HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 91-02-APRD - LOWE LEROY - HILLCREST PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT91-2-APRD HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
S 160TH ST SLADE WAY
LOWE LEROY
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APRD
June 7, 1994
Leroy Lowe
A.I.A. Architects
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, WA. 98111
Subject: Hillcrest 90- 13- BLA /91 -3 -APRD
Dear Mr. Lowe:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation regarding
the status of our option on the Hillcrest property. Based upon our
conversation and discussion with Mr.Robert 0, you no longer have
an option to buy the property. Therefore, your two applications
will be closed out, since you no longer have interest in the
property.
If you should have any questions or need some information,please
feel free to call (431 -3686) or write.
Jack P ce
Senior Planner
cc:Phil Fraser
Gary Schulz
City of Tukwila
•
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
•
City Council
Hearing for Proposed
Hilicrest Development
Tukwila, Washington
February 1994
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 981882 .
2 Rt•
qua 671 Alta edam
IH SHANNON WILSON INC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CON
February 7, 1994
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
SEATTLE
HANFORD
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
SAINT LOUIS
BOSTON
Attn: Tukwila City Council
RE: CITY COUNCIL HEARING FOR PROPOSED HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT,
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
This letter is intended to provide clarification of several geologic issues raised and disputed
by various geotechnical engineers at the City Council hearing on January 10, 1994. In •
particular need of clarification are several statements made by Mr. Lowe's technical experts
that we believe are misleading with respect to: a) the site conditions that are indicative of
landsliding, and b) the adequacy of the geotechnical work that has been done on the property
to evaluate the safety of the proposed Hillcrest Development. The key points we wish to
rebut or clarify are as follows:
► Arguments offered by Dr. Twelker and Mr. Joule that suggested there may not
be an old landslide on the property,
► Testimony by Mr. Joule that seemed to indicate that he believes the stability
analysis performed by Cascade Geotechnical adequately addresses the deep-
seated stability issues,
► The confusion that Mr. Lowe's consultants appear to have over the deep boring
drilled adjacent to the site in 1964,
► Evidence that points to the potential for a deep - seated landslide that would
involve Mr. Lowe's property,
► The lack of any present -day information on groundwater conditions in the
confined aquifer below the site (the primary feature which could trigger a deep -
seated slope failure of the hillside), and
► The scope of investigation that we believe would be necessary to adequately
evaluate the deep - seated stability of the proposed Hillcrest Development.
400 NORTH 34TH STREET •SUITE 100
P. O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
206. 632. 8020 FAX 206.633
W-6367-03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 2
EVIDENCE FOR AN ANCIENT LANDSLIDE
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
These issues are revisited in the following paragraphs and clarifications are illustrated in the
attachments to this letter.
Contradictory testimony has been offered as to whether the steep slope on the Hillcrest
property is an old landslide scarp (the exposed slip surface at the head of a landslide). Dr.
Twelker raised this issue, apparently to cast doubt on the need to evaluate the deep - seated
stability of the property, although neither he nor the other consultants retained by Mr. Lowe
seem to be refuting the possibility that a deep - seated slide could affect the Hillcrest property.
Nevertheless, Dr. Twelker has argued that the steep slope might be caused by seepage at the
base of the slope rather than a deep - seated landslide. He further maintains that if this steep
slope was caused by a landslide, the original slide must have occurred some unspecified
distance farther to the east because the scarp would have eroded westward since it formed.
Mr. Joule also testified that he thought the steep slope might not be a landslide slip face but
rather the result of an excavation. He cited no knowledge of any excavation in this area, but
suggested this possibility because it the area "really lended itself to an excavated area" and
because "it was taken right down to hard pan" at the foot of the slope. If he were correct,
this excavation apparently would have extended for 3,000 feet along the hillside and have
been accomplished at some unknown time in the past for an unknown purpose.
The arguments offered by Mr. Lowe's technical experts ignore several facts which, in our
view, provide more than sufficient reason to strongly suspect the steep slope is an old
landslide scarp. First, the City Council should be aware that while Shannon & Wilson may
have been among the first to identify this steep slope as a landslide scarp, several other
geotechnical organizations have come to the same conclusion, including Dames & Moore,
GeoEngineers, Washington Department of Transportation (Materials Engineering Branch),
and, most recently, Cascade Geotechnical in their slope stability report dated March 22,
1993 (page 69 of the appeal documents). These investigators were not without their reasons:
the geomorphologic expression of this feature has all the earmarks of a head scarp of a
major landslide, including:
► A poorly drained area of irregular topography directly below the steep slope (in
the area where Mr. Lowe wants to build homes),
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 3
SHANNON F&WILSON, INC.
► A 3,000- foot -long surface expression paralleling the slope,
► Springs issuing from the base of the steep slope,
► Numerous recent landslides within the area interpreted to be a landslide block,
and
► Direct evidence of a similar slope failure immediately downslope in 1960.
By all the accounts we have reviewed, this devastating 1960 landslide would have continued
into the Hillcrest property were it not for the extensive regrading, buttressing, and hillside
drainage measures taken downslope between 1960 and 1966.
The most recent evidence to suggest the steep slope is indeed an old landslide scarp (and that
landslide deposits directly underlie the Hillcrest property) comes from the site explorations
by Cascade Geotechnical in 1990 and 1991. An important piece of evidence for an old
landslide is the presence of several feet of peat that Cascade identified in the hummocky
ground just below the steep slope. The location of the peat on the hillside, based on
Cascade's subsurface explorations and our site reconnaissance, is illustrated in Attachment 1.
For peat to form on a hillside, the natural flow of surface drainage must be disrupted to
.permit ponding of water and accumulation of organic material. Such disruption and ponding
routinely occurs near the upper ends of deep - seated landslides, and peat bogs and
depressions are common features just below the head scarp of old landslides, in just the
position that is seen on this site. However, it takes a long time for organic matter to
accumulate and form peat: probably at least several hundred years for the five or more feet
of peat observed on this site. Since organic matter cannot accumulate to form peat
underground, it simply is not possible that the steep slope on the Hillcrest property has
migrated very far since the peat began to form. Consequently, the peat deposits not only
provide an important clue that sliding may have occurred, they also clearly refute Dr.
Twelker's hypothesis that the landslide scarp has eroded back any significant distance from
its original position.
The presence of this peat at the base of the slope also makes untenable Mr. Joule's
conclusion that the steep slope probably was an old excavation. It seems highly unlikely that
such an excavation, extending about 3,000 feet along the slope, was accomplished hundreds
of years ago as it would have to have been if peat has since formed on the excavation floor.
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 4
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
The peat that Cascade Geotechnical observed at the foot of the slope also raises a question in
our minds about Mr. Joule's observation of "hard pan" at the foot of the slope, which was
part of the basis for his conclusion that the steep slope may have been excavated. If Mr.
Joule were correct in this observation, the borings and test pits by Cascade Geotechnical that
show peat and sand rather than "hard pan" would have to be wrong, as would all of
Cascade's geotechnical recommendations that were based upon them.
Another important piece of evidence that suggests an old landslide underlies the Hillcrest
property that may have been overlooked by Mr. Lowe's consultants is the reduced strength
of the soils underlying the eastern part of the property. In Attachment 2 we have provided a
comparison plot of blow counts measured in two borings drilled by Cascade Geotechnical.
These data are from boring logs provided in the August 27, 1990 geotechnical report
submitted to the City Council on January 10 by Mr. Lowe. Blow counts are a record of the
amount of effort it takes to drive a sampling tool into the ground and are used to estimate
the strength of the soil. Attachment 2 provides a comparison of blow counts measured at
5 -foot intervals in two test borings; TB -1 which was drilled on the upper part of the
property, and TB -3 which was drilled on the lower part of the property near Slade Way.
Because these borings were drilled in very similar sand deposits, you would normally expect
to see similar blow counts at comparable depths if they are representative of soil conditions.
Instead, the graph in Attachment 2 shows that the strength of the soils in TB -3 is
considerably less than in TB -1. No such comparison can be made with TB -2 because it is
not included in Cascade's report. We believe that the contrast in strength between the soils
in these borings may reflect disruption of the soils on the lower part of the slope by
landsliding. While other explanations for this large of a strength difference in these soils
may be plausible, none have been offered and it would appear that the implications of these
data to the slope stability of the proposed development have not been considered by Mr.
