The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPermit 4426 - Schneider Homes - Mapletree Park - Grading / FillCITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1845 BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT # `PLl;'l(2 Control # 86 -191 Work to be done Grading /Fill 14,800 c.u. fill Site Address S 151 St /65 Av S� Suite # Tenant Mapletree Park Building Use Residential Assessors Account # 359700 -0380 Property Owner Address Contractor Address Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA Accurate Ent. #ACCUREI182JW 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA Phone # 248 -2471 Zip 98188 Phone # 241 -1682 Zip 98188 FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY Approved for issuance i v Sq. • S Ft. Office Warehouse Warehous Retail Other Occ. Load 1st F1. 2nd F1. 3rd F1. Total Fire Protection: [] Sprinklers [I Detectors Zoning Type of Construction Fees sq. ft. @ sq. ft. @ sq. ft. @ sq. ft. @ 1st Fl. $ 2nd F1. $ other $ other $ Total Valuation of Construction $ 30,000 Bldg. Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Demolition Surcharges Other Other TOTAL Receipt #2712 $ 238.50 Receipt #2712 $ 45.00 Receipt # $ Receipt # $ Receipt # $ Receipt # $ $ 283.50 Special Conditions 1. Trees to be saved identified 2. Engineered grading plan -done 8 -18 -86 FOR SIGN PERMIT ONLY [i Permanent C1 Temporary [I Single Face ] Double Face [] Wall Mounted [[ Free Standing J Other Building face Setbacks: Front Side Side Rear Square Footage of each sign face Total square footage of sign Special Conditions THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED l5 NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK 15 COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DUES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CA L THE P OVI InNS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. Signedk__ 'C "�___ `_�� -�--- Date ?— //'""c -‘, LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION I hereby affirm that I am licensed under provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. Contractor (signature) Date OWNER- BUILDER DECLARATION ( ) I, as owner of the property, or my employees, with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. (X) I, as owner of the prooeertty,, exc usively contracting with licensed contractor's to construct the project. Owner (signature) iT S�� Date City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 H. C. BLOSS Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd. #6 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: MAPLETREE PARK Dear Carl: August 24, 1987 The final plat for Mapletree Park subdivision was approved in May. The City does not find it unreasonable to expect that a condition of final plat approval -- landscaping be completed within the specified time of the letter of credit. The City has given a reasonable extension of the time specified. If the landscaping is not completed by Schneider Homes by September 15, 1987, then the City will request a release of the credit to complete the project without further notification. We have tried to be accommodating by allowing extensions and in considering your fence construction schedules. If the landscaping were located on the interior of the site, a later date would be understandable, but this is not. MCB/co 20/BLS8 -24 Yours truly, 1P'/ / Moira Carr Bradshaw Associate Planner CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1845 Work to be done Site Address Building Use Property Owner Address Contractor Address BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT # '!1'7 (P Control # 86-191 Grading /Fill 14 ?800 c.u. fill S 151 St /65 Av S Suite # Tenant Mapletree Park Residential Assessors Account # 359700 --0380 Schneider Homes, Inc. 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA Accurate Ent. #ACCUREI182JW 6510 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY Approved for issuance by Phone # 248 -2471 Zip 98188 Phone # 241 -1682. Zip 98188 S Ft. Sq. Office Warehous Warehouse Retail Other Occ. Load 1st F1. 2nd F1. 3rd F1. Total Fire Protection: [j Sprinklers C1 Detectors Zoning_ Type of Construction Fees sq. ft. @ 1st F1. $ sq. ft. @ 2nd F1. $ sq. ft. @ other $ sq. ft. @ other $ Total Valuation of Construction $ 30,000 Bldg. Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Demolition Surcharges Other Other TOTAL Receipt #2712 $ 238.00 Receipt #2718 $ 45.00 Receipt # $ Receipt # $ Receipt # $ Receipt # $ $ 283.50 Special Conditions 1. Trees to be saved identified 2. Engineered graidrig plan -done 8 -18 -86 FOR SIGN PERMIT ONLY (] Permanent (] Temporary [( Single Face Double Face [] Wall Mounted [] Free Standing [] Other Building face Setbacks: Front Side Side Rear Square Footage of each sign face Total square footage of sign Special Conditions TIIIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL ANU VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FUR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK 1S COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CA EL„ THE [VISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. S ignedY_ (� c i* -� Date 2? —ire— e-e. LICENSED CONTRACTORS DECLARATION 1 hereby affirm that 1 am licensed under provisions of the Business and Professions Code, and my license is in full force and effect. Contractor (signature) Date OWNER- BUILDER DECLARATION ( ) 1, as owner of the property, or my employees, with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work, and the structure is not intended or offered for sale. ( )) I, as owner of the pro e�rtty, a.,exc usively contracting with licensed contractor's to construct the project. Owner (signature) ! ".l' ~j i .•,. ~L Date ,CITY OF TUKWILA Building Division '6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 INSPECT ?N RECORD PERMIT # 674/o'?(JO Date Type of Inspection Filch -o- y"CCd41)/mil U Date Wanted Q'' a.m. p.m. Site Address 6/5/ i-- /1, 5 i S a Project Requestor Phone # Special Instructions Inspection Results /Comments: Inspector L4'✓/ Date �J�r% • •I X TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: C�. City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor MEMORANDUM Duane Griffin, Building Official Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer, Public Works 9/10/86 Control No 86 -191 (File 4426) Grading /Fill /Excavation Permit Per my field inspection 9/10/86 noted that straw bales to provide siltation control are not in place for the subject construction. To assure that downstream ponds, wetlands, culverts and drainlines are not silted up due to the activities under this fill permit, requested is your contact with the developer's contractor right away to have these facilities constructed and maintained per the requirements of the approved site grading plan (8/14/86) (Job No. 84 -5012) cc. Ted Freemfre Permit Coordinator 1 totikkr -43 4.0)+, igccuva 64l'eYpiawi t�3/ ffe r &' -ttcl ke �%( "tu e �crNCeY�1i'r ill %S uHk tivaef W0-l1 Phil of 0'(oiva. (t 4-6 Srk i Qbou4' 2 Weeks ocao a c( Pto y lcaocf co( aC ueec! i dtce f evQr /,alt /1 L130,6 a k. S► `� reAicev aye )�,tS ckvec!