use of timber lagging for the retaining wail.
Lagging pressures should be taken as one -half of the active soil pressures provided above.
PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Passive resistance available on soldier piles extending below the level of excavation can be
determined using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot applied to a width of 2.5
times the soldier pile hole diameter or the pile spacing, whichever is less. This equivalent fluid
pressure also represents the average of the two ground water conditions described above, and includes
a factor of safety of 1.5.
We understand that the existing 48- inciu- diameter storm sewer which crosses the three- building
complex site will be relocated to an alignment with the centerline about 10 feet from the face of the
wall. Construction of the new storm sewer would remove a significant amount of passive resistance
available for the soldier piles if the entire trench (planned to be about 8 to 10 feet deep) is open at one
time. We recommend that the sewer be constructed in segments such that no more than 20 feet of
trench is open at any one time. We recommend that bedding and backfill for the full trench section
around and over the sewer pipe consist of clean sand and gravel compacted to at least 95 percent of
01/05/95
•
11:12 FAX. 206 633 6777
MEMORANDUM to:
December 21, 1994
Page 3
SHANNON & WILSON
�.w,Ij 010
Roy Bennion, Paul Grant/Shannon & Wilson and Kirk Lovelace/DBM
the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557. The fill will likely need to
be placed in thin (less than 6 inches loose thickness) lifts and lightweight, hand - operated equipment
used to achieve proper compaction around the pipe. The open portion of trench should be fully
supported with a trench box or other braced support system so that sufficient transfer of soil loads can
take place across the trench.
Excavation for any future repairs of the storm sewer should also be limited to 20 -foot segments
of trench. Bracing extending from the base of the exposed portion of the soldier piles across the
trench and bearing against the future building could be used to help maintain the integrity of the
soldier pile wall during such repairs. The capability of the building to withstand such lateral bracing
loads should be checked by a structural engineer and could require some modification of the
foundation design to accommodate such loading.
WALL DRAINAGE
Seepage from the face of the soil mass retained by the wall should be controlled by placing
sheets of pre - fabricated composite drains such as Miradrain 6000 or equal over the entire exposed soil
face as the wall is constructed. The sheets should be overlapped as necessary to provide a continuous
flow path to the base of the wall. A drain consisting of a 6 -inch rigid wall PVC pipe should be placed
at the base of the wall to collect water from the prefabricated drains The PVC pipes should extend to
suitable disposal points.
.o.
Other, design parameters for tied -back soldier pile walls provided in our November 10, 1994
remain applicable. We trust that this information will be satisfactory for final design of the wall.
i2 /01 /04 15:57 FAX 206 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON
agall SHANNON WILSON, INC.
� � ' GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
November <28, 1994
City of Tukwila
Public Works Depaitment
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Zlrkwila, Washington 98188
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron, City Engineer
1 1001
SEATTLE
HANFORD
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
SAINT LOUIS
BOSTON
144
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED PARKWAY PLACE
RETAIL CENTER
This letter provides comments based upon our review of the November 10, 1994,
geotechnical report by GeoEngineers for the proposed Parkway Place retail center. The
proposed development includes constructing a 30- to 35-foot-high soldier pile and tieback
wall at the toe of a steep hillside. The purpose of this wall is to allow excavation of the
soils at the toe of the hillside for the project development. Our review was conducted at
your request because this hillside slope falls within the City of Thkwila's Class 3 landslide
potential hazard area. The purpose of our review was to comment on the stability of the
hillside and the design parameters for the soldier pile and tieback wall in context with
requirements of the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance. Our review does not address aspects
of the City's Sensitive Area Ordinance pertaining to wetlands, streams, or forested areas.
Detailed comments on our review of the proposed project are provided below. However,
we generally concur that the soldier pile and tieback wall may be constructed without
decreasing the stability of the hillside. Furthermore, we agree that there is no evidence of
prior major instability of the existing hillside slope in the vicinity of the project. The
comments provided below address the details of the wall design and items that would need
to be addressed in the project plans and specifications for the wall construction.
HILLSIDE STABILI'T'Y
The hillside adjacent to the project falls within the City of 'Tukwila's Class 3 potential
landslide hazard area. This designation corresponds to slopes generally between 15 and 40
400 NORTH 34TH STREET. SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
206632.8020 FAX 2080 E33 4 87 7 7
W- 6871 -01
12/01/94 15:57 FAX 208 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page 2
SHANNON &WILSON. INC.
percent, and some greater than 40 percent, that are underlain by impermeable soils. We
understand that the existing hillside slope was graded to its present configuration of a slope
of 1 3 /4(H):1(V) in the mid- 1960s. The geotechnical report for the project and existing
geologic maps do not indicate any instability in the portion of the hillside that will be
affected byrthe project development.
GeoEngineers analyzed the stability of the slope on the assumption that the existing slope
configuration has a static factor -of- safety (FS) of 1.25. This assumption was based upon
earlier extensive stability analyses of the hillside that were conducted by Dames & Moore in
the mid- 1960s. With this assumed FS for the existing conditions, GeoEngineers then
derived soil properties including a friction angle of 37 degrees and a cohesion value of 25
pounds per square foot (psf) that would be consistent with this 1.25 stability FS.
GeoEngineers then evaluated the stability of the completed soldier pile and tieback retaining
system: They determined a static FS of 1.8 and a dynamic FS of 1.2 corresponding to a
seismic coefficient of 0.20g.
In our opinion, the stability analyses that were conducted provide a reasonable and
conservative evaluation of the stability of the hillside slope. The soil parameters selected for
analyses are conservative with respect to the results of the laboratory tests conducted by
GeoEngineers on soil specimens retrieved from the site. In our opinion, the soil parameters
are also conservative considering Shannon & Wilson's experience in testing strength
properties of•glacial sediments. Therefore, it is concluded that the computed FS are
reasonable and conservative for the project and that construction of the retaining wall would
not decrease the stability of the existing hillside slope. However, a number of elements
regarding the design and construction of the wall will need to be addressed, as discussed
below.
WALL DESIGN
In general, it is our opinion that a soldier pile and tieback wall may provide adequate
restraint to the toe of the hillside for the proposed project. However, a number of details
need to be further developed and reflected on the plans and specifications for the wall
W- 6871 -01
j002
1.2/01/94 15:58 FAX 206 633 6777
•
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Roa Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page 3
SHANNON & WILSON fm 003
SHANNON iWILSON, INC
construction. Comments on the design parameters and our expectations for details that need
to be reflected on the plans and specifications are indicated below.