Lowe's consultants.
These features described above are certainly not proof that the proposed Hillcrest
Development is unstable. Rather, they are important geologic warning flags that should be
considered and investigated before concluding that there is no reason to be concerned about
landsliding on this property. When such a landslide could pose a risk to human health and
safety, these types of features should not be dismissed without attempting to understand their
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 5
SHANNON 6WILSON. INC.
causes and implications. Such warning flags are readily apparent in this case, especially
since numerous geotechnical investigators have already described an ancient landslide on this
property and a major deep - seated landslide occurred directly downslope in 1960.
ADEQUACY OF THE STABILITY ANALYSIS BY CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
As we understand Mr Joule's testimony, he believes that a deep - seated stability analysis has
been done for the proposed Hillcrest property, and that deep borings were used in that
analysis. As a point of clarification, we have provided as Attachment 1 a site profile from
Cascade Geotechnical's stability analysis dated March 22, 1993. On this drawing we have
superimposed the three borings drilled by Cascade (TB -1, TB -2, and TB -3), and the 200 -
foot boring drilled along Slade Way in 1964. We have also portrayed the deep - seated
landslide plane as we have interpreted it from the surface expression of the slide, the
subsurface data available from east of the property, and the geometry of the 1960 slide
immediately downslope. For completeness we have included as Attachment 3 the cross
section presented in the appeal hearing which shows the geometry of the 1960 slide, our
interpreted geometry of the ancient landslide slip plane beneath the Hillcrest Development,
and a sketched "deep- seated" slip plane evaluated by Cascade Geotechnical.
It is illustrative to compare the depths of the borings and wells drilled by Cascade
Geotechnical with the subsurface model that they reportedly used in their stability analysis.
The borings and wells extend to a maximum of 31.5 feet, while their cross - sectional model
described soil properties to 65 feet (see Attachment 4). It is not clear what information, if
any, was used to extend the units shown in this drawing to more than twice the depth of the
deepest boring. It is also informative to compare these shallow borings with the depth of the
potential deep - seated landslide plane. Such a comparison shows that these are not "deep"
borings in the sense of what is needed at this site to evaluate slope stability. They do not
extend deep enough to evaluate the potential for a deep - seated slip plane, and more
importantly, they do not penetrate the confined aquifer below the site. It is the hydrostatic
uplift from this aquifer that has been cited'as the prime factor in reducing the stability of this
hillside, and without any information on the amount of uplift that is occurring, the stability
of the hillside cannot be evaluated.
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 6
SHANNON FIWILSON, INC.
Mr. Lamb has acknowledged that Cascade Geotechnical has not accomplished a deep - seated
slope stability analysis of the type that we maintain is required to adequately evaluate the
slope stability of this property. Rather, Cascade's report spells. out that their "deep- seated"
analysis extended to a maximum of 20 feet below the surface and within 40 feet to either
side of the steep slope (approximately as we have portrayed in Attachment 3). Their
"shallow" slope stability analysis assumes a failure surface at approximately three feet below
ground surface and reportedly extended a short distance beyond the property boundaries.
Perhaps there is a problem of semantics with the term "deep," but regardless of what anyone
calls the borings or the stability analyses by Cascade Geotechnical, they are not deep enough
to address the overriding technical concern for the property's safety. Specifically, are
hydrologic pressures in the confined aquifer sufficiently high to put the property at risk of a
catastrophic deep - seated landslide? The depths of the borings and wells shown on
Attachment 3 stand in stark contrast to the deeper - seated potential problem that we have
repeatedly advised must be addressed to understand the risks associated with this proposed
development.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE 200 -FOOT BORING ALONG SLADE WAY
Dr. Twelker, Mr. Joule, and Mr. Bredberg all called the City Council's attention to a 200 -
foot -deep boring that was drilled adjacent to the property along Slade Way. Although they
expressed some confusion as to exactly where this boring was located, they all seemed to
think its existence eliminates the need for more any additional subsurface exploration. The
location of this boring is illustrated in Attachments 1 and 4, as it was on the cross sections
originally provided in our review completed in November 1992. This boring was drilled in
1964 and shows a water level from that date, also shown in Attachment 4. It is our
understanding that there were three piezometers (for measuring groundwater levels) installed
at different levels in this boring. If the well is still functional, it might provide some of the
present -day hydrologic data that we have indicated are necessary for the deep - seated stability
analysis.
The point that we wish to stress about the arguments advanced by Mr. Lowe's consultants
is that a deep boring alone is not sufficient, regardless of where it is located. If such a
W-6367-03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 7
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
boring is to be useful in a stability analysis for this property, it must also have a functional
monitoring well installed in it to provide present -day groundwater data from the deep,
confined aquifer. Furthermore, a single, deep, monitoring well is probably not sufficient for
such an analysis either unless present -day groundwater data can also be obtained from some
of the other monitoring wells that were installed downslope from Slade Way. To date, no
one has attempted to determine whether such wells still exist and can be used for present -day
water level measurements.
The City Council should also be aware that although the deep 1964 boring does provide soil
descriptions, these descriptions apparently were either not incorporated or were erroneously
used in the stability analyses performed by Cascade Geotechnical. As shown in
Attachment 4, the soil descriptions used in Cascade Geotechnical's stability analysis are
significantly different from soil descriptions on the corresponding upper 65 feet of the deep
1964 boring. This is a disturbing discrepancy, given that Cascade's test boring TB -3 is
probably no more than 100 feet away from the deep boring location. This difference may
suggest that perhaps Dr. Twelker was wrong in his testimony that "this bore has to be
representative of the Hillcrest property." These apparent differences in soil conditions could
affect the results of the shallow stability analysis that was performed by Cascade, but we
suspect that they are not nearly as important as what the deep boring does not provide: an
adequate understanding of the present -day groundwater conditions in the confined aquifer
below and downslope from the site.
INDICATORS OF A POTENTIAL FOR DEEP - SEATED LANDSLIDING
Recognizing the great volume of technical information that the City Council will need to
incorporate in their decision, we have itemized the basis for our concern that a significant
potential for landsliding may exist on this property.
► An ancient landslide scarp has been mapped across the property by numerous
investigators.
► Geotechnical data from shallow borings and test pits on the property support the
conclusion that the site is located on and near the head of an old landslide.
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 8
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
► A major deep - seated landslide occurred directly downslope from the property in
1960 and was prevented from continuing further upslope by extensive remedial
measures.
► Three independent deep- seated slope stability analyses in 1989 indicated that the
factor of safety for the stability of the hillside directly below Hillcrest is
unacceptably low, (on the order of 1.24 for static conditions) and very likely to
decrease further as the 30 year -old drainage system continues to deteriorate and
groundwater in the deep confined aquifer continues to rise.
► Slope indicator measurements in a borehole near the east side of Slade Way, last
measured in 1986, indicated small slope movement at a depth of about 20 feet.
► Slade Way has experienced minor movements in the recent past.
► In the January 10 hearing, Mr. Cal Johnson described significant ground
movement during the 1965 earthquake as well as ongoing slope movement,
apparently along the feature that several geotechnical firms have described as a
landslide scarp.
► Several small scarps have formed in the landslide deposits below Slade Way
since the area was remediated in the 1960s, and numerous small, shallow
landslides have occurred further down the hillside.
In spite of this long list of evidence that suggests the potential for a significant risk to this
property, nothing has been done to evaluate the potential for a deep - seated slope failure.
Instead, Mr Lowe and his consultants apparently are willing to go forward and build homes
on the property based on their experience, engineering stamps, and the conviction that it is
someone else's responsibility if the property should slide down the hill. Certainly, they are
not convinced that a deep - seated landslide could not to occur. Mr. Lamb, in his May 30,
1990 geotechnical report, advised Mr. Lowe that "the slope stability analysis for the site will
need to encompass the regional geomorphic setting as well as the local conditions on the
property." He hasn't performed such a study and, apparently, no longer feels the need to do
so. Rather, Mr. Lamb has testified that the site is currently stable and that the development
of the property will improve the shallow stability of the hillside. He has come to these
conclusions in spite of the fact that his shallow stability analyses indicate that the site is not
currently stable (factors of safety of 1.04 to 1.16 for static conditions and 0.69 to 0.75 for
pseudostatic conditions), and apparently without performing any stability analysis to evaluate
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 9
SHANNON F&WILSON, INC.
whether site development will improve the stability of the shallow soils (see pgs. 4 and 5 of
his March 22, 1993 report {pgs. 69 and 70 of the appeal documents }).