- I .ley. APPENDIX UNIFORM BUILDING CODE permittee, with the approval of the building official, chooses to have the grading performed as "engineered grading." 1,(c) Etlglneered Grading RegWreiiMOISFor engineered grading, it shall be the responsibility of the civil engineer who prepares the approved grading plan to incorporate all recommendations from the soils engineering and engineering geology reports into the grading plan. He also shall be responsible for the professional inspection and approval of the grading within his area of technical specialty. This responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, inspection and approval as to the establishment of line, grade and drainage of the develop- ment area. The civil engineer shall act as the coordinating agent in the event the need arises for liaison between the other professionals, the contractor and the building official. The civil engineer also shall be responsible for the preparation of revised plans and the submission of as- graded grading plans upon completion of the work. The grading contractor shall submit in a form prescribed by the building official a statement of compliance to said as -built plan, Soils engineering and engineering geology reports shall be required as speci- fied in Section 7006. During grading all necessary reports, compaction data and soil engineering and engineering geology recommendations shall be submitted to the civil engineer and the building official by the soils engineer and the engineer- ing geologist. The soils engineer's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, the professional inspection and approval concerning the preparation of ground to receive fills, testing for required compaction, stability of all finish slopes and the design of buttress fills, where required, incorporating data supplied by the engineering geologist. The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, professional inspection and approval of the adequacy of natural ground for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to geological matters and the need for subdrains or other groundwater drainage devices. He shall report his findings to the soils engineer and the civil engineer for engineering analysis. The building official shall inspect the project at the various stages of the work requiring approval to determine that adequate control is being exercised by the professional consultants. (d) Regular Grading Requirements. The building official may require in- spection and testing by an approved testing agency, The testing agency's responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, approval concerning the inspection of cleared areas and benches to receive fill, and the compaction of fills, When the building official has cause to believe that geologic factors may be involved the grading operation will be required to conform to "engineered grading" requirements, (e) Notification of Noncompliance. lf, in the course of fulfilling his responsi- bility under this chapter, the civil engineer, the soils engineer, the engineering geologist or the testing agency finds that the work is not being done in conform- ance with this chapter or the approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be 772 BITE OF TUKWILA GRADING /FILL /EXCAVATION Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard (206)1433- 1845ngton 98188 PERMIT APPLICATION Site Address 5ovrH44JE.5 - coe..5, 45/5r.5r 65 7, 4vh 5. Project Name /Tenant /1/RPcEreE PA,e,r Valuation of Grading S,6; 00 Property Owner 5c /NE /DER NomES, Address Applicant Address CONTROL# RO' %�% Suite# Floor# Assessors Account# 3:519706)- 03)30 /A/C Phone 248 - 247 / Tuc4.Ji�.4, I4 J4. Zip ..98 /BB Phone 65/0 5OCJ rA CENT c.-702. L OOLE 1M2/ 5<t/I'►E , 5 D/,JNER Zip Architect /Engineer 1 edup ,c6.1)2) /NG Phone 775-456/ Address /9502 ,56.r,y , Contractor 4ccu,era -•rF S,yr. Li cense #ACCz: /e6I / FCD Address l5 /l) c5oo»uce7f)r� - L3c4/0 ' TQ e. A AA Hauling Co. 4rv1�T AS CcJvI"j2�ter to ` Phone Address Zip vE14! .wvw000 ZiP 983& Phone � = ZiP .9'81/3/3 Describe the purpose and extent of fill, excavation or grading Pa,epo,sc /.5 ro P,Pov /,OE' Si/v6c.E 14 C Fill (c.u.) , FAMIILV ,tE.SiDrNriRL ,BU/LD /N6 ,S /re C» r, Ut (C.U.) p , �� a cr/' ,Lo .6,1- 4�rvice' Gcl/- Co,V .S', i 2.— J /Yo / J /i`,,r ✓Z1z iJ i =: ZC , dr 7 a"rl , /e, Two (2) sets of grading/fill/excavation plans must be submitted which meet the application requirements of Section 7006(d), 1985 Uniform Building Code. A soils engineering report and engineering geology report may also be required. An Environmental Checklist is required to be submitted ($100.00 Fee) to the Planning Depart- ment for any grading /fill /excavation 500 cubic yards or more. A Hauling permit is required for any grading /fill /excavation of cubic yards or more. A $2,000 bond, certificate of insurance, route map, and permit fee of $25.00 are required. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE r:FAU AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. Applicant /Authorized Agent (siunature) Date ? -x-87 (pint name) /1 / C , Z1 > n, .. r .� ,: c'r,�< IEITC Contact Person (please print) _ _ _. rs,�-v /'e �/s 4 o //e Phone zV:P= 2y7/ FEES: Grading Permit Fee Plan Check Fee Other ‘,.X-WY.lii >r (000/322.100) (000/345.830) OFFICE USE ONLY $ a 38 Receipt# Receipt# a? /?, Receipt# TOTAL o��3.50 (OWES: $ Excavation Ordinance #1341: [] Bond Required: $ 1N Cert. 0 Date Date Date Paid Paid Paid of Ins. Amount $ pprovea or ssuance BLDG PLNG ✓ � l)/ t, Approved (Initials) I, SEPA Checklist requi VrYes 61NJI )6124.bIAJ(,- "OW SEPA Determinationl)A%y SEPA File# 32,34/- �' PWD /411,1,4.0 Approved (initials) Hauling Permit Require.: Yes JD No U i c Earth Consultants Inc. Professional Person 11 i V 1 AUG G 1986 CITY OF TUilvvI A PLANNING DEPT. Schneider Homes, Inc. c/o Group Four, Inc. 19502 -56th Avenue West Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Attention: Mr. Jim Egge Gentlemen: January 8, 1986 E -2739 Nore : 77. e o / re Pe-,14) , c F e eXIC - ---- -� /N .).er / -Y •4 -S BcErt) ,,e- 7v o ,t r s 7'v /4 GOT1` Pe 2. r 11114'PL6reeE P keelG PeE4./ #4I /41 e y T" APc,t c P9-71 oy✓ We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled "Geotech- nical Engineering Study, Schneider Homes, Inc., Mapletree Village, Tukwila, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, analysis and engineering judgement. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our proposal dated September 5, 1985. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Schneider Homes, Inc. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. The following sections of this report describe our study and contain recommendations regarding foundation design criteria, earthwork considerations, and site drainage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building locations were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on discussions with you, and details shown on the Site Development Plan and Grading Plan prepared by Group Four, Inc., we understand that twenty three (23) one or two story buildings containing seventy (70) single - family housing units will be constructed. Access to the development will be provided by construction of South 152nd Street and 64th Avenue South. o. F. . • Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 2 If any of the above development criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) provide a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The approximately ten acre site is located north of the Southcenter Shopping Mall at the southwestern intersection of 65th Avenue South and South 151st Street in Tukwila, Washington. Two structures exist on the otherwise wooded hilltop site. The northeast structure is presently occupied where as the structure located in the southeastern corner is abandoned. The site is characterized by relatively high ground in the north, central and eastern portions and low wet boggy ground in the west and southern areas. Surface water drainage from adjacent high areas to the north enters the site near the northwestern corner, creating a seasonal stream with associated ponding throughout the low ground of the western portion of the site. This stream flow exits the site near the southwestern corner via a culvert. The southern low ground apparently collects only surface runoff from the site. This area drains slowly through a Swale extending to the south between existing residences. The high ground is dominated by three rock knobs or peaks about twenty (20) feet in height that extend across the property center from northwest to southeast. The remainder of the high ground is flat lying to gently sloping. The northcentral part of the site has been cleared of trees and now has a secondary growth of blackberry brush, grasses and weeds. The remainder of the site is covered with trees consisting of alder, maple, fir and cedar. Low areas contain abundant willow, alder, vine maple and cottonwood trees. Marsh areas have a growth of buttercup, reeds and skunk cabbage. Subsurface The site was explored by excavating twelve (12) test pits and a trench at the locations shown on Plate 2. Logs of the test pits, Plates 4 through 11, present a detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in this report following the Discussion and Recommendations section. Following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 3 Soils at the site consist of highly weathered bedrock under- lying the upland area and thick accumulations of peat, alluvial clays, silts and sands underlying the low ground. In general, two different types of rock formation were encountered on the site. The most prevalent rock type encountered on the site is sedimentary in origin. It is weak to moderately cemented and highly weathered to approximately ten feet in depth. Grain sizes range from siltstone and fine sandstone in the northern part of the site, as demonstrated by Test Pits TP -1, TP -2, TP -3 and TP -11, to coarse sandstones and boulder conglomerates found in Test Pits TP -6, TP -7, TP -10 and TP -12. In the coarser materials many of the pebbles were entirely weathered to soil and even the boulders had numerous concentric weathering rinds. Within the weathered fine fraction only a brown unit color and some iron staining on bedding planes and joints were observed. These types of bedrock are comparable to the glacially consolidated soils of the region. The second rock type is of igneous origin and is described as a porphyritic andesite. It was encountered in Test Pits TP -4 and TP -5 and the test trench. Surficial exposure of the andesite corresponds with the hill peaks and trends west by northwest across the site. Test pit and trench observations indicate a layer of approximately thirty five (35) to forty (40) feet in thickness, tilted toward the southwest at approximately 30 to 35 degrees from the horizontal. Weathering in this unit is highly irregular and is dependent on the joint or fracture density. The two marshy areas adjacent to the western and southern property boundaries contain peat and soft organic soils to depths of twelve (12) feet or more. Underlying the organic soils are saturated silty sand and gravel layers as encountered in Test Pits TP -8 and TP -9. Groundwater Groundwater seepage levels observed while excavating are shown on the test pit logs. The groundwater level is not static, thus one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally the water level is higher in the wetter winter months. Some seepage may be expected into excavations in permeable soil layers, especially during wet weather. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General A site development diagram and grading plan were received on November 6, 1985. These documents indicate a multi - family Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 4 development comprised of seventy (70) units in groups of two to four units. In general, units located at the western (Units 1 through 18) and southern (Units 19 through 34) margin of the development will be located primarily on fills extending over existing peat deposits. Based on the proposed finished floor elevations, fill will vary from five (5) to twenty eight (28) feet in depth. Exceptions to these generalizations occur at Units 1 and 2 with four feet of cut (4'C) and one foot of fill (1'F), Units 9 through 11 with 17'C and 28'F, Units 31 and 32 with 8'C and 5'F and Units 33 and 34 with 10'C and 0'F. Similarly, units located near the interior, northern and eastern margin of the development will be founded primarily on cut sections up to thirty (30) feet in depth. Exceptions occur at Units 35 and 36 (23'C, 5'F), Units 45 through 47 (2'C, 11'F) and Units 48 through 50 (7'C, 13'F). In addition, most of the planned roadways will be located in cuts up to twenty six (26) feet in depth. Cut excavations will occur for the