Freeboard
The geotechnical report for the project recommends that the soldier pile wall be constructed
with a minimum freeboard of 2 feet. This freeboard reflects the distance between the top of
the wall and the ground surface of' the retained soil below the top of the wall. In our
opinion, a 3 -foot minimum freeboard would provide better protection from debris as well as
for personal safety of any individuals walking behind the wall.
Fence
Since the access to the top of the wall would appear to be unconstrained, it is suggested that
a chain link fence be ccnstructed at the top of the wall as a safety measure.
70 Pouncs Per Cubic Foot fl Equivalent Fluid We ght
The design report recommends using an equivalent fluid weight of 70 pcf for the design of
the top 10 feet of the wall. We concur with this recommendation as restricted to the
cantilever section of the wall or the section of the wall which may only have one row of
tiebacks. Where wall sections may have two or more rows of tiebacks, use of the 70 pcf
equivalent fluid weight would lead to a discontinuity with the rectangular wall pressure of
60H. This discontinuity may be avoided by using a truncated pressure distribution for wall
segments having two or more rows of tiebacks where the full wall pressure (60H) is
achieved at a distance of 0.2H below the top of the wall. It is recommended that
GeoEngineers review this condition and revise their recommendations as appropriate.
60H Wall Pressure
The 60H uniform pressure distribution on thc tieback section of the shoring wall, in our
opinion, is a reasonable and conservative pressure distribution for the wall design.
W-6871-01
12/01/94 15:58 FAX 206 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON
` .
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page 4
SHANNON F,WILSON, INC
However, it is suggested that GeoEngineers consider that the H factor for determining the
pressure include not_only the heig fiheeut But arsL,, .
23 pd' Equivalent Fluid Weight
The geotechnical report contains a recommendation for an active earth pressure
corresponding to an equivalent fluid weight of 23 pcf to act on the soldier piles below the
base of the excavation. In our opinion, this value of equivalent fluid pressure is inconsistent
with the 70•pcf recommended for the top section of the wall. In our opinion, the equivalent
fiuid weight of 23 pcf is unconservative and this value should be revised to be an equivalent
fluid weight that is consistent with the design of the cantilever section of the shoring wall.
%ageng
The geotechnical report recommends use of wood lagging to retain the soil at the face of the
excavation. While not necessary for the geotechnical report, the plans and specifications for
the wall will need to indicate the size of the wood lagging and details for filling voids behind
the lagging. Also, since this will be a permanent retaining wall, it is strongly suggested that
the wood lagging be pressure - treated and that sawcut ends of the lagging be treated with
wood preservative.
In our opinion, cast-in-place concrete lagging would provide more positive support for the
wall compared to wood lagging since wood lagging may be subject to deterioration over a
long period of time. Therefore, it is suggested that the design also consider cast-in-place
lagging (shotcrete) as a potential substitute for wood lagging.
Wall Facing Pressure
The geotechnical report does not contain any recommendations for lateral earth pressures
acting upon the lagging or the permanent wall facing material. These parameters will need
to be addressed in the plans and specifications for the retaining wall.
W-6871-01
12/01/94 15:59 FAX 206 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON Q005
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page 5
Passive istance
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
While we generally concur with the passive pressure recommendations provided at the toe of
the soldier pile and tieback wall, these pressures may be severely affected by the
construction of the new 48- inch - diameter storm sewer which may be constructed at a
distance of about 10 feet from the face of the wall. In our opinion, the pressures provided
in the geotechnical report did not reflect the potential construction conditions of this storm
sewer. It is suggested that these pressures be reduced to account for the storm sewer
construction or that the passive resistance be neglected over the anticipated depth of the
storm sewer construction. Neglecting the passive pressures over this portion would
represent a conservative design approach and would allow for removal or repair of the storm
sewer at some point in the future without seriously jeopardizing the stability of the adjacent
wall.
Double - Corrosion Protection,
The geotechnical report recommends double- corrosion protection for all tiebacks within the
retaining wall. The design documents will need to reflect appropriate details, for protecting
the heads of these anchors from corrosion.
SAGE
The geotechnical report does not contain details for controlling seepage at the face of the
wall. The plans and specifications for the wall construction will need to address the type of
drainage material to be installed at the face of the wall, the width cf the material, spacing of
the material, the location of any drains at the toe of the wall, and the connection of these
drains to any nearby storm sewers.
W-6871-01
12/01/94 15:59 FAX 206 633 6777 SHANNON & WILSON
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page 6
WALL FACING
Zoos
SHANNON 6WILSON. INC
The geotechnica1 report alludes to the possibility that a concrete facing may be used at the
face of the wall. We concur that a concrete facing is an appropriate long -term solution for
the construction of the wall and that the final configuration of the wall include a permanent
concrete facing. .Considering that various options are available for the architectural finish of
the concrete facing, the City of Tukwila should review the details for this wall facing to
assure that they are consistent with the intent of the Sensitive Area Ordinance and any other
design /aesthetics requirements of the City.
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
The geotechnical report recommends that GeoEngineers be involved in construction
monitoring of the soldier pile and tieback wall. We concur that this service will be required
to confirm the safety and adequacy of the design parameters recommended for the wall.
Additionally, it is recommended that Shannon & Wilson review design memos and
periodically review the construction of the wall on behalf of the City.
COVENANTS
It is suggested that the City place a covenant upon the property indicating that the permanent
tieback wall on the property is an integral factor in maintaining the stability of the adjacent
hillside. The safety of the hill Side will be dependent upon proper maintenance of the wall,
which would include maintaining drainage behind the wall and the integrity of the drains that
may be installed at the toe of the 'wall. Any deterioration (cracking or movement) of the
wall would need to be addressed by future owners. Also, the maintenance of the waJ1 would
require the periodic inspection of the top of the wall to confirm that there is no accumulation
of debris at the top of the wall that may jeopardize the stability of the wall or may
potentially overtop the wall.
W- 6871 -01
12/01/94 16:00 FAX 206 633 6777
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
November 28, 1994
Page?
SHANNON & WILSON
Please call if there are any questions on this letter.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
GA ' ∎:
W. Paul Giant, P.E.
Vice President
WPG :EAS/lkd
SHANNON ,WILSON. INC.