Mr. Lowe's other geotechnical consultants, Dr. Twelker and Mr. Joule, certainly have not
been willing to say that a deep - seated landslide will not occur, but only that it would destroy
Slade Way before it destroys any homes on Mr. Lowe's property. This opinion seems
reasonable given the progressive development of the 1960 landslide, but without some
understanding of the deep- seated site conditions, we are not entirely convinced that a large
landslide could not involve both Slade Way and the Hillcrest Development in a single
massive failure.
REQUIREMENTS OF A DEEP - SEATED SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
In order to perform a credible, deep - seated stability analysis of the Hillcrest Property,
information will be required on the soil properties, subsurface stratigraphy, and deep - seated
groundwater conditions, both below the site and eastward to the foot of the hillside. We
stress that the stability of this property cannot be adequately evaluated without incorporating
groundwater and soils data from the slope below Slade Way. Much of the necessary soils
data may be available from previous investigations, and present -day groundwater data for
both the site and the hillside below Slade Way may be able to be obtained from existing
wells if they are still accessible, functional and details of their construction can be
documented. Reliable subsurface soils and groundwater data will be necessary for the site,
probably to a depth of 70 to 100 feet, so as obtain groundwater data from the confined
aquifer. The actual depth of any new borings and monitoring well installations would have
to be determined in the field during drilling.
Based on Dr. Twelker's letter of December 18, 1993, the applicant apparently has been
advised that to perform an adequate, deep - seated slope stability analysis would exceed the
value of the development. While neither the cost of the analysis nor the value of the
development is ours to determine, we believe that an approach utilizing the existing data and
monitoring wells combined with a limited amount of additional exploration may not be
prohibitively expensive. Ultimately, however, the scope of work necessary to establish a
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Tukwila City Council
February 7, 1994
Page 10
reliable analysis would be determined by the geologic and hydrologic conditions of the site
and hillside rather than by allocating some arbitrary number of borings and wells or dollars.
The variety of technical opinions that has been expressed in this hearing may leave some
question about the potential for a major landslide to occur on this property. What we
believe is beyond question is that the proponents for this development have not yet obtained
sufficient geotechnical information to evaluate the stability of the site, and the City does not
yet have a basis to conclude responsibly that the development would not be a hazard to life
and property. At the same time, we believe there is sufficient evidence that points to a
possibility of an unacceptable level of risk to this project from a deep - seated slope failure.
It remains our recommendation, as well as a requirement of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance,
that the risk of a deep - seated failure should be evaluated before this development is allowed
to proceed to construction.
We are available to elaborate on any information presented in this rebuttal or provide
additional information to assist you in your decision on this matter.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC
Daniel N. Clayton , ,C.E.G.
Senior Associate
DNC:WPG /dnc
Attachments: 1. Geotechnical Explorations in Hillcrest Vicinity
2. Relative Strengths of Soils on Hillcrest Property
3. Cross Section Through Hillcrest, Slade Way, and Klickitat Drive
4. Comparison of 1964 200 -Foot Boring and Cascade Stability Analysis
W6367-03 .11 1 / W6367- lkd /eet
CONCLUSIONS
SHANNON &WILSON, INC.
W- 6367 -03
West
330
300
270
240
210
180
ID
c
1
G)
0I
O
a ` I
Attachment 1
Existing Surface
TB -1
s,
31.5'
Environmental Consultants
0
10
Attachment 2
30
40
0
10 20
Environmental consultants
West
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
"Deep- seated" Slip
- Surface Studied by
Cascade Geotech.
Attachment 3
HILLCREST
DEVELOPMENT
Ancient
Landslide Scarp
Slade
Way
Inferred Location of
Ancient Deep- seated
Slip Surface
Puget
Environmental INC.
t c« �,�
•
0
a)
25
C _
O.
50
65
Attachment 4
Cascade Geotechnical
Soil Descriptions
TB -3
1:13 SILT and SAND":
100'
1 From Cascade Geotechnical Stability
Analysis Cross - Section A -A'
2 From 1964 Soil Boring Log
1964 Boring
Soil Descriptions 2
COMPARISON OF 1964 200 -FOOT BORING AND
CASCADE STABILITY ANALYSIS
SAND and GRAVEL1
:* :. *4%..a. '•-:Sf.' :o: *0 :. 1 200'
25
50
75
100
U.
C
o.
a)
= U r Geo ca
c*yical and Environmental cn Co a INC.
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVE
DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1994
RE:
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development
REBUTTAL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL HEARING REGARDING
HILLCREST FILE # 93-01-APP
STATE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
WSDOT in February of 1989 provided a letter on the functioning of
the drainage system on SR5, MP 154.0 at Valley Views Estates. We
are not aware of any change in the WSDOT position on the system.
We have no regulatory authority which the city could impose on
WSDOT to improve this system. (See attached Attorney General of
Washington letter).
CITY STAFF ENGINEERS
The City of Tukwila employs several registered professional civil
engineers. They are registered in the state of Washington. We
have many years of experience in municipal engineering, primarily
providing recommendations on development projects and on the design
and construction of public capitol projects. Our recommendations
on development projects are based on the information provided by
the developers consultants. When the facts are available to
support a recommendation, we will make one. On this project, we
believe additional information is required before recommendations
can be made. The Public Works Director and City Engineer are
registered civil engineers and support the recommendations of
Shannon and Wilson, that additional information is required prior
to making final recommendations on this site.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Rick Beeler, Director
A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) is the realignment of property
lines between parcels. The purpose of a BLA is to accommodate a
minor transfer of land . between adjacent, legally create lots of
record. The City's role is to approve legal, safe buildable lots.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Page 2
HILLCREST FILE # 93 -01 -APP
OFF -SITE STUDIES
The City .often requires off -site studies to be done by the
applicant to identify off -site impacts. This is typically done for
roads, stormwater, water, and sewer.
WHETHER TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT
The issue is "not" whether to allow development. The issue "is"
whether additional information is needed to make a reasoned
decision under the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
The deep seeded slope stability analysis that the staff is asking
for will provide information that is needed to make sure that any
structure or change to the land will be done safely.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission's decision to lift the burden from the
applicant is conforming to TMC 18.45.125. Based upon the
information presented at the hearing on October 14, 1993, and at
the City Council hearing January 10, 1994, staff recommends the
decision by the Planning Commission be reversed.
•
f
Mr. Joel E. Haggard
Suite 1515, IBM Building
1200 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: SR 5 MP 154.0.
Valley View Estates
Dear Mr. Haggard:
Ken Eikenberry
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON
7th FLOOR, HIGHWAYS-LICENSES BUILDING • OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98504 -8071
February 7, 1989
This is in response to your letter transmitting the
instrumentation and monitoring action plans for the Valley View
Estates development to Mr.' Ron Bockstruck, District Administrator
for District 1 ofthe Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT). Mr. Bockstruck has asked me to reply
since it would appear that this is as 'much a matter of legal
liability as it is a matter of tebhnical feasibility.
Your description of the deep drainage system along and above
Klickitat Drive fails to address the presence of an algae -like
organism that is present in the clay soil of this hillside. The
air admitted by the weep drains that. comprise the horizontal
drainage system stimulates the growth of this organism with the
result that the pipes become clogged. WSDOT's maintenance crews
have been flushing these pipes once a year for the past several
years to keep these drains open. Under present circumstances,
this level seems to be sufficient to maintain the stability of
the slope and, thus, the integrity of the roadway system in the
area.'
We are very concerned about the conclusory statements in your
letter that the proposed Valley View Estates project will have no
impact on the functioning or effectiveness of our deep drainage
system. As we have indicated in the past, the hillside for your
proposed development is within a landslide zone and the proposed
complex would be located on clay -type soil over a sliding -block
failure surface and partially encompassing the zone of generated
critical failure surfaces. It is a very unstable area. Our
drainage system was not designed nor intended to withstand high
density development on your proposed site nor was our drainage
system designed to accommodate any increased soil loadings or
OFFIr' ") OF. THE ATTORNEY GENE
Joel E. Haggard
February 7, 1989
Page 2
changes in drainage which would stem from your development.