most part in soil materials or relatively soft., weakly cemented sedimentary rock. The soil and soft rock are expected to be rippable and normally excavated using customary equipment and techniques. Excavations in the vicinity of the three rock peaks, trending west by northwest across the site, will occur in hard igneous rock described as a porphyritic adesite. ECI's interim report, dated October 7, 1985, expressed the belief that the upper fifteen (15) to twenty (20) feet of andesite would be rippable with heavy equipment on a relatively large working face. Depending upon the tightness and spacing of joints in the hard rock mass, excavations below fifteen (15) feet or on small working faces, such as utility trenches, may encounter difficulty. Based on the grading plan, hard andesite excavations are expected for site grading, foundations, buried utilities and access roadways at Units 37 through 42, 52 and 53. A potential for similar hard rock conditions also exists for Units 9, 10, 11, 35, 36, 43, 44 and 51. The low marshy areas adjacent to the west and south property boundaries will be partially covered by fill supporting housing units and the South 152nd Street roadway. Peat and soft organic soil deposits in these areas will be subject to vertical and lateral displacements as a result of loads imposed by the fill. ECI's interim report suggested three potential procedures for the placement of the required fill materials. The first and most positive procedure would entail the removal of all soft organic deposits prior to the placement of any overlying fill. Based on the proposed grading plan and assuming a maximum depth of twelve (12) feet, we estimate that approximately 34,000 cubic yards of material would be removed and replaced by this option. Excessive settlements in the compressible soils can be reduced by pre - loading the marshy areas with fill material. Fill would be Earth Consultants, Inc. i Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 5 placed to a height of three to four feet above planned finished grade elevation and allowed to settle for a period presently estimated to be from two to three months. Actual settlement times would be determined by monitoring the rate and magnitude of movements. Maximum settlement for twelve (12) feet of organic soils under the maximum fill depth of twenty six (26) feet is estimated to be on the order of four feet. Erection of any structures, roadways or buried utilities would be delayed until the risk of substantial damage has been reduced to limits acceptable by the owner. The pre - loading scheme has been widely used for similar deposits in the Puget Sound area but does carry a greater degree of risk than removal of the organic soils. A third alternative for treatment of the soft organics is based on their displacement by a mud -wave action during the placement of fill. This procedure requires that the materials being displaced experience shear failure due to loading imposed by the new fill. The leading edge of fill is advanced as the soft soils fail and are laterally displaced. Our general experience indicates that fill heights of ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet may be necessary to initiate and maintain the failure mechanism. The success of this technique is largely dependent upon the composition and texture of the materials being displaced. In peaty and organic soils, both characteristics will vary widely throughout the deposits and as a result, the mud -wave technique must be planned in association with and closely monitored by an experienced geotechnical engineer. Provisions should be readily available for modifications to the procedure based on the observed performance. The major risks of this procedure occur from entrapment of compressible soil pockets within the fill and the uncertainty of complete displacement below the fill. Theoretically, the quantity of displaced and fill materials should be nearly equal to the removal procedure quantities. The fill should be monitored for several weeks after completion before structures or facilities are erected. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleaned of all slabs, trees, existing utilities, debris and any other deleterious material. In general, a stripping depth from six (6) to twenty four (24) inches will be required except in rock and marsh areas. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscaping, if desired. The . stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill material placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 6 Following the stripping operation, the exposed ground surface should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas should be removed and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base for overlying fill or structures. Hill side slopes steeper than 4:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) should be properly benched prior to the placement of any overlying fill material. The vertical depth of benching should be equal to or greater than the compacted thickness of the fill lift or layer. The horizontal bench surface should have an outward slope of less than 5 percent. A 6:1 (H:V) transition from cut to fill section should be provided for the upper twelve (12) inches of fill supporting structures or roadways and in buried utility trenches. All fill materials should be placed in horizontal lifts or layers not exceeding twelve (12) inches in compacted thickness unless adequate compactive effort for thicker lifts can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. Fill lifts less than twelve (12) inches may be necessary to achieve the required compaction density. The moisture content of fill materials should not vary more than 5 percentage points from the optimum moisture content determined by the laboratory compaction test standard. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be compacted to a minimum density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1557 (Modified Proctor). Fill under pavements and walks should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density. At the time of our exploration, the moisture content of on -site soils was near the optimum moisture content and could be used as structural fill provided that grading operations are conducted during relatively dry weather. However, the on -site soils contain a significant amount of fine material smaller than the No. 200 sieve size and thus, are moisture sensitive. Compaction and grading operations will be difficult if the soil moisture exceeds the optimum moisture content. Therefore, unless the moisture content can be controlled, it may be necessary to import granular soil for structural fill. Natural moisture contents can be reduced by aeration in dry weather and by using lime or cement stabilization. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum particle size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fine material passing the No. 200 sieve. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 7 Foundations The proposed structures may be supported on conventional conti- nuous and spread footings bearing on at least one foot of structural fill or recompacted native soil. Overexcavation of soil and rock in cut sections below the footings should be required to decrease the magnitude of differential settlements. Fill placed under footings should extend outwards from the edge of the footings on a 1:2 (H:V) slope. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. Interior footings may be at a depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of the slab. Footings bearing on structural fill as recommended may be designed for a bearing pressure of twenty five hundred (2500) pounds per square foot (psf). Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively. A one -third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. Excluding the effects of soft organic deposits below the fill, it is anticipated that total settlements of footings founded on a maximum of twenty eight (28) feet of fill will be about 2.7 inches. Footings founded within twelve (12) inches of the rock surface will demonstrate negligible settlements. Therefore, maximum differential settlements on the order of two and one -half inches may be possible. Continuous footings located in cut -fill transition zones should be considered for additional reinforcement to reduce the possibility of structural damage due to differential settlement. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A frictional coefficient of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter foot- ings. The drains should be constructed with a four inch diameter perforated pipe bedded and covered with free draining gravel. The drains should have a positive gradient towards suitable discharge facilities. The footing drainage system should not be tied into the roof drainage system until the drains are tightlined well away from the building. The footing excavation should be backfilled with granular soil except for the top foot which should be backfilled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 8 or topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete pavements. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on the compacted structural fill. Disturbed native soils should be recanpacted or replaced with structural fill. A subgrade reaction modulus of two hundred (200) pounds per cubic inch may be used for slabs bearing on the specified structural fill. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free draining sand or gravel as a capillary barrier. We also recommend that a vapor barrier, such as 6 mil plastic membrane, be placed beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab and the resultant moisture accumulation. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to at least 0.002 times the wall height can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of forty (40) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) psf should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure force. For calculating the base resistance to sliding, we recommend using a passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred fifty (350) pcf and a coefficient of 0.35 for frictional resistance. The wall pressures apply only for a maximum wall height of ten feet. it is assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall and that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If surcharges are to be applied they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free - draining granular soils. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay sized particles and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain may be used. We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all retaining wall footings. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one inch minus washed rock, and provided with a positive gradient towards suitable discharge facilities. The pipe invert should be at least Earth Consultants, Inc. 1• Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 9 as low as the bottom of the footing. For retaining walls, other than basement walls, weepholes can be used. The weepholes should be as low as possible to maintain drainage behind the walls. When weepholes are provided, all backfill within eighteen (18) inches of the weephole should consist of one inch minus washed rock. Excavations and Slopes In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or higher than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than five feet in height should have an inclination no steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). As an alternate to open cuts, temporary shoring can be used in conjunction with vertical cuts. Detailed criteria for shoring systems can be developed later, if needed. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). These recommendations are applicable to slopes with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet. If higher slopes are anticipated, ECI should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. It is also recommend that ECI examine all excavated slopes to evaluate actual exposed conditions. Supplementary recommendations can be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including •flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top or down the face of any slopes. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Site Drainage Groundwater was encountered only in test pits excavated in low areas of the site. However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels can change significantly due to changes in precipitation, surface drainage alteration or other factors. If seepage is encountered in any excavation, the water should be drained away from the site by the use of ditches, perforated pipe, or by pumping from sumps at the low point of the excavation. Appropriate locations for subsurface drains, if needed, can be established during grading operations by a representative of ECI, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site surface and all excavations should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 10 buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce infiltration rates. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings except in areas that are to be paved. Pavement Areas All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native soils or existing fills provided these soils can be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density and are stable at the time of construc- tion. Additional structural fill and/or geotextile fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas. In most instances twelve (12) inches of granular fill will stabilize the subgrade except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The upper twelve (12) inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Below this level a compactive effort of 90 percent will be adequate. The minimum pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of three inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). Heavier loaded areas may require thicker sections. ECI will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy traffic zones, if needed. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on September 11, 13, 16, and 24, 1985. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating twelve (12) test pits to a maximum depth of sixteen (16) feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The locations of the test pits were approximately determined by measurement from survey located features. Elevations of test pits were approximately determined by comparison with contour map. The locations and elevations of the teat pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engi- neering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. The consistency of the soil was estimated based on torvane and penetrometer tests, the effort required to excavate Earth Consultants, Inc, Schneider Homes, Inc. January 8, 1986 E -2739 Page 11 the soil, the stability of the trench walls and other factors. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 4 through 11, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and test of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and test- ing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as Atterberg Limits on representative samples. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, analyses and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those encountered by the test pits. The nature and extent of variations between test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should be allowed to reevaluate the recommenda- tions of this report prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services It is recommended that ECI provide a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. It is also recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. Because of the nature of this project and the the soil conditions, ECI does not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or rec- ommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of con- struction. Earth Consultants, Inc. Schneider Homes, Inc.. January. 8, 1986 The following plates Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plates 4 through 11 Plate 12 JJM /RSL /tm E -2739 Page 12 are attached and complete this report: Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Legend Test Pit Logs Atterberg Limits Respectfully submitted, • P'� w A �FVi� =.. � 1 , .� CY' SO 11691 t. i ONO- •1' cc: Schneider Homes, Inc. Attn: Gerald Schneider EA LTANTS, INC. hn J. Project 0410, oran, P.E. agar Ro President Reference King County / Mop 41 By Thomas Brothers Mops Dated 1986 4)(0', GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ! GEOLOGY Vicinity Map Proposed Multi Rxnily Residences Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2739 'Date Nov. )35 ,Plate 1 • STREET 1116 170 170 I06 IMF .4 11.--/Test 1111114" Trench / I r-114.1 14 \hilt \ #4$1% • 07 row" TP I tt 160 155 °Z 145 Approximate Scale 0 40 80 LEGEND 160ft. TP-7 Approximate Test Pit Location Proposed Building Reference: Site Plan By Group Four, Inc. Undated I50 150 145 100 100 100 100 100 100 140 Property Line GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING i GEOLOGY Test Pit Location Plan Proposed Multi Family Residences Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 2739 IDat. Nov. 166 'Plate 2 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL SY SYMMTER BOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Grained Soils More Than 50% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel And Gravelly Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravels (little or no fines) ;., ■ j; u ••.e • • • °'•••• •••••••••• gW ® Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Send Mixtures, Little Or No Fines :• : :.::e:: .. .. .. Gp gp Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel- Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount of fines I �1ll 1{' ry, gm ® Silly Gravels, Gravel - Sand - Sill Mixtures • / , • - / ri GC gC Clayey Gravels, Gravel- Sand- Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Than More Coarse Fraction Passing No. Sieve Clean Sand (little or no lines) ° e ° • •• e: �.�;1. SW Well- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines - •• •• ;• SP Sp Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands, Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable amount 01 lines) �•••l �' SM Sm Silty Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures Fine Grained Soils More Than 50'v Material Smaller Than No 200 Sieve Size Silts Liquid Limit And Less Than 50 Clays 0 1 1 ML ml Inorganic Silts 8 Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Siity- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity / CL CI Inorganic Clays 01 Low To Medium Plasticity, Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silly Clays, Lean •- I'yyyl' u u 1111111 11n 01, OI Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays 01 Low Plasticity Silts id Limit Liquid And Clays Greater Than 50 r MH mh Inorganic Sills, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine Sand Or Silty Soils Ch Inorganic Clays 01 High Plasticity, Fat Clays r7 y�� OH Oh ium To High Plastic ty, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils 4- ' • " — — r �• ,• a. , PT pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil ,,,, ":.,..., X,,,. • Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In The Text 01 This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding 01 The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs Notes : Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab- oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. I 2 "0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER AL SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER OR P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED 2 WATER LEVEL (DATE) aWATER OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING, tat qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pct DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent P1 PLASTIC INDEX Earth #(00, Consultants GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY LEGEND Proj. No. 2739 lD1pt. ' 85 Plat. 3 Lopped By FC Date 9/11/85 Depth (ft.) USCS 0 h. TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. —.1.126.. (961 Dark brown clayey organic TOPSOIL 5J/ 10 15 ml Gray SILT, plastic, wet, soft CH Gray CLAY, very plastic, wet, very soft sm ml Gray silty SAND and sandy SILT in layers, wet soft to stiff Test Pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 2 feet during excavation. Earth k(1140 Consultants bac. •GLOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 'Date Sept .'85 ,PIS 4 Loped By Oat. Depth ft) 0 10 15 FC 9/11185 CCOMV USCS mi (7- TEST PIT NO. Soil Description EIev. 1_ ± W ( %) Tan silty organic TOPSOIL 1 Tan to mottled orange sandy SILT in layers, plastic, moist, soft Tan sandy SILTSTONE, occasional coal fragments, highly weathered, closely jointed with black stains on joint faces Test pit terminated at 16 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encounted during excavation. GEOYECNNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 I).t.pt'85 I 5 Depth Ih.) 0 10 15 Lowsd lly FC • DIM 9/1 /85, USCS (- TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 172± W 161 Tan silty organic TOPSOIL ml sm Tan silty SAND to sandy SILT with gravel and occasional boulders, moist, dense, (highly weathered mudstone) f Tan to gray SILTSTONE, thin beddled, occasional fossil clam or organic fragments, moderate to little weathered, closely fractured with no stains on joints below 9 feet Test Pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. Cesunalltants Inc. Earth (4) it GCOTLCHNICAL ENGIN[[RING • G[OLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No, 2739 I Date Sept.'85 Inns 6 Depth Ift.1 0' 5 Loyd By FC Date 9/11/85 USCS c TEST PIT Soil Description TOPSOIL Tan to gray ANDESITE, porphyritic, deeply weathered, closely fractured with a spacing of 1" to 6" to total penetration of brown stain on joint faces 1• Test Pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 10 ---� 15 0 5 10 15 Logged By FC Dow 9/11/85 , TEST PIT NO. EIev...195± NI. ri r -- ■ Thin tan TOPSOIL Tan to orange ANDESITE, porphyritic, deeply weathered, spheroidal into boulders and sandy SILT, closely jointed with deep stain penetration, less weathering below 4 feet Test Pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. •GEOTECHNICAI. ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1414. No. 2739 [Date Sept . ' 85 I.tu. 7 Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 Depth Ift. ) 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 USCS c TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev...165± W (%) 15 Thin TOPSOIL layer Tan silty SAND with gravel bedded fine to medium sand, fine gravel with occasional cobbles dry to slightly moist, dense, highly weathered sandstone Alternating layers of small gravel conglomerate and fine to medium grained sandstone, all very highly weathered, some pebbles reduced to iron oxide below 5 feet 1 Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. Logged By FC Date 9/13/85 TEST PIT EIev. _145± 'OEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 ID.t.sept'85 I 8 • Brown silty organic TOPSOIL _ ml Tan to mottled orange SILT, plastic, contains some gravel, wet, stiff f •i•• �•;� .6— .I,— Ao— Ai- G p Tan to g ra y sand y gravel containin g boulders and clay, fine to coarse sands, boulders to 2', wet, very dense -" - ' Test:Pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. Minor ground- water seepage encountered at 6 feet during excavation. 'OEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 ID.t.sept'85 I 8 Depth (n.) 0 5 10 15 Lopped ey FC Date 9/13/85 USCS TEST PIT NO. ..1. Soil Description Elev. W (%) _•W irr owl pt Brown PEAT, slightly fibrous, wet, soft Ash layer at 1' sp Gray SAND, thin bedded fine to medium grained sand with occasional thin layers of silt, saturated, loose Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. .seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation. Groundwater. Lopped ey FC Dots 9/13/85 r 10 15 owl I TEST PIT NO. _9. Elev. 142. pt Brown PEAT, slightly fibrous, contains abundant fine gravel, wet, soft Ash layer at 1' sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobbles, wet, medium dense becomes dense to very dense at 12 feet • Test Pit terminated at 13 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 12 feet during excavation. •GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 JD.t.Sept.'BS Ind* 9 Load By Dote 9/13/85 FC Depth (ft.) USCS Soil Description Elev. _,1741_ W ( %) 6 ..... .. Tan silty organic TOPSOIL sm Tan silty SAND with gravel, bedded, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel, occasional cobbles, dry to slightly moist, very dense (highly weathered conglomeritic sandstone) becomes moist at 11 feet coarser gravel below 13' I 15 — Test Pit terminated at 14 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. Consultants Iae. GEOTECMNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Pro'. No. 2739 JDsNSept..'85 I 10 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Logged By _EL- Date 9/24/85 USCS TEST PIT (CIO. Soil Description Elev. w (%) Dark brown organic TOPSOIL r sool MON ch Tan to gray sandy CLAY, plastic, wet, stiff becoming dense Test Pit terminated at 4 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Logged By FC Date 9/24/85 TEST PIT NO. 12_ Elev. 165± • Tan silty organic TOPSOIL J - 4 5 sm Tan to orange silty SAND with gravel and occasional cobbles, dry to moise, dense to very dense Few rounded boulders at 4 feet 1 10 -� Test Pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No ground- water seepage encountered during excavation. 15 r Earth 4) 0/ Comnaftants •GCOTECHNICAI. ENGINCERING • GLOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 2739 'Date Sept . 85 t PIS 11 , 80 20 `'— A -Lin e • 0 CL-ML 20 40 LIQUID LIMIT 80 80 100 Kay s B°ringi Pit list tD h Soil Classification USCS L.L. PL.. P.I. Natural Water Content 1 5 Gray clay, very plastic CH 57 27 30 57.4 Earth 4'400, Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY Atterberg Limits Test Data PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Pro). No.2739 IDate Sept. '85 'Plate 12 sf yi ._. - .el�iR�- �! -..- -: x�-- .•...�[+`- .rv.ti� --�- .fir+ -- - - - •� � � -..