�uas 1? 4�
Enclosure: Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
W6E71 -01.LTii1W6171 -ikd/1
qh 007
12/01/94 16:00 FAX 206 633 6777
41111111 MINN Geotechnical SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
SHANNON & WILSON
W- 6871 -01
Attachment to Report
paned: November 28, 1994
Q 008
gags 1 of 2
7b: City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Ron Cameron
Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering/
Subsurface Waste Management (Remediation) Report
GEOTEcR IICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS.
Consulting geotechnical engineer:; prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals A report prepared for a civil
engineer racy not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. ITnless indicaed otherwise, your consultant
preps your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report
for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than
that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer/geoscientist.
AN ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS.
A geotechnical engineering /subsurface waste management (remediation) report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed
to consider a unique set of project - specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure
and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its
orientation; other improvements such as asses roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -
of- service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, have the consulting engineer(s)/scientist(s) evaluate how
any factors which change subsequent to the date of the report, may affect the recommendations 'Unless your consulting geotechnical/
civil engineer and /or scientist indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: 1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed
(for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of
an uarehigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); 2) when the sire, elevation, or configuration of the proposed
project is altered; 3) when the Location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; 4) when there is a change of ownership;
or 5) for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical/civil engineers and/or scientists cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may occur if they are not consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE.
Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural changes or human influence. Because a geotechnical/waste management
engineering report is based on conditions which existed at the tinge of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on an engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the geotechnical/waste management consultant
to advise if additional tests ars desirable before construction starts For example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also
affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/esite management report. The zootechnical/civil
engineer and/or scientist should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional teats am
necessary.
MOST GEOTECSNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS.
Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your consultant who then applied judgment to reader an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual
interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates,. Actual conditions in areas not sampled
may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situation; you and your consultant can
walk together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your cansultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particu-
larly beneficial in this respect.
A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELI VNARY
The conclusions contained in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary because they must be based on the assumption that
conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicahe of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual
RE '^ IVED
JAN 1 11999
QQIVUV►u►v► ► Y
DEVELOPMENT
& storm line
Geo Engineers have proposed a wood wall and passive resistance
that has been reviewed by Paul Grant of Shannon and Wilson.
It is recommended to require a concrete wall:
1. as recommended by Shannon and Wilson
2. this wall is permanent, has the freeway above,
there is no foreseeable additional development
to change the wall so changes or maintenance
that would eventually required of a wood wall
should be avoided,
3. any work would /could affect the public 48 inch
drain; the construction of the building has
extraordinary requirements to work around this
drain and all efforts must be made to avoid
any future disturbances of the line,
4. WSDOT review and comments are expected to
recommend requirement of a concrete wall
which is their standard,
5. any wall maintenance will affect or preclude truck
access to the building.
Therefore, the wall needs to be concrete as recommended by
Shannon and Wilson instead of the treated timber lagging.
The wall design needs to provide for the passive resistance
explained on page 3 and 4 of the Shannon and Wilson report.
WSDOT review and comment should be obtained from Robert
Kimmerling.
City of Tukwila.
Department of Community Development
To: Ron Cameron
From: Diana Painter
Subject: Trip Generation Studies - Parkway Place
Date:
MEMO
November 30, 1994..
John W. Rants, Mayor
• Rick Beeler, Director
I have asked for clarification on the two trip generation studies for Parkway Place on several
occasions, and.1iave responses from you indicating that the studies are adequate. On further
review of there-studies, I am not convinced that they adequately reflect forecasted conditions
for this project. ' Therefore, I am questioning your memo of November 18, 1994 that states
that the TP &E traffic studies identify that the redevelopment generates less peak traffic
[than the existing office building].
The SEPA determination for this project must be made .at noon on December 1, 1994 if the
project is to go ahead. At this point in time I am not satisfied that the traffic impacts of
this project have been adequately assessed. Please get back to me or-Rick the morning of
the 1st if you disagree with this decision.
I question the following assumptions and results of the TP &E study;
1. The September 150.994 letter from TP &E states that, 'because of pass -by traffic and.
diverted link trips for retail uses along Southcenter Boulevard, the actual new trips
associated with the proposed Parkway Place project will be relatively small' (p. 3).
According to Dave Enger, however, only 40% of trips in a retail area such as this can
be attributed to pass -by traffic. Based on this rule- of-thumb, I am not satisfied that
'all the traffic is already there.'
2. The September 15th letter from TP &E states that, "Our field observations showed
substantial inter - connectivity between the development along Southcenter Parkway.
The intersite connections reduce the need to use Southcenter Parkway when traveling
between retail sites" (p. 2). As you know, Southcenter. Parkway is the only street in
this vicinity. And there is no physical 'interconnectivity' between sites on the saine
side of the street as this project. Formal 'landscaping, grade changes .and other
physical barriers prevent traveling. from site to site by car west of Southcenter
Parkway. Let me know if I am mis- interpreting this assumption, but I don't believe
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665
it accurately reflects site conditions.
3: The same letter suggests that approach channelization improvements in the main
driveway to the site may help with traffic movement. As you can tell from the
drawings for the project, no improvements are planned, and none were indicated as
necessary in your memo of November 18th. I would like to be certain that your
intention is to NOT require any improvements to the driveway before finalizing the
SEPA conditions for this project.
The conclusions of the September 15th trip generation study indicated that fewer trips are
generated by the retail project than the office project. Average Weekday trips, a.m. trips
and p.m. trips were forecasted. I requested that the consultant do another analysis that
compared noon•hour trips between the two uses, since you have always said that noon is our
peak hour in the Southcenter area.
In a letter dated November 9th, the consultant distributed the forecasted daily trips for the
shopping center across the day, using percentages supplied by . the fi'E Trip Generation
manual. [Incidently, the two distributions shown were for shopping centers under 100,000
sq. ft. in size, and over 300,000 sq. ft. in size. This project is 150,000 sq. ft.]. Averaging the
percentage entering and the percentage existing for various hours in the day, the consultant
supplied figures that showed that the 12 -1 noon hour peak and the 5 -6 p.m. peak were the
highest, and were about the same on a national level. I would like to know how this
compares with your knowledge of the Southcenter area. I am not convinced that this
distribution is appropriate here.
I can understand that we would want to substantiate our decisions on peak hour figures for
the area. But the consultant goes on to say that "we believe that a sizeable number of the
office employees choose to eat out or run noon time errands, thus generating significant
traffic volumes." This does not sound well- documented, and conflicts with the previous
statements that the sites are connected so there's no need to use the street, and that the
traffic is already in the area. It also contradicts actual conditions. This is the primary
restaurant strip in the-Southcenter area and at least five shopping malls are within walking
distance of the office building.