Furthermore, we decline from accepting the increased liability
should our system fail due to client's proposed development
nor will we accept the burden of additional monitoring and stand-
by services for the life of the proposed condominium development.
Regarding the surface drainage, your preliminary drainage plans
have been reviewed; however, the WSDOT reserves comment at this
time. The WSDOT has suspended all plan review on this project
until the deep drainage issue can be resolved.
Regarding the instrumentation monitoring action plan, the WSDOT
has the following comments:
1) WSDOT does not have the legal authority, the funds, or
the personnel to provide what are, essentially, "on-
call" maintenance personnel to benefit a private
development.
2) WSDOT will not assign responsibility for determining
what "remedial measures" are necessary and who should
perform them, to a Geotechnical Professional
representing the interests of a private developer.
• ti
3) WSDOT has no plans nor funds programmed to restore full
functioning of the drainage system, reinstall all the
pumps in the vertical well system, install new
horizontal drains, nor implement localized slope
stabilization measures. They would be unable to
program funds to accomplish those tasks for the benefit
of a private development. If a change in the water
level occurs during or after construction of this
development, remedial action must be the responsibility
of the developer.
Sincerely,
MTS:vf
cc: Mr. Rick Beeler, City of Tukwila
Ms. Dharlene West, President, T -MAC
Mr. Ron Bockstruck, WSDOT
Mr. Peter Briglia, WSDOT
; / 7 c it -Z•/'L .1
•MARJORIE T. SMITCH
Assistant Attorney General
(206) 753 -4961
July 17, 1992
Leroy Lowe
A.I.A. Architects
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, WA 98111
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
Subject: Hillcrest 90- 13- BLA/91 -3 -APRD
Dear Mr. Lowe:
John W. Rants, Mayor
This letter is to recap the two meetings we liave had and your letters of June 15, 1992 and
June 29, 1992. To date you have filed an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment
(BLA) and Administrative Planned Residential Development (APRD). You have also
requested a Reasonable Use Exception (RUE) from the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO).
The letter is divided in three sections; the Boundary Line Adjustment, Reasonable Use
Exception (June 15, 1992 letter), and Response To June 29, 1992 Letter.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT /ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT:
As mentioned at our last meeting, you have three options in developing your property. The
first option is proceeding ahead with the Boundary Line Adjustment which requires the
following development issues to be addressed:
WETLANDS:
* The wetland delineation work, completed by your wetland consultant with assistance
by the city's Urban Environmentalist, has determined total sizes and configurations
of the wetland areas. Specific wetland boundary revisions included additional flagging
for Wetland A and the delineation of Wetland D.
* The current wetland boundaries are verified; however, the additional flagging of
Wetland A will need to be surveyed prior to the completion of this project.
SETBACKS:
Page 2
* Because all on -site wetlands are less than 1.0 acres in area and have less than three
wetland classes, they are rated as Type 3. The standard buffer width for Type 3
wetlands is 25 feet. A 15 -foot minimum buffer may be allowed with an approved
buffer enhancement plan. Due to its small size, Wetland D is exempt from
regulation.
* Until a peer review /geotechnical study is completed, the city's position on wetland use
is to preserve the northern half of the wetland area. This portion of the site has the
most significant groundwater discharge.
* With the exception of Wetland D, wetland mitigation is required for all regulated
wetlands. Any proposed alteration to the on -site Type 3 wetlands must include a
wetland mitigation plan. To review a wetland alteration proposal, mitigation
measures should be proposed as a conceptual plan for identifying potential impacts
and providing adequate replacement of wetland area and function.
* Identify setbacks on the site plan. All setbacks under the APRD may be reduced
with DCD Director's approval. (Section 18.46.060(a)(3).)
PUBLIC FACILITIES:
* Downstream drainage facilities (including WSDOT) of this development lack capacity
for any added surface or subsurface discharges. Therefore, this development is
restricted to on -site detention facilities that reduce discharge rates.
* The existing water system provides limited capacity to serve your development. A
looped system is necessary to provide reliable fire /domestic flows for the intended
use. You need to work with Highline Water District (Jay Gibson) to obtain any joint
funding for the required public water main in 53rd Ave. S. This will tie the existing
systems at Slade Way and S. 160 Street together. At the meeting the Highline Water
representative was agreeable to presenting the joint funding (cost sharing) concept
to his commissioners.
* Water & sewer availability letters need to be included in your submittal and be based
on the final lot configuration.
* If any utilities, access areas, or preserved wetlands /springs require easements across
lot lines in the new reconfigured lot line proposal, these easements must be shown
as part of the submittal.
At the June 3, 1992 meeting, staff explained that the City would conduct a peer review of
your geo- technical/hydrological reports after you had revised your boundary line proposal.
Page 3
However, at the meeting on June 23, 1992, you explained that given the safety issue, you
believe no changes in the proposal were needed. Given your concerns, the City is moving
up the time frame for the peer review. The peer review scope of work will include risk
assessment for the potential to develop portions of your property while maintaining on -site
and off -site stability. Public Works estimates the peer review should be completed in eight
to ten weeks. In conjunction with the peer review, the city needs a letter stating your
geotech has reviewed the most current proposal and findings of his soil reports
As noted at our last meeting, your second option is to withdraw your application and request
building permits for the lots of record. The lots of record need to provide the front, side
and rear yard requirements as well as other applicable dimensional standards in the Zoning
Code.
The last option recommended to you was to retain the BLA and wait for the results of the
peer review study before requesting Reasonable Use Exception.
REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION:
RESPONSE TO JUNE 29, 1992 LETTER:
On June 15, 1992, you submitted material requesting a Reasonable Use Exception under
Section 18.45.115 of the Zoning Code (SAO). Upon reviewing the Uses and Standards
criteria, staff believes your application has not addressed 18.45.080 C.1 b. and c. Specifically,
you have not submitted a proposal to mitigate for potential wetland loss and impacts.
Without the peer review study findings, the application of the Uses and Standards section
cannot be waived by the Planning Commission until it finds that the criteria under 18.45.115
(Exceptions) have been met.
It is not clear that "the application of this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the
property" (18.45.115 C. 1.) Staff is concerned that moving ahead now with the Reasonable
Use Exception will further delay you in your efforts to develop your property. As noted at
the last meeting, staff wishes to assist you with solutions to develop this very sensitive
property in a timely manner.
The July 23, 1992 Planning Commission schedule is full. However, I have requested the
Planning Commission to hold a special meeting to review your request. They have agreed
to schedule a special meeting for July 30, 1992 if you wish to continue with your Reasonable
Use Exception.
This section specifically addresses the statements included in your recent June 29th letter.
The response is presented below in the order that follows your letter's contents.
Paragraph 1 alleges the City waited 6 months to inform you that you would need a wetland
Page 4
study on the Hillcrest site. However, your wetland consultant - A.J. Bredberg & Assoc.
conducted a wetland site visit during August of 1991. This wetland documentation was dated
1/8/92 and submitted to the City on 1/13/92. It included a map but was not conducted or
reported as a wetland delineation study. The SAO was adopted on June 10, 1991 and
clearly states that sensitive area studies are required unless a waiver is granted by the DCD
Director. Therefore, the City informed you of on -site wetlands prior to your formal BLA
application submittal on 9/6/91.
Paragraph 2 Staff could not determine what the standards would . be for application
requirements until the SAO was approved on June 10, 1991. Based upon the adopted
Sensitive Areas Ordinance, you submitted your application on September 6, 1991.
Paragraph 3 states that your engineers recommended that the Hillcrest site must be
dewatered to stop further deterioration of Slade Way and the downslope property. Dennis
Joule, P.E. provided you with a letter (1/15/92) that included a discussion of dewatering to
improve slope stability. This letter did not represent a site - specific study or refute the site -
specific findings of the Cascade Geotechnical reports of 5/30/90, 8/27/90 and 4/24/91). In
addition, there were no clear recommendations indicating the site must be dewatered. The
letter written by Richard Stuth, P.E. (2/17/92) recommends "controlled responsible
development..." and "... dewatering and stability measures that would assure stability over the
entire affected area." This statement does not imply that the entire site must be dewatered
as a prerequisite for some type of development.
Paragraph 7 indicates your wetland consultant's report (4/16/92) was 'submitted to the City
on 4/20/92. The Urban Environmentalist assisted by meeting with A.J. Bredberg to help
with needed revisions for the wetland boundary. As you are aware, some wetland areas
were missed during the wetland initial study. As a result, a revised wetland report was
submitted on 5/15/92.