�� .. �- .;R.. -- EX (5T 55 M.II CATC.I-I BASIN AND CONC. CuR13 Cit TTER CATCH 13A5IN OUTr /LL i i INLET WATER METER EX. MONi CASE EXIST P 55 5. U G _VAULT__ _ EL TRICP\L VAULT i 51' -T ST EXI5T 55 INLET r- SS 55e N 88° 25' 21°W 646.45 s5 8" ss 58 1.76 STING IDEWA K r' - r, %7 ,S ,,,t) Gee, EXIST 55. I H. eX15T r ' ^ZE i lY Dti�N'Y //�'�� ELECTRiCALVAUL 1 UG VAULT 55 -- 55 _ 5S d- EX. MON /CASE 55 r C7 algal o GOND MIMEO AtIZ"WILLOwl R =15' L =18.71 G =7,°27155" 0 �., FY.tSTIN ?41 `e .Y .1 2d "r-'wPIE 9-10\Tir? r1APLe \ `2.C,'I`M�. 18�1R . � , 2- Ifl� IwapL�. 9 �� L' "A'; LE 1 701')YV o 12 "MAP �\ 5- IS "rMPLE i 1 \ `..._\ 2 "MAPLE. Zjt U�1 11 I 1 iI 1•LiJER 1I X12" =JS'MAPLE I4' MATE 30" MP.PLE DER PLC t2'PLD 30 (if\PLE 14 W 1 I- �L SCALE : 1" = 40' MER1014N:CITY OF TUKWILA LEGEND 170 011 --SD- e- 0 -SS - -- o LA 0 • Lu t2 4LpER IAPL CONTOURS AT a' INTERVALS EXISTING STORNI DRAINAGE STRAW SALES SILT FEAICE CATCH f3A5tN- 'L6"r1APLE 12 °ALDER WALDeR 24 MAPLE `v 3 -14" 18" ALOE' N 14"ALCER i1 1 I\ V J II, 24'FIR ;ALDER 2'a;.OER p.L0ER 4FIR AMR 28" f 1R 41% "MAPLE 262)TTONw'LY)d 14ALPER 14"ALDER HEMLOc I$''MAPLC 2 I0 t1APLE 241iAPLE S' la °r1WPLE Egr1T FOR. LJNDERGKO-JI-1D ELF_CTIZIG- 5Y5TE. /sA P.S.1? J ri1Gl'1_POWER. VAULT EXIST 55 Mi'1.- e Xl 5T 5.5 M.M. 21, "FIR igriR 24'CEDF R 1a CuFRRY NIAPL:. 12"ALOCR 12" AL..DER Id: ALDER 28GOT TON WUDQ I(1'MPPLE 12'ANLDER IE 'CEDAR 38'F9 12'CEPAR 030'FIR 12'PJ-OCR 24 '/FIR (14'1'1■41..E 5 t2"t"IAPLE O Ln ISCOT TON v, 1 18A1 DER 12W ILLO Q:Nil. 12.'WILLOW 12" WILLOW 26 "CCCV+R 24 "CEDAR 3Ci r1APLE ' Ib'MAor r 24'GEDAR I6 "FIR 24'CEDAR 32' MAPL.E t4' MAPLE 3F"MAPLE 2 f 5-1EVMAPLE. 2S' MAPLE. 3crPtp,PLE 2 "i APLL'' 12'A5 1-' 2,-18 t'1APLE. 0 ,26'hLDEk 06.1.--ANPLe O °MAPLe. d2 r1A?LE_ 4' 14 -MAPLE ler riffle' 3 ?-'1'1PJ'LIr 5Z CEOAFK temAeLe Ia" t-1APLe. 2 :1-\EMIIJL -K ---„_ UNDERGROUND TE:LePHONE VAULT s 0 O 22 "MA.PLT_ 2g`t -'1 AXLE 36" .3�'MAPLE 4 E terra 2cfr1 2-12" MAPLE 12"1'1Af'LE• 24•CEDAR O"MAPLC` 28 r1R W'1 °Ift 16'6.0T TON • s SS 20 00', I 2'0 ALOE R 18.rtnPLE MAPLE :II$II2■ 2C M,`' P L E 12' i`1 /\PLt \, ® OM 0 2' 12'AL0eR 0 16,'\,✓ILLa'Y✓ No 'APTS. I L N88 °25' 2T "41 4,,':;";-1/".1"L C) WM. sololoir■somr 0 0 38 r -1APLE • , 7-'7 0 24•r1/ - IMMO MOP 3 - t t" r'1 APL e. 12 ASH 2D r1R 36'MAPL r. 0 12`■SH 2O OAT-a ‘20'HEMLOCK 2p'FIR 2dFiR 12`C v�.LroD ) 2 "Ft� �.J aL-�HcoH orietz'hKi t8 1� NOUSE � 2,8ceoAR 0 aCrlArcEe r 1Ar'LF. 1 14A511�' 2c; r1APL Immo 824. 08 lemg 2gri GEN1:fIAL NOTES \ EXIST KM PAIZKI 1(1 AREA SAM JUAN APTS. FILE COPY I understand that the Pan Check r,pprova:5 are subject to errors and omissions and -,pproval of plans does not authorize the violatic' I cf any adopted code or ordinance. Receipt of contractor's copy of approve plans acknowledged. By.... Date r- t-��^ Permit No /';4 EXIST SSS MH CA1CN IEsASIu- DATUM: CITY OF TUK W I LA IgEAJCly c /NV SS MN # l00 0# L = 142.:39 8. il 9?<./ zwi/(14(..%ept107:.:61:1111:: ' 6° _I!Ii IIIIIIjIII 11 II1111IIIIIII2 1 {111IIIIIIII3 1111111 IIIII�11IIIIIIIIIIIIS ,IIIIIIIIIIII 6 Sri 1ri ETT I �T ilII!1111!111!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TIT Illlillll T 1111 111111111 6 1111 III! ;11111 11'1111111 9 IIII1IIIIIIIII III! 1111 I I I I I!111111111111111 1. All I irn its of clear ing and areas of vegetation preservation as prescribed on the plan shall .he clearly flagged in tne field and observed during construction. ' constructed and in operation pr ior to land clear ing and/or other construction to ensure that sediment laden water does not enter the natural drainage system. All eeosion and sed inent facilities shal 1 be maintained in a satisfactory cond it ion unt 1 such time that clear ing and/or construction is completed and potential for on-site erosion has passed . The implementation, majmtenance, replacement and additions to erosion/sed imenta t ion control system shal I he the responsibil ity of the permitter,. 3. The erosion and sed inentation control systems depicted on this drawing are intended to be minimum requirements to meet anticipated site cond ions . As construction progresses and Ufl eX pe c t or seasonal cc,nd it iore- d ictate, the perm i t tee should anticipate that more ercsion and sed imenta t ion control facil i ties wi I be necessary the course of construct ion, it shal be the obl ig at ion and responsibil ity of the perimittee to address any new conditions that facil ities, over and above minimum requirements , as may be needed prc,i.ect adjacent proper ties and water goal ity of the rece iv in.; drainage system. 4. Approval of this pl an is for erosion/seri in,enta ion control only. It does not const i tut e an approval of storm drainage design, s ze nor location of pipes, restrictors, channels or retention ther i.ork is anticipated for a period ef 30 days or more, all d isturbed areas mast be immed iatel y stab i 1 i zed wi th mulching , I ant ing or other approved erosion control treatment appi icable to ime of year in qeest Grass seed ing alone wi I I be seej ;e9 may proceed , however , whenever it is in the interer.t. of tr.:: perm. t. , hut must be a agmen ted wi t h mul chin,/ , netting Or °trot' tr eatir ent approved by Ving County Surface. 'nia ter Management , out.side if led rim e period . C. 1-.1 et and catch basins stial I be sealed to prevent any runot f anO. :lit f rom entering the storm system . The storm systr=m shall remain er,11 ed any storm water runoff until the si te is complece1y and potential for sii cation from, landscaped areas ha;-; (_ontractor to insure sed iment laden water , col 1 ected in cute f f Nita t 100Y C4I 1. lv- Wipe PEINGE tZ Plen flew .8 414'1201 Points ft shoull be higher than point PROP:I( FLAt:Ent'll. or A FILTER CARRIER IN A DRAINAGE DAY 1 Maintenance 1. Straw bale barriers shalt be inspected immediately after each rain- fall and at least daily during prolonged rainfall. 2. Close attenlion shall be paid to the repair of damagel bales, end runs and undercutting beneath bales. 3. tpim::ryizZrys. to barriers or replacement of bales shall be accom. 4. Seeiment deposits should be removed after each rainfall. They must be removed when the level of deposition reaches approximately one- half the height of the barrier. 5. I•ny seeiment deposits remaining in place after the straw bale barrier is no I.:Inger reauired shall be dressed to conform to the existing gr4dc, prepared and seeded. FInding or 'Twine filtered Runoff //,,-Staked and Ertrenched Straw Bale Co-;scted Sail to Sediesst Laden Punoff sFAll APPROVED BY ST/C4W BALE AUG 14 1986 CITY OF 7/,0eC CITY OF TUKWILA (3 1986 swum Der DATE yeetearavareesveinn SITE GRADING PLAN FOR MAPLETREE PARK co i — 4) Q Y 3 U c 1 '11 .7 0' SCHNEIDER HOMES, INC. r) i -- 70co 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Nimanwommessagairaimienes