The study does not compare peak hour trips for retail and office uses based on local
knowledge (peak hours in the Southcenter area) or peak hour trips for retail and offices uses
based on national averages, since no data was available for the distribution of office traffic
throughout the day. I am therefore not comfortable in stating that this project will have less
traffic impact than the office building on Southcenter Boulevard. In addition, I have never
received the requested memo from you verifying that an intersection impact analysis is not
necessary for this project.
With respect to your memo of November 18th, I have the following questions:
1. Your memo states that the traffic island in the southbound curb lane at the signalize
access is to be evaluated for removal. Would this be a City project? Does this
�....,�: ,',;
project have any connection to impacts from this retail mall?
I am not clear about your request that the signalized driveway detection loop be
verified and turned over to the City with an easement. Is this an intended SEPA
condition?
In an e-mail message on November 1st, you indicated that "new access /turning movement
trip" may need to be analyzed for this project. Was this ever requested? Was it, done?
Please get back, to me on this as soon as possible.
46
4641411FTRF
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Avenue
November 28, 1994
• Seattle, Washington 98104 -1598.
Diana Painter
Associate Planner
Tukwila Dept. of Community Development
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 1100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
North America's Best
ifib101itt011.7af9941151131447.7:4911MMIZORMISTAWSWWWKSZED
RE: Transit Issues and the Parkway Place Retail Center
Dear Diana:
Thanks for sending me the site plan of the proposed Parkway Place
Retail Center, for review and comment.
As you mentioned in your letter, there currently is a Metro bus
zone /pullout with a passenger waiting shelter, located on
Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the project, south of the
signalized intersection.
From the site plan, it appears as if the portion of the property
adjacent to Southcenter Parkway, including the bus zone and shelter
will remain unaltered by the redevelopment. Metro would prefer to
continue using this bus zone.
Prior to 1988, Metro utilized the Parkway Plaza parking lot and the
signalized intersection as a bus turn - around for transit service
that started /ended in this vicinity. There were only about eight
daily bus trips that did this at that time. These buses would
operate through the lot in a clockwise direction, entering from
Southcenter Parkway by the Azteca restaurant and exiting at the
signalized intersection.
Although Metro has no current plans to resume turn -back bus trips
here, it would be desirable to maintain this option for potential
future use.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide these comments. If you
have any questions, please call me at 684 -1597
Sincerely,
otY e
Doug Johnson
Senior Transit Planner
DJ
cc: Roy Bennion
Howard Turner
RECE iv:;
• NOV 3 0 1994
DEVELOPMEk
Transit Department • (206) 684 -2100 • Mobility for the region
PARKING ANALYSIS
REQUIRED 155,115 SF @ 4.5/1000 = 698 STALLS
PROVIDED STANDARDS = 484
COMPACTS = 202 (29%)
HANDICAPS = 16
= 702 STALLS
TOTAL
• ..O-K----'11aL
.L
sozsec
�Lt"'Ll
„111:7"."71.7._
rt�'lrl1J IIl'Ili CI
if if!}� r;l
„cr• rrWit—rrl1�'liiI !illi1
/1RTFTAPJNC WALL ELEVATION
VAC -.Td
i
/
/
---� �.
-� I,
I I (,I bkdl I I I
I— .I
: ry,
•nL _ _ I J i
•
r10.6PY/ WCYCLNC. ELEVATL
T T t 4 4 4 4
I—
VICINITY
MAP
STREET MAP
1 --I-- I—='';rL si•�_L_ - k====t------L—J--1
I I I 1 ._ 1 i.' 1 -'•-r I I I
I I `., 1 I \--+--r _ r--I—•--
I
G
1 1 I I _
-- I--tl--i- J —t"=—
•
r
1
.K ,E Bt.1 I/ Fi 01
NOTES
TOIL - C-2 RCEa.•L KIM
A NEW RETAIL 29,998
8 NEW RETAIL 40,045
/' W RETAIL 42,045
D ---PEW RETAIL 43,027
TOTAL NEW 155,115
•
•
•
E EXISTING AZTECA RESTAURANT
F EXISTING WINNERS RESTAURANT
G EXISTING LEVITZ FURNITURE
H EXISTING HERITAGE FUNITURE
•
•
•
—J
•o.LECALVCEimSCIIiIPTCEAf•L
rif:12�1G4DY •
n/ii}��4.•al
lKv111
•ii N•; AE Ag0511Nfl. f�T•-YM
14030.1 0501111 104 halm 1.. 1111*0l.,,r5..o a�>.
.7ID:m ssn
w,.
u -o [.rulriiii,Km .4.3 .Pi.w, 4•o-. •i p0
o. 14 -Y-111 n14 11w1•11ly>f,•• MI d1
DS.
i,
,AIN
•i, rc0011114.nw..1•1 MO w M.LP'O,
I•W
NM! 10,11.1“.01. 441114111/01/ /11011.0.,04,Y
041 M,a
PARKWAY PLACE RETAIL CENTER 17501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY TUKWILA, WA.
•
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
•40 leo ASCI•ItCTS
SITE PLAN
PARKWAY RAC. TUN.0
r:Iro•
REVISIONS
SHEET
Al
ATTACHMENT B
m
1
t
•
OAST ELEVATION
I oo. yea Ar Q M
I
t Wim t
I TM I I 1 t
22 scALSVr ELEVATION o .•r
I
I
I
I
I
1
I II
1 I 1_
1
A.1
•
la
!I
-
\ _ ka
��
OSOUTH-FdEVATON
yr
I I
I
ft arm Or
OrJORTH ELEVATION
rAcve-i-a.
It;
:
iii 1:11t1{t lIVITtlttl
Oft A%aD EAST ELEVA.,TItI
of
\ I •
\
IDE_ _ _ _ MI/
/
/
/
Jot
(;\ENLMOED SCEINALK PAIN
MOTES
®:181;1 ° i
'Own •m ►.
O° d °e ORIN
WOE
P • OWED CCPCia
S • SYNTACTIC IMAM
MU AIM SYSTEM EP
CI • Ar 6 W(coat XTE
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
seas u.+c wM+o-r wl0li[CIS
r•ap�sro.