The wetland study was verified and approved by city staff. However, the study does not
address your position of eliminating wetlands on the site. The SAO clearly states the
requirement for assessing impacts and producing a mitigation plan to replace wetland area
and function. We informed you of the mitigation requirement at both the 6/3/92 and 6/24/92
meetings. The wetland mitigation requirement was also included in Darren Wilson's (City
Planner) 1/30/92 letter, addressed to you, that summarized a meeting we had on 1/21/92.
Several options, discussed in this letter, were presented to you during our 6/24/92 meeting.
None of these options denied your reasonable use petition. As previously stated, the City
recommends that peer review of the geology and hydrology data and features of the site be
conducted prior to a reasonable use hearing before the Tukwila Planning Commission.
Otherwise, you may experience additional delay if the Commission agrees with staff that the
peer review is necessary prior to deciding the reasonable use issue.
As you know, this is a very difficult site due to the slopes, wetlands and public facilities
Page 5
issues. The City staff has tried to assist you within the limits set in the SAO. Your proposal
to eliminate the wetlands without proposing any wetland mitigation conflicts with the intent
and requirements of the ordinance. This severely limits staffs ability to assist you in
navigating the permit processes as quickly as possible.
If you should have any questions or desire some clarification in this letter, please feel free
to call (431 -3686) or write.
S' erel
Jac! 'ace
Senior Planner
cc: Phil Fraser
Gary Schulz
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.0 . SOX 1141 .LATTLS. WASHINGTON 9•111
SEP 0 9 1991
6IT`c` OF TUKwiLA
PLANNING DEPT.
INDEX
COVER LETTER
CHECK LIST
APPLICATION FORM
ADMINISTRATIVE PRD APPLICATION
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECK LIST
SOILS REPORT
ZONING MAP
VICINITY MAP
UTILITIES :
SEWER AVAILABILITY LETTER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EASEMENT
SEWER SITE PLAN
WATER AVAILABILITY LETTER
WATER FLOW CHART
GAS UTILITIES SIT PLAN
SITE SURVEY PLAN
SUGGESTED STRUCTUAL DETAILS
FOUNDATION ISOMETRIC
FOUNDATION PLAN
FOUNDATION DETAILS
(ILLUSTRATION ONLY)
ADDRESS LABELS FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
KING CO. ASSESSORS MAP
B /LLCIZcST
L. RICK BEELER
DIRECTOR , DEPT. OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. SUITE 100
TUKWILA WA. 98166
DEAR MR . BEELER SEPT. 6', 1991
THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE SUBMITTED
IN SUPPORT OF A :
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING TO THE PROCESSING
OF OUR APPLICATION .
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON
THIS PROJECT.
L.EROV C. LORE
&1A. ARCHITECT
CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1
GENERAL HI
Application Form
Administrative PRD Application /'p
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Fee — $225 00
PLANS
Four copies of the set of plans are required. The scale shall not exceed 1 " =30', with the
north arrow, graphic, scale and date all identified on the plans.
The following information should be contained within the plan:
A. Property dimensions and names of adjacent roads.
B. Lot sizes in square feet.
C. Impervious (paved driveways and building areas) surface areas, stated in
square feet and as a percentage of each lot's area.
n D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area
in excess of 15 %.
n E. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed structure(s), accessory
structures and driveways with their setbacks from proposed property lines.
F. Existing (6" in diameter) trees by species and an indication of which will be saved.
n G. Proposed landscaping, size, species, location and spacing, for downslope and
sideyard buffers for geologic hazard areas.
ADMINI‘+RATIVE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
The following materials must be submitted with your application. This checklist is to
assist you in submitting a complete application. Please do not turn in your application
until all items which apply to your proposal are attached to your application. If you
have any questions, contact the Department of Community Development at 431 -3680.
RETURN THIS CHECKLIST WITH YOUR APPLICATION
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
ADMINISTRATIVE PRD APPLICATION CHECKLIST
n H. Location of watercourse and/or wetland boundaries with required buffers
.
n J. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications,
including those for the sensitive area and buffer.
n K. Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which
accurately represent your proposed project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
n A mailing list with address labels for property owners and residents within 300 feet
of your property. (See attached "Address Label Requirements ")
A King County Assessor's Map which identifies the location of each property
ownership and residence listed. The maps may be ordered from the King County
Public Works Map Counter at 296 -6548.
I. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and
how water and sewer is available.
Page 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
nEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D
Planner: D A I i t ' e N /f I a 1
Cross - Reference Files: E i - y7 -f/ 9¥ 90- /3- R4¢
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT LOTS: 5 ( " )
2. ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE: �Z-
3. PROJECT LOCATION: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and sub-
division; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection) '� 28, Z 7, 2a Z5'
5 / 7 7 V 5;?" � w,.-y 7;44 Zorn : OZZdv, 023x, DZ24, 0020, 42/5
Quarter: /VW Section: 2' Township: 2S Range. 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
4. APPLICANT:* Name: c , 1 4, AzGi.//rzGT
Address. , D, 80X .39 7 2 ,±56GL..5 yc1E V . 78009'
% PIIone. ) 154 . 4403 ( ) 747
Signatures- - -'`� f / C'. Date. S - 3, /79/
* The appli ant/is the person whom the staff will contact regarding the application, and
to whom all fiotices and reports shall be sent, unless otherwise stipulated by applicant.
5. PROPERTY Name:
OWNER
I /WE,[signature(s)]
swear that 1 are
in this application an
application are true a
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
LC oy c. �Dw� , r , /,,4 . ,1�IZC� /T GT
Address: Pin 050X 3'9 Z 7`23.
Ph •`: Zo6 46-4-44z3 (ZoG) 747. 2470
ADMINISTRATIVE
ESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PPLICATION
er(s) or contra purchaser(s) of the property involved
that the foregoing st tements and answers contained in this
d correct to the of my /our knowledge and belief.
Date: 'Pr. 3, /97/
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
File Number:
0 -APAZ
Receipt Number:
FIILLC!Z6T
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CRITERIA
PROCEDURE
ADMINIScrtATIVE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATION
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
The Planned Residential Development (PRD) process, by permitting flexibility in zoning
code requirements, encourages imaginative site and building design, accommodates
environmentally sensitive areas and creates open space in residential developments .
The number of dwelling units is determined by the underlying zoning district, and
minimum lot sizes, building height limits and setbacks are waived. A density bonus of 20%
may be allowed in R -2, R -3, R -4 and RMH, subject to adherence to the bonus criteria.
The area encompassing the sensitive area and buffers must be devoted to open space that
is owned and maintained under one ownership, by a homeowners association or dedicated
to the City (if adjacent to a City trail or park).
If you are platting property with sensitive areas or sensitive area buffers, you must submit
a PRD.
The Short Subdivision Committee's decision shall include the following findings:
1. Requirements of the subdivision code for the proposed development have been
met, if appropriate;
2. Reasons for density bonuses meet the bonus criteria;
3. Adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated;
4. Compliance of the proposal to PRD and sensitive area requirements;
5. Time limitations, if any, for the entire development and specified stages have been
documented in the application;
6. Development in accordance with the comprehensive land use policy plan and other
relevant plans;
7. Compliance with the BAR review guidelines (TMC 18.60.050); and
8. Appropriate retention and preservation of existing trees and vegetation recom-
mended by the Director of Community Development.
A Short Subdivision Committee meeting will be scheduled when an environmental
determination has been made on your application. Notification of the meeting will be sent
to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site.
t •
When a Checklist is Required:
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Single Family Residential
Environmental Checklist
Property owners who wish to develop or remodel a home on a parcel mapped as a
sensitive area must complete and submit an environmental checklist.
< %::y;i: }:f[it � is <;•`.`.i;:;:i >iii:i3 2,'�. ^.�
a+ti;iti5:3S•a:
Sensitive areas are lands which slope 15% or more, have a watercourse or wetland on
them or are in a coal mine or seismic hazard area.
Maps have been made of all of these areas by the City, with the best available
information, and are available for your review.
Purpose of Checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires Tukwila to
consider the environmental impacts of your proposal before making decisions. The
purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and Tukwila identify
impacts from your proposal and to reduce or avoid those impacts.