ELEVATIONS
PIJMWAY PLACE. TU(WLA
ray
WO. rat
REVISIONS
SHEET
A2
ATTACHMENT C
.mow.-w+wrw ^^�' "1.t"N S�"'.[""iii V2flZ ••."' -"a+✓ { a4.t�•aawvs�
IT VATgN n....
1'
®WS,LUVATIO
4
SOUTH .EIEVAQ w
ma
4a
I i I
/,TEVATIDNU .
k
&&ARCED EAST ELEvATCIN
rn
q
I
EE
EnLARGEO SD WALK PA NICE
NOTES
e
.ESKA .9.[
• . PAWED WOVE
S .SWAM EMMA
.91.40. STStis
Ct . DASH 904 COd[E[
o . [NV= 960411 me
PARKWAY PLACE
TUSNER AND ASSOCIATES
AROSTICTS
.
Z',.cMfor
ELEVATIONS
PARK -WAY PLACE. TIIEWLA
RIV WOKS
SHEET
A2S
ATTACHMENT D
?i>
I
1
tri:,
O
O I
I
I
f.-
P
----
,
OEE �lEVATCN
1 � -f4
1
OW ST ELEVATION
S Vr rd W w
G
� I %
O
ONORTH ELEVATION
w. r -td
OSOUTH ELEVATION
._, yr-rV u .4.1
h
EN_AROED EAST ELEVATION - BLILERJO A
5 yT-Id v u
1i tji!jii1illIItiIlit:Ra
;.1: i•':ii
1: "r ' :i
L
QEAROD EAST ELEVATION - B LEXJO q&D
NOTES
OfY aWW 60a oCTT
ton N
Cd NV
C) i1 ralfii'
0Ia a oin4 a -a
Qe1141 -E 8Dmtt oarrrt0
som
IN .1300.6•1 WO(
P
AI.t1O WotIE
S . `Smn(ta 01001
MI Ata SYSt1Y
O .90.4 00. MOVE
C2 . 09503 AW(Gtt 12C
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
un1...P.ror 440//105
atrsw .r pq len MA
ELEVATIONS
Psalm AY RAX. TU(M(A
• OAT
REVISIONS
312125r/in
SHEET
A3
ATTACHMENT E
TEAST ELEVATION
V./WALL .me O.w
OWEST ELEVATION
LV:lr.fd v:w
4
I
QPTH EV ATD''.,..
T
OSSOUTH JLiEVATCN...
QE£M RO EAST ELEVATION - BLDNO A
;_11111 14,01! till
ill:i! u!linuni,!hi
'7\ EN ARCED EAST ELEVATE - SULIOCG B &
6 w vl.Id
NOTES
Qa URI L OT
ru . ammo Wm(
P .PANaOmart
5 . zER
AMATO SYSWW
n . Erualnom moa
0 . On= AQ1rCATE OW.
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
a▪ .m. ww. NMTECTS
+...m
N ULITO 0011110.11110
ELEVATIONS
PARKWAY PLAQ. TUCALA
'0 t
o.
REVISIONS
'SmWK-w
SNEET
A3S
ATTACHMENT F
OWALL SECTION ® ENTRY CC BELONG C
W. Vf..4
LEPER PANEL
(OWER PPJEL
FROVCE (2) 00 SF FACES EA01 SCE
`W-SIO3
SWIM FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PAEL
NORTH FACE:
LEPER PANEL
LOWER PMEL
NORTH 9OT
SOUTH FACE:
11PER PAEL
LOWER PAEL
NORTH FACE:
WEER PML
LOWER PATEL
TENANT C
TENANT 0
TENANT A
TENANT 0
TENANT B
TENANT A
TENANT 0
TENANT C
OVi.1S ?ClIG SCR PROVOS (2) 97NS.
T
ORETANJO WALL SECTION
Y�L VfA4 b.w
1'
twat
it
•t... QcAau V2,1t. IQOETAL - PLAN OCOLU FOETAL - ELEVATION
I 0
OSECTs.1.Vf+ONe w A TA+Av�•b•' atva
S
M
OSECTION a...oon
1... ..A m.a. y.....
W.Vfl4
I
t
U
9
•
OSECTIONiC 1ao•m ooa,
} wL Vfld b.wr
NOTES
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
u▪ mc.+.•a. MORTICES
SITE PLAN
PAf&NAY Ft AQ, TIKMN*
▪ vwMgt
REVISIONS
SHEET
A4
ATTACHMENT G
-1
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
4.-....--1.--/1/1
r
1
1
L
1
�-
L-4I
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
./
( I
1
� ..
. I .
1
1
t
.
1
1
I
I e /
.
E
1
I
1
OWALL SECTION ® ENTRY CC BELONG C
W. Vf..4
LEPER PANEL
(OWER PPJEL
FROVCE (2) 00 SF FACES EA01 SCE
`W-SIO3
SWIM FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PAEL
NORTH FACE:
LEPER PANEL
LOWER PMEL
NORTH 9OT
SOUTH FACE:
11PER PAEL
LOWER PAEL
NORTH FACE:
WEER PML
LOWER PATEL
TENANT C
TENANT 0
TENANT A
TENANT 0
TENANT B
TENANT A
TENANT 0
TENANT C
OVi.1S ?ClIG SCR PROVOS (2) 97NS.
T
ORETANJO WALL SECTION
Y�L VfA4 b.w
1'
twat
it
•t... QcAau V2,1t. IQOETAL - PLAN OCOLU FOETAL - ELEVATION
I 0
OSECTs.1.Vf+ONe w A TA+Av�•b•' atva
S
M
OSECTION a...oon
1... ..A m.a. y.....
W.Vfl4
I
t
U
9
•
OSECTIONiC 1ao•m ooa,
} wL Vfld b.wr
NOTES
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
u▪ mc.+.•a. MORTICES
SITE PLAN
PAf&NAY Ft AQ, TIKMN*
▪ vwMgt
REVISIONS
SHEET
A4
ATTACHMENT G
EXISTING SLOPED HILLSIDE
ESS & EGRESS
TL 141074DAIsCtiAVSOC
101.1111 RAZ a,
PARKWAY ,PLACE. IUfMLA
nb
m ti
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
OSITF AN
� rws PL -a
STATE SLOPE & DRAINAGE EASMENTS
ATTACHMENT J
AREA CALCULATIONS
1. Existing Site Ar.. 070.948 4.1.
low SOO... sap. M..
153147 01.
'foal Non S.n.lo Sap. Landscape M.. _IL= ..1.