Instruction for Applicants:
A determination of nonsignificance must be made by the Director of Community
Development before you may apply for a building or land altering permit. A fee of
$225.00, a completed environmental checklist and a site plan, and any additional
information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects, must
be submitted to the Department of Community Development in order for the
determination to be made.
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your
proposal. Answer each question briefly, accurately, with the most precise information
known, or give the best description you can 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. 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.
For completion by staff
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila
DETERMINATION OF
i17LLO2E6T
File No. EPIC — y?
\INMMID
\SEP0
Ci7 "i �vl- Ur,vv tLA
12.E.,T4ING DEPT.
1. Description of proposal: A< Ry Z /N6
2. Name of applicant: Lei(oy .4, /# A Inn/
3. Location of site (use address, lot & block number, and tax account number(s) if
ap licable): P0/27/onis 'P LbTS: , 28, 27, .G S G " /4° 72157
S74.0 IA/Ay T4x zzG, a22 0220, oz/_6".
......... ........... •
The City has determined that the proposal will not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not .
required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the public on request.
O The decision was also made because of specific conditions attached to the
proposal.
O This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted
by The City will not act on this proposal for
15 days from the date below.
L. Rick Beeler, Responsible Official
Director, Department of Community Development, 431 -368
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite. 100, Tukwila, WA 9816
Date Signature
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188, no later than 10 days from the above date by written
stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
P/ /LLCZ6T
4. Date checklist prepared: c1'E°77 3, /`99/
S. Address of applicant: Po. Bo),- 39 ��uE
w 4 • 98aQ
6. Phone number of applicant: ( 6 - .e¢ 3
7. a. Proposed starting date (including phasing, if applicable):
b. Proposed completion date: N •4
8. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further
activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
NO
9. Are there any soils reports or topographic (contour) maps that have
been prepared relating to the property? yB,
10. List the government approvals or permits that will be needed for
your proposal. C /7y of 721,‹w/L4 , 804.4r / 4 /
4.4 •1 4a/uSTiy /7 �3o,,c,vi4L .
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal:
Site size: / ffc 0 .So /4d BEE
House size: ,• .a .
Accessory structures: N• A
Proposed uses: S" /rv ,A^?/LY 40
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, other: COMevA./4T /ON
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)? �`� 7a
N•4
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. _
Tb� cSo /N; Gove6� S4i l 5
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate Vicinity? If so, describe. ZaAiosL /oE s
Woes OcGc.4(2=C) Tc T7.16 X4.5 7 04G,eoS
SA4o6 v./Ay ,
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed: Z1o42 Cu. FT. Pfe. [c T
fiewz / , / gacAfiti .
Where is the source of fill obtained: .E'ocKveey 1
co/2 M/ T .
f. Could erosion occur as a result pf clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe. k/. / 2i . x�A.4O4.gy L /Ne
SOME c lcS /GN A--/Ay occ, ,DUR /NG
cace.eiano NS L /M /TELL TD
o,= ore y W .77-/E/
Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any: /NSTdIL S /477Z0477cvv , 5 /.vS
Died /N46e 1c /SS /O47- S, Rag- it.4NT, 7 1,' LIP-4/A/
GovT.Zo4. 5772[.G7 .// LS
h. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)? N/.4 i1.1n/a4 y <10 ✓U57 �^,
�f OG/G.q T/b N oNL y/ .
g.
2. Water
a. Surface:
< hILI,CR�eSt
1) Is there any surface water on or in the immediate vicinity of
the site (including year -round and seasonal watercourses,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe the nature of the water. If
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 5/7"
/c/o /../.5 re:, cps/ 77./K4V /G 4,5 W77-4NO /,/v/v7ceZ)r,
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) the described water? If es, please describe
and attach available plans. A//4 o y
L /N�
-41 O N
oNLy .
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would
be laced 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: 29cr� C.,
cp u,Q,AZAZ}/ f G . v f'/
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known. >c'S . F #C. /V /I
cae4 //,/ w /c.4.. /,V 7- ca
/O L% /,z m'c. ,=4.4:, /NT• G'''•/S Tj, J
To2A-7 1)/24/A/
5) Does th - • roposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? - er
✓ If so, note location on your site plan.
2
f17LLCZ6T
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials
to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated volume of discharge. No
N/A c3oun� y L i Are
4 0LiZ STiiIEN .IO�L /c.4T /cN ctwl -y
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. �,e✓ ' t
Q , •/ N v . / / L - L /iv G,2oUN0 W.4 TE.+C
,4M C> /✓V27 /A./ 725 EX/S '-IG STb/ /4
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources. 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 s y stem(s) are expected to serve._
,V D /.5 2G E ,,2oM 4Ny 7', / /A/
,EjO JAJ 7Aey 4/ A" ,4cx.JJJSTiv7 CA/ T
'4�i�L✓ 77 On./ on/c./ ,
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, ,
if known). Sed=".4ac Sl'2/A/ 5 coGG�oTO
y c 4/N ,4, VD Oh2 TAG) /N TC,
Where will this water flow? &x /S7
G4 /N
Will this water flow into other waters? CIA/Z->/ A5
MAy . /, cc.7 z, By EX /�Tc. 5b0I1
If so, describe. L >24/A/4 .-5)./67=A.-7
2) Could waste materials ente ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe. N /,4 d—'J- Q4/ y L./n/E
,4o J[JS ,4re"PPL,i c.4 77c:eV O 'L /
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any: /;2En/CN
,Sy W /L Co LLCG 7 GicwrvZ) wc.1r,Z
17 /2EC T i="L G W /A/ TO X T/h/ 57b4=
G1e4 /n/,
X 51.4 11 14/•17 P2ESE
Fy 4 B S?ZEL CUL V 7 , 4A(LD
GY.e G7—
/W 7G:71 .4A/ ,,X /v 77AiG
w�T free . .5)45 1
I '1ants
. Check and then circle types of
vegetation found on the site:
❑ deciduous tree:
other: -
MATURE LEAF
RESINOUS DUD
PETIOL
FRUIT
(UNOPENED)
F YOUNG LEAF
BLACK
COTTONWOOD
A rough•b•rked Iree reaching 50 or 60m (160.200') In height, Black Cottonwood
s often round standing above the surrounding woods. They occur on stream
ranks and lakeshores, and In forested wetlands. Young trees have smooth
_gre•n bark which forms hard dark gray ridges as the tree matures. The winter
Duds are large, long pointed and distinctly resinous.
❑ shrubs: voi4lew, salrrteriberry, Irtelierrpittrn,
other: BLAGK ,S•ieR>/
.PURPLE FLOWER
S e
ORANGE•R
BERRIES
F'THORNY
. ..STEMS
SALMONBERRY
f11 /.l,CIZ6T
❑ evergreen tree:
other: WES
FUZZY NEW LEAVES
STIPULES LOST
ON OLDER GROWTH
NEEDLE
NEEDLES OF VARYING LENGTHS
CONE
2•WHITE STRIPES
WESTERN HEMLOCK
A Sorest evergreen of up to 60.70m (160.2001 high, Western Hemlock has
distinctively drooping branches and tips, and strongly furrowed dark to red•
dish•brown bark. Under certain conditions It may be found with Western Red
Cedar In very old stands with little growing beneath the trees.
WILLOW
This deciduous tree or shrub is often found growing with Rod Alders along the The tangles of curving, thorny stems formed by this perennial shrub provide
grass
I CLOSED FLOWER
/' �LIGULE
•
i 1
1 . 1 BLADE
I
OPEN FLOWER
Is large strongly rhiromatous perennial grass has round hollow stems reaching
1 •1.4 (2.5.5') In height. The grass Is common In wet soils and may be cut
for hay.
1
f.C:;" FLOWER CLUSTER
ti
SHEATHING LEAF BASE
FIlLGOZc5T
REED CANARY GRASS SPIKE -RUSH
k t• FLOWER CLUSTER
BRACT'
' if-. 0 TRIANGULAR STEMS
I VK
SEDGES
A sedge Is a grass•iike herb with triangular solid stems and Uberons roots or
rhirnmes. Deoendinn on the soeries redoes may be found arowina In atandina
LIGULE
1 ; f BLADE
vJ G
STAMEN
A .BRISTLE
SCALE
These annual or perennial grasslike herbs have round to flattened stems and
tend to grow In clumps in areas with wet loll.