TOTAL OXr5T111S CANOPY -139%N teed 1101 242.154..1.
0. Prepare! Action
M.. 1. 5. A.nn..d ,loan 5.n.Uw Sap. Mw
Mu 10 0. P.na.ed ban Non-S.wni.. Slop. Area
2024,. ANNA 70 BE 02110220
25.752 .1.
_51405..1.
79.157 4.1.
TWA Provided Canopy p,oposed 4n01c.ping 115.512 5 T.
. •aa,r.0 u.6.4.d ..9.0000) -127.4% 011.Y11S11
: � ' iiyVYae� /eRBb' .e.�04.. Innen
.'`' �'d �.6R�i�/t/Iv�4'�!/Gt4O 6h�Y.,r./� .../.v .widv,..
EYEING *NATION NTN
MOPE AREA 10001morn
n
•
NY PLAN/NG @ RETAINING MALL
w.DI ...r
NOTES
w9.e.1111 RAR SOMME
0
0
c
LAI IVPLAN.PS,
lvadowagae.Archlanta=
rand.a.0110 .aur 10•4 IOdOT{
0 .....
o �._... .now. sass.
4.•
.
a.
KAN,
- 1il �ra i
tires. y11.. ., .41•
PARKWAY PLACE
1201[9 AND ASSOCIATES
Nr. tom, 20.461 I.. pc) lata -n..
SI(E PLAN
PARKWAY PLACE. RPM*
REVISIONS
110 wllllf,llv.A.NYAM of f
TREE Pf1Ul4G GIME
SHEET ware P alio
e�a.m..Trau
L-1 . 2
ATTACHMENT K
ilnr:at ¢ t
TOrI Sart
CANOPY rRA•rawT V.
•
d Z�
LANDPLAN P.S.
nt my A$I.4 �M
PARKWAY PLACE
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
AMONIEen
tuna Ra.RMIllemrR rare CANS.. AREA -rYrr as.
SITE PLAN
REVISIONS
stint' annum TNRtrIAN/
—wan rrr.EriAN-
417,/ JURYFYa a•77Cf /LO/N /7f.
ATTACHMENT L
444) 4 000
City of Tukwila'
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
‘,
''‘ULe `'11A 04 (AA-0-VD .s
November 16, 1994
Mr. Ralph Nichols
) Environmental And- Special
15700 Dayton Avenue North
MS 138
Seattle, Washington 98133 -9710
Services Engineer
Re Parkway Place
Dear M1 . , Nichols:
• C h ur , r►� �^--t� -!
N U
Enclosed is a set of plans, SEPA checklist, and accompanying
reports and studies for the above project. This project is located
east of I -5, just north of S. 178th Street in Tukwila. .It involves
demolishing the nine story Boeing office building, and constructing
150, 0„00 sq. ft. of retail space. The applicant is proposing to cut
into the hillside and construct a retaining wall of about 45' in
height to accomplish this.
We are forwarding this information to you prior to making a SEPA
determination on the project because of your potential involvement.'
There is a WSDOT drainage easement on the site that runs from east
to west across the southern part of the site.
• We would appreciate any preliminary comments you may have on the
: ' project, and would be glad to meet with you to discuss it if this
would be helpful. Mr. Bert Pschunder of GeoEngineers,.a sub -
consultant to the applicant, has met with Bob Kinuaerling of your •
Materials Laboratory in Tumwater to discuss his specific concerns,..
and Phil Ambrosino and Lynn Moses regarding the boring logs for I-
5.
We would like- to make an environmental determination on this
• project on November 30, 1994, if possible. If we can be of
assistance to you in conducting this preliminary review, please do
not hesitate to calla
Sincer y
Rick Beeler, Director
Department of Community'Deve],opment
,1
cc Ron Cameron, City Engineer
Roy Bennion, Parkway Place Partners
Howard Turner, Turner § Associates
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila. Washfnpton 08113R • (206) 411 -.1670 • Far: (20J 1-3665
Attachments:
0. Project plar}s,, received 11- 10 -1994Y (
B. Revised SERA Checklist, received 11 -10 -1994
C. Report - Geotechnical Engineering Services, received 11 -10 -94
D. Report - Bush, Roed & Hitchings, received 11 -10 -94
'E. Report - EnviroBusiness, Inc., "Phase II Limited 'Subsurface
Investigation'," received 11 -10 -94
0. Report Arthur. D. Little, ! "Environmental Baseline
Assessment," received 11 -10 -94 (attached to above)
F. Report- Talasaea Consultants, "Sensitive Areas Study Report,"
received 11 -10 -94
G. Letter, Michael Sandorffy, Parkway Place Partners, "Canopy
Removal," received 11 -10 -94
H. Letter, Landplan P.S., regarding canopy removal, received 11
10 -94
.I.• Letter, R.W. Rhine, Inc., regarding demolition, recieved 11-
10-94
J. Letter, Michael Sandorffy, regarding tree removal, recieved
-.. .11-3-94
.
PARKWAY PLACE RETAIL CENTER
SENSITIVE AREAS STUDY REPORT
ADDENDUM TO REPORT AS PREPARED BY:
TALASAEA CONSULTANTS
WOODINVILLE, WA
ADDENDUM PREPARED BY:
LANDPLAN, P.S.
EDMONDS, WA 98020
9.3 Mitigation for Tree Removal Impacts
LandPlan, P.S. has developed a Tree Replacement Plan in order to replace the trees
lost to clearing (25,752 s.f). Under this plan two areas (approx. 23,000 s.f.) on the site
have been identified for possible tree replacement. One a rectangular area along the
site's western boundary (Figure 5) is proposed to receive 53 1' -2' saplings consisting
of a mixture of 2/3 Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil) and 1/3 big -leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum).
Additional tree replacement has been determined to be required in lieu of
displaced trees resulting from the "geo- technical" soil boring operation.
Specifically an additional 50 1' -2' saplings consisting of a mixture of 2/3
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesil) and 1/3 big -leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) trees within the rectangular area along the site's western
boundary as described above.
The second area is in the southernmost portion of the site, within the buffer of
Wetland A, and would contain 29 saplings. Proposed planting in this triangular area
consists of a mixture of Washington or Polack hawthorn (Crataegus ...).
11 -29 -1994 O4 :50PM FROM SEP —TAC TO 3557504 F'.02
gOareiNaira clSoaraeo " CO "
icy
. • .•.SPMCRFI.CATIONS : - '....
1. Die-formed steel housing finished with white polyester
powder baked enamel. j
• : • 2..:Adjustable rounting.brackets with integra} nailer tabs.
3. Horizontally mounted medium blase porcelain socket
with nickel - plated screw shell, '
44.• ; ;piltuseanodized elurj inuiii reftecter::
•'5:" Galvanized steel junction box with bottom-hinged
access covers and spring latches'. Three combination
_ 1/2' - 3/4' and one 1/2' knokouts; are provided which
allow for straight thru condylit runs. Capacity: 8 (4 in -
4 out)•No..12 AW..G conduct3brs, rated for 75° C.
PrewfredHPFcore'and;coil Lttast{ ..
�.-.• .
�• ±':sue ::yY10te:Dolyeste.r powder bak a ly .;" • , ..,•:.... .
elf :aliantnO` and. •'constan • tension:: sup o
springs... :.} ::_ , P -.''
Ok sre.?
CA7.N0. ,_^,1411
_ _...i, :::. • . • • • spic>fp.Votttpi `!20227•.•,
Semi -Mush
Symmetric Square
Lens Downli ht 1
HIGH INTENSITY DISICHARGE
i 70W,100W Metal Halide
50W-100W Mercury Vapor
SOW -100W High PressuF* Sodium
ORDERING INFORMATION 5.
Catalog ,._
• Number'' -, ..- �Sadiesijfiaiirp`iyipe •
..LAH 7QM 11 SFL' ^,f... aid -..
:L'Aff Till RW, .,::t4telat}}i e,;::,'�Aq;
S,F eta! gilds.`' ;- :1�AA,fC/lt''r: �'.•�,....... •
X100 •�.11R11�'• M •
It.50H Atlir• °SFL ` 'Meceiht Vapgi r }T4Sf46PL4t? O1DX': .
LAH:.1511 11RW: SFL :.:,.:MetduryW o'r, ,N43AV- 75/PX? ':
LAK'1001ii 11RWiSFU:••' Merctiryllapof' .63SA9;11107bk •
• :LOC 50S:1.1RW SFL ' .HPS'.1.- . ' 1150/WMED,• .., -
': LAN 70S• 1.1RW SFL ... :" HPS ' , trU1a IMEq....
LAN. IQ05':f 1RW.; SFL " : :. fin '. + . •• a-t11O01D/t+eor. .
+ Voltage I 20 or 277 must be specitted. Ex: LAH 70M• 11RW SFL.120 -
ADOITIONAL ORDERING SNFONMATION
. : OQ'p�tiiJone •:;Orryde�r�a�s�sul9>GtoA_ato0 number.++,�_-:_;. , .::. ' ' :.. • , .._, •
&A - t,..,^A011'i:.•TM <47:1 41tl.:nr•411!'I J:^•:X9a"_. :1 ir•,r •b',,•w.l«`•
;r
ORS Quartz Restdk'e•Syistn�(uses O:CS� quuizirip ••. -
by others; roll ium =10OWy
EC Emergency Circuit (D.C, base;socketwith leads for
connection to emergency po+'ersource; maximum • 100W)
• SSC Provides compatibility with Lithonia Retie Connector
System 820: The 820 System pan hehtstalled leas
this option with connectors provided by others.
Accessories • Order as separate catalog number.
Cat, tip; Description
• 8824 . • 24'•stool bar hangers (2) for)'; bill moaii�riq: " " " ' :: NOTES•
LSMC Setot4?- barmountinp`ctlps'j -•'
For more details see Submittal Sheet ACC -1.
10 -1 /8'.
11.1/4'
•
•
.
23'
•
1. Fixtures ue lt.1.1572 listed foT Wu-inane/1 circuit wiring, recessed and
damp location.
2, See back of this sheet toe atecUical operating data.
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PANEL
PROVIDE (2) 100 SF FACES EACH SIDE
SOUTH SIGN:
SOUTH FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PANEL
NORTH FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PANEL
NORTH SIGN:
SOUTH FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PANEL
NORTH FACE:
UPPER PANEL
LOWER PANEL
TENANT C
TENANT D
TENANT A
TENANT B
TENANT B
TENANT A
TENANT D
TENANT C
WNW
1 FREESTANDING SIGN PROVIDE (2) SIGNS.
SCALE: 1/8"=1•-0"
REF: 1 -Al
DATE: 12/1/94
SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"
FILE: PW\POLESIGN
s1
TURNER AND ASSOCIATES
18420 24th PLACE N.E.
SEATTLE, WA. 98155
ARCHITECTS
TELE: (206) 365 7431 FAX: (206) 365 7504
PARKWAY PLACE
17501 SOUTHCENTER PARKWAY
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
sKet/
'itonWldhit
To 'dG
mE'tEMt*460
QI') --°- --
o.c..
RETAINING WALL SECTION
SCALE I /2 " —P —O" REF: 1—Al
i
i
i
i
��i
1
1i
ri
li
HMI
MINN
1i
MEM
BMINIM
MIME
MEN
1i♦
/MINI
a�1
1111■11
MEM
li•1•1
MINIM
Iii
11th
ii
MINIM
MINIM
�o11i
1111111
i•M
si
iii■
mom
mom
loom
mom,
Immo
MINN
1ri•
tam
OEM
MINIM
ii
Iii
ti•n
ti•
11■1111
11�
ltd
!t•
1�
!ti
!tM
11•
1i
1i
1i
INN
INN
ti
Int
1�
In
In
Ir
In
It
1!
In
In
1r
In
1■
a
1—
csi
co
j, 2- 8.-4- I
3
3
3
}
O
i
ti
la
1n
O
I
N
cJ
4
I
t
i•t
1
SECTION C (SECTION ROOF RIDGE)
SCALE: 1/2 " =1' -0" REF: 1—Al
COVERED WALKWAY
RETLRNS 50' TYP.