❑ pasture
❑ crop or grain
❑ wet soil plants: mil; be ttvrcup, bukrtrsh; skunk cabbage,
other - - -. -- .... �`-- . -..._._._
Emergent Plants
MALE FLOWERS y�
i,
SAI FEMALE FLOWER
The classic plants associated with marshy areas, Cattails, form large, almost
pure strands 1.3m (3.91 tall In shallow quiet water. They provide cover and
nesting areas for many birds, and a food sounds for many animals. The roots,
stem base, and very young flower stalks are edible.
Emergent Plants
at
❑ water plants: Neer -i+y, ee1grass, miffed,
other Alele,IE. TA /Ls
WHITE FLOWERS �~
I
BRACT•ca ' 1.„ rt ...
1 U•'''
7"
f
1 :: t
SHEATHING
LEAF-BASES
CATTAIL
•
r ►�. BRACT
at
PURPLE RIBBED STEMS
WATER PARSLEY
Other types of vegetation
Please list
/ Vy
.ey5 «.4 s
`SlwoRt> F.°.e A/
C:
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
!�'EdaE 4 re, / .4 T .O,CA //v i/V /[-e- 8..
.2�MO vEO Aev0 ,
c. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: ,'VAT/ ✓E
77 5, 5 , g
W / G L e 4 4 . 5 /A/ L A NCSG' 4 / /c-/G 4s W. G.
A S w. '-L.. .4.5 cv iP4T /B! - = Off' v4 1 t / TILL
V. /C T /E5
4. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or
near the site or are know to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heren, eagle, scagbirds, other:
5, /2.0.2.C) VS/ 5
mammals: deep, burr, ed .bea -ter, other:
fish: been, trot, ether:
ercLcZsr <
/G
./o vz
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site. N/A //oNE
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. N/A
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: N/A
5. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? ._
.577 AT SEN T /5 c:::),- Y. .4N T L.4'V
✓Lo oMcP s/A/ L. / =4A-,//- V
•
b. Describe any structures on the site.
c. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N,• 4.
NaN6
d. What is the current zoning classification of the site? K /- /2.
R
g.
8. Air
h /GLCZeST �
e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
f. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site? Urban N ,4
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive" area? If so, specify. )/ 5 , s cpck ;
6. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not
including antennas? N/4 ,i3o JA' 242y
AI> ✓IJS7 7 s47c:i i oNL)/
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: N/A
7. Utilities
a. Circle . 'liti- -ntl T av • e at the sit_
tele hon
efuse s
rvice
anita
we
syMern, other: 672:3-1 5 fry AzP eye TEA
GLI.BLc6 7 V. R1, me.. /C 7.2s4N5 2T4•T /c.W
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility
providing the service, and the general construction activities on
the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed._
804/i/.402 y 0I4%J4.Au 'i1 'V 7
�o�L.•c� 77Ot1 C>. /L y. L. ,4 oMic:1<w yip c,
' Ft..4 A/5 s7.A s r64:7
Although the following are important elements of the environment, most
individual single family construction projects will not have a measurable
effect on them.
If impacts are anticipated due to your project, please indicate where
appropriate.
Complete the checklist by continuing with Number 17.
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. N/A
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your
proposal? If so, generally describe. N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any: N/A
a
_ 11. Housing
9. Energy and Natur
a. What kinds o
to meet the c
for heating,
b. Would your
properties? I
c. What kinds o
proposal? Li
any:
10. Environmental H
a. Are there and
chemicals, ri
as a result of
a.
b.
c.
1) Descri
2) Propose
any:
a. Approximat
high, middle
b. Approximat
whether hig
c. Proposed m
12. Light and Glare
a. What type o
it mainly oc
b. Could light
with views?
c. What existi
N/A
d. Proposed m
N/A
13. Recreation
What desi
vicinity? N
Would the
describe.
Resources
energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used
mpleted project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
anufacturing, etc. N/A
h'IGGaalcST
roject affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
so, generally describe. N/A
energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
t other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
/A
alth
environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
his proposal? If so, describe. N/A
special emergency services that might be required. N/A
measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if
N/A
ly how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
or low- income housing? One 5 v v/75 M/ AN/GOMz
ly how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
, middle, or low- income housing. N/A
asures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None
light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
ur? N/A
r glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
N/A
g off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
asures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
ed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
A
roposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
/A
Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
N/A
teed
1A
14. Historic and Cultural Preservation
g.
16. Public Services
c n1LLCrZe5T
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. N/A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A
15. 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.
N/A
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop? N/A
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate? NIA
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing
roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate
whether public or private). NIA
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe. NIA
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
N/A
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
N/A
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. N/A
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any. N/A
17. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I understa that the Tread agency is relying on them to
make its decision. r
Signature:
Date Submitted: )J'6'7 /v / c /
11
April.24, 991
Job No. 9005 -13G
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12911 M.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
Leroy Lowe
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, Washington 98111
Reference: Plan Review
Hillcrest
Slade Way
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowe:
As requested, we have prepared this letter to summarize our review
of the information you provided and in our files. The purpose of
our review is to comment on the items raised in the letter by Mr.
Fraser of the City of Tukwila dated March 4, 1991.
We have reviewed the undated Sheet #8 (Drainage site plan and site
plan) and the unnumbered, undated Sheet "Grading site plan" of the
plans prepared by Leroy Lowe Architect. We also reviewed Sheets #1
(Drainage site plan) and #3 (Grading site plan), and Sheets #1, #2
and #3 of undated sets of site plans prepared by Leroy Lowe
Architect before the latest revisions were made. Our review also
included our soils reports for this property dated May 30, 1990 and
August 27, 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand from our review of the revised plans provided that
the proposed development will consist of three (3) single family
residences with an access road from Slade Way serving Lots #3 and
#4, and another access road from Slade Way serving Lot #5. The
previous plans showed two additional houses at the top of the slope
with an access road from Slade Way. The buildings on Lots #3, #4
and #5 will be located east of the toe of the thirty (30) foot high
2(H):1(V) slope.
REVIEW
No building plans were provided which showed the foundation details
for the proposed buildings. We understand from conversations with
you that the proposed residences will be supported on a pile
foundation in accordance with the recommendations in our soils
report. However, for us to adequately address the impact of the
proposed construction on surrounding properties and the slope we
April 24, 1991
Mr. Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 2
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
should review the final building plans in detail.
We understand from Sheet #8 (Drainage site plan) that groups of six
(6), two (2) inch diameter horizontal drains, separated from each
other by ten (10) feet 0.C., will be installed along the toe of the
existing slope, in areas where the slope is to be regraded. No
specific details for these horizontal drains were provided on the
plan we reviewed. These horizontal drains will exit into a north-
easterly trending French Drain to the west and extend westwards
approximately twenty (20) feet horizontally. We recommend that
specific details for the horizontal drains be reviewed by us and
incorporated into the final plans.
We understand from the Drainage Site Plan that proposed French
Drains will be a minimum of six (6) feet deep and two (2) feet
wide. The French Drain detail provided on the plan shows visqueen
lining across the bottom and along the downslope side of the French
Drain trench, with electric, telephone, and cable lines located
within the French Drain trench.
In our soils report we recommended that the French Drain trench be
lined with a permeable geotextile fabric to avoid .future clogging
from siltation. We recommend that this be included in your final„
plans for the uphill face not covered by visqueen liner. We"
recommend against placing any, utilities within, the, French,
trench,,., since " access ° to the : utilities would > compromise the
integrity of the :French. Drain.
With the exception of the above stated discrepancies, we believe
that the Drainage Site Plan reflects our recommendations.
We understand from the Grading
some parts of the toe of the
show that the slope will be
grade behind the southwestern
#3. In our soils report dated
against making any cuts into
cuts steeper than a 2(H):1(V)
retaining wall.
Site Plan that you propose regrading
existing slope. The grading plans
regraded at 1.5(H):1(V) or steeper
corner of the house proposed on Lot
August 27th, 1990 we had recommended
the toe of the slope, and that all
grade be supported with a structural
We understand from conversations with you that you anticipate
placing a four (4) foot high retaining wall in the area of the
steep cuts. We recommend that we be engaged to calculate the
lateral forces for the retaining wall and review the retaining wall
design.