AROUND CCR ERS
BEYOND
NO COVERED WALKWAY
,.LIST PLASTERS W DRYVfT
■J1 to. DEWALK ( PLANTER
OSEO1O\ B (WALKWAY ® NOTH & SOUTH ELEVATION)
SCALE: 1/2 " =1' -0" REF: 1-Al
v
•
COVERED WALKWAY
TILT —UP PANELS
BETWWEN ENTRIES
UNINSULATED SPACE
- BEARING
i
PLUS 1/2 C JOINT PS
2' -6' x —ti
SQUARE COLUMN
TYPICAL 1S
LOCATONS
Ls%
cV
iV
iV
J
b
INTERCR HEATED SPACE
1
SECTION A (WALKWAY EAST ELEVATION)
SCALE: 1 /2 " =l' —O" REF: 1 —Al
9411082152
ORIGINAL
RELEASE AND QUITCLAIM
381 -95
RFC:F:1\1.--T)
NOV 1 01994
y
DEVELOPMENT
Ad
J�This Release and Quitclaim is made this 3 -- day of
ems, wL,, 1994, between UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a Utah
corporation ( "Grantor "), and THE PERSON OR PERSONS AND /OR
CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS TRACING HIS, HER, ITS OR THEIR TITLE
FROM JACK A. BENAROYA COMPANY, A WASHINGTON CORPORATION AS IT
RELATES TO THE EASEMENT RECITED BELOW ( "Grantee ").
WHEREAS, by instrument dated July 16, 1976, the Jack A.
Benaroya Company granted a perpetual easement to the Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, a Wisconsin
corporation and the Oregon - Washington Railroad and Navigation
Company, an Oregon corporation, and its lessee, Union Pacific
Railroad Company, a Utah corporation for the construction,
maintenance and operation of a lead track upon, over and across
certain property in King County, Washington;
WHEREAS, the Grantor named herein is the successor in
interest to the easement rights received by the Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company;
WHEREAS the Oregon- Washington Railroad and Navigation
Company was merged into the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company on
December 29, 1987, and on December 30, 1987, the Oregon Short Line
Railroad Company was merged into Union Pacific Railroad Company;
WHEREAS, the Grantee named herein desires that the
Grantor named herein release, relinquish and quitclaim its easement
rights in and to the property described in Exhibit A, hereto
attached and hereby made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Grantor is willing to release, relinquish
and quitclaim its rights in and to the property described in
Exhibit A, hereto attached.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor named herein in consideration
of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby REMISE,
RELEASE, RELINQUISH and QUITCLAIM to the Grantee named herein,
their successors and assigns, forever, all of the Grantor's right,
title, interest, estate, claim and demand, in and to the property
described in Exhibit A, hereto attached, which the Grantor has by
reason of said easement dated July 16, 1976, as referenced above.
EXCISE TAX NOT REQUIRED
Kin o.Rtecord Divi on
PutY
941108 -21M2 03:08:00 PR KING COUNTY RECORDS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor named herein has duly
executed this instrument as of the date first herein written.
Attest:
Assis a � Secretary
(Seal)
9411082152
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
By
Assistant Vice President
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF NEBRASKA )
ss.
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged on this 3'__
day of /vove,,ja, , 19, before me, a Notary Public duly
commissioned, qualified and acting, within and for the said County
and State, by R. h. a 4.,,/ r c,t and
, to me personally known, who stated that
they were the /6s4 11,c. /4, es' eleip 0L- and Assistant
R. C. INGRAM
tg Secretary, respectively, of Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Utah
VI
corporation, and were duly authorized in their respective
Q capacities to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name
• and behalf of said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged
O that they had so signed, executed and delivered said foregoing
instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein
mentioned and set forth.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
L: \GEN \481- 95RQ.147O
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
Tukwila, King County, Washington
M.P.171.41 - Seattle Subdivision
EXHIBIT "A"
0 To
Vol Release .
hou An irregular strip or parcel of land situate in the SEhSW1/4 of Section 26, .y
0 Township 23 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian within the City of
914 Tukwila, King County, Washington as heretofore acquired by Chicago, Milwaukee, `4»
94 St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (predecessor to Union Pacific Railroad
TP Company), Oregon - Washington Railroad and Navigation Company (predecessor to .,
Union Pacific Railroad Company) and Union Pacific Railroad Company from Jack
A. Benaroya by Easement dated July 16, 1976, recorded in Volume 1177, Page 54
of the records of said King County, Washington.
An irregular strip or parcel of land situate in the NE'NW1/4 of Section 35,
Township 23 North, Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian within the City of
Tukwila, King County, Washington as heretofore acquired by Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (predecessor to Union Pacific Railroad
Company), Oregon - Washington Railroad and Navigation Company (predecessor to
Union Pacific Railroad Company) and Union Pacific Railroad Company from
Stanley N. Kasperson A. by Easement dated April 22, 1970, recorded as Document
No. 6643574 in records of said King County, Washington.
Office of Contracts and Real Estate
Omaha, Nebraska
September 6, 1994 Revised November 1, 1994
Written by: DDB
TUKWILA.WA
381 -95
. ... ... ',.,....
Questions: Applicant
SEPA Checklist
• Sensitive Areas issues (including tree preservation ordinance)
• Demolition impacts should be addressed separately
• Address spillway at north end of site
• Address "State Slope and Drainage Easement" (S. end of site)
• Address "Easement for Ingress and Egress" (N - S on site)
• Questions regarding Traffic and Geotechnical should be addressed specifically and
not referred to attachments
Traffic Report
• AM and PM Peak hour figures for project are not applicable since peak traffic in the
area occurs at noon
• Is the reduction of AWT because of "Pass -by and diverted linked trips" an industry
standard (i.e. from ITE Trip Generation. 1991.) or the opinion of TPE?
Geotechnical Report
• Alluvial deposits proposed to be removed and replaced: how much? where will it go?
• What are the ramifications of building over the "compressible alluvial soils "?
• Sentence, page 3, top is garbled.
Utilities Report
• Impervious surface area increases rather than decreases - addition is incorrect (note
also that total site area is increased by approximately 52,000 square feet)
Design Review
Application
• (See notes requiring clarification)
Site Plan
• Topographic plan (finished grades, 2' contours, and grades for slopes over 15 %)
• Compact parking stall location
• Where are handicap stalls for building `B"
Pagel ~ l 1:54' P1VI 10/27/94
.
Landscape
• Note that landscape area is reduced from 51K sq.ft. to 47.9K sq.ft., a change of 3.1K
sq.ft.
• What are measures for the protection of existing trees during construction
• Are Large oaks nearest the entrance of existing building to be saved?
Architecture
• Building Dimensions
• Building set backs
• Lighting specification
• Roof top mechanical equipment location and size
• Business sign size and placement
• Building colors (samples ?)
• Building materials
• Plan of entry
• Section through entry doors
• Section through secondary portal
• Section through arcade
Page2
11:54 PM 10/27/94