The houses proposed on Lots #3, #4 and #5 appear buildable,
provided the recommendations in our soils reports and this review
are followed carefully, and adequate drainage of the site is
April 24, 1991
Mr. Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 3
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
accomplished prior to the initiation of proposed construction.
To fully answer the City of Tukwila's questions, more specific and
detailed plans will be necessary. A slope stability analysis, with
static and pseudostatic impacts of the proposed construction will
be required.
We recommend.• we be . engaged to ; conduct ,a .' slope stability .
analysis for before, 'during and after construction scenarios to
evaluate the possible adverse impacts of the proposed construction
on the existing slope conditions. This will require more specific
information on the building loads and foundation type. A slope
stability analysis beyond the level we have completed is
inappropriate at this time. We feel that adverse effects of the
proposed development have been lessened by eliminating the houses
on Lots #1 and #2 and the construction of the driveway on the face
of the steep slope. We will conduct, a slope : stability analysis
based' on the final .plans 'at the time of permit application.
The site is located above a known area of instability with a recent
history of slope failure. It is our conclusion that the Hillcrest
site is presently stable. The proposed construction should not
adversely effect Slade Way if our recommendations are carefully
followed. Careful ._construction techniques and drainage : control
will be necessary to avoid any adverse effects of the proposed
As indicated previously, the site may be seriously
.affected by off -site events or development.
The site lies within .Zone :3 of the USGS' Classification %..of. Seismic
`
Hazard Areas. Based on our understanding of the present soil and
physiographic conditions present at the site, we conclude that the
proposed buildings will require., deep seated foundations to achieve
acceptable levels of safety. We reconimend that we be engaged-
to review and provide specific and detailed recommendations . once
..>;
detailed plans are available.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us
if you have any questions or require further assistance.
Sincerely,
•
Amjad I. Khan
Geologist
,. 4y g,, /77°
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR HILLCREST
SLADE WAY, SOUTH OF SOUTH 160TH STREET
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. 9005 -13G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope
Project Description
Site Description
Subsurface Soil Conditions
Laboratory Results
Conclusions
Recommendations
Foundation Design Parameters
Drainage
General
Apppendix A
Appendix B Test Pit Logs
Appendix C Unified Soils Classification System
Appendix D Laboratory Results
Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Test Pit Locatin Map.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
May; • <3'Or;� ::x199 O
Job No. 9005 -13G
Leroy C. Lowe
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, Washington 98111
Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Hillcrest
Slade Way, South of South 160th Street
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowe:
At your request we have completed a preliminary subsurface soils
investigation for the above site. The following report summarizes
our findings and offers preliminary conclusions and recommendations
for the proposed project. Additional subsurface information will
be required in order to develop detailed foundation design
parameters.
SCOPE
Our investigation is based on review of existing geologic maps, a
review of some records of work on nearby sites, a detailed
reconnaissance of surface conditions, two (2) backhoe test pits,
thirteen (13) hand augers, and four (4) laboratory tests to
determine the percent organics. This report summarizes our
findings on the subsurface soil and ground water conditions, and
offers preliminary conclusions and recommendations on foundation
design, slope stability, and drainage recommendations. It also
offers recommendations for further work.
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 2
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SITE DESCRIPTION
We were provided with a topographic plan of the site at a scale of
1 " =30', which was prepared by Survey Professionals and dated
5/17/90. We were also provided with a preliminary development plan
that was prepared by you, at a scale of 1 " =30', undated.
We understand that the proposed project is to consist of the
construction of five (5) single- family residences, with driveways
to access the houses. One of the proposed residences is located
on the upper half of a thirty (30) foot high, 2(H):1(V) slope, and
another is located at the top of the same thirty (30) foot high
2(H):1(V) slope. The remaining three residences are to be located
on a gently sloping area at the base of the 2(H):1(V) slope. A
proposed roadway, which will access the two (2) houses at the top
of the slope, angles directly up a 1.5(H):1(V) slope.
We recommend that our office be engaged to review the final grading
and construction plans once they become available in order for us
to make further recommendations as required.
The site is located on Slade Way, just south of South 160th Street,
in Tukwila, Washington. The site lies less than a half mile
southwest of the intersection of 1 -5 and I -405, and is about 250
feet up the west side of the Green River Valley.
Single family residences are located to north, west, and south of
the site. Slade Way abuts the east side of the site. There is a
north - flowing grass lined swale between the property and Slade Way.
At the northeast corner of the site is an eighteen (18) inch
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 3
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
diameter corrugated metal culvert that empties water into the
swale.
The site is roughly square in shape, and is about 330 x 350 feet.
There is a north -south trending slope face on the property which
slopes down to the east; it is a thirty (30) foot high slope which
is at slightly less than 2(H):1(V). The slope is steeper in places.
There is a relatively flat area extending west from the top of the
slope ranging from fifteen (15) to one hundred (100) feet wide.
At the base of the slope, the ground surface continues to slope
down to the east at a gentle angle.
There is about sixty -four (64) feet of relief across the site, with
the high point at the southwest corner and the low point at the
northeast corner of the site.
Soft, wet boggy soils were present from the base of the :thirty (30) ;
foot high slope eastward to Slade Way. There are at least four (4)
springs ;that 'outlet at the base of the slope. Surface water from
the springs combine to make two (2) small creeks; the water
trickles eastward across the site to the grass lined swale at the
eastern edge of the site. The two (2). creeks were each .flowing .at
about five (5) gallons per minute at the time of our visit.
Standing water was observed in several places on the site.
The vegetation consists of hemlock, alder and maple trees that are
one to two feet in diameter. Some pistol butting of the trees
growing on the slopes was observed. In the soft boggy area which
extends from the base of the slope eastward, undergrowth consists
of nettles, skunk cabbage, horse tails, briars and brush.
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 4
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONDITIONS
Site subsurface soil conditions were determined by excavating two
(2) backhoe test pits on May 15, 1990, and thirteen (13) hand
augers on May 23, 1990. Backhoe access was confined to the
northern edge of the site due to the presence of soft, wet, organic
soils. Test pit and hand auger locations were selected by an
engineering geologist from our office and located by pacing
relative to property lines, corner stakes, and other identifiable
landmarks.
The Test Pit Location Map is presented in Appendix A. Depths
referred to in this report are relative to the existing ground
surface at the time of our investigation. For detailed test pit
logs, hand auger logs and soil descriptions see Appendix B. All
soils were classified in the field according to the Unified Soils
Classification System. A copy of this classification is contained
in Appendix C. Laboratory results are provided in Appendix D.
In general, soil conditions at the site consist of topsoil over
poorly graded sands; east of the base of the slope the sands are
overlain by one (1) to five (5) feet of peat and organic rich
soils. At the top of the thirty (30) foot high slope, hand auger
holes showed a layer of topsoil overlying fine to coarse grained
sands. The topsoil was about six (6) inches thick and consisted
of loose, organic rich sand with some silt. Underlying the topsoil
was loose to medium dense, moist sand with minor silt and gravel.
Hand auger holes on the slope face showed a similar sequence to
that described for the top of the slope.
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 5
Laboratory Results
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Hand auger holes located eastward from the base of the slope showed
a layer of wet to over - saturated, soft peat and organic rich sand
that ranged from six (6) inches to five (5) feet thick. Underlying
the blanket of organic rich soil, we encountered wet to saturated,
medium dense, mottled, gray fine grained sand with a trace of silt.
In the area of the two (2) test pits, the mottled, gray sand was
underlain by wet, dense, blue -gray sand. Test Pit 2 showed a
dense, gray -brown sand with faint mottling at a depth of twelve
(12) feet, underlying the blue gray sand. Moderate to heavy caving
occurred in Test Pit #1 between four (4) and twelve (12) feet below
the existing surface.
Minor seepage was observed at eleven (11) feet below the existing
surface in Test Pit #1. It appears that there is ground water at
the base of the slope, as evidenced by the presence of at least
four springs.
The geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, by
Howard H. Waldron, dated 1962 shows that the surface soils at the
site consist of Recessional outwash of the Vashon drift. The
soils we observed on the site are consistent with the geologic map.
The site is located near the upper limit of a large area previously
investigated as part of a major slide. We have reviewed some of
the extensive documentation on this area.
Laboratory results indicate that there is about twenty -three (23)
percent organics by weight for Hand Auger #10 at a depth of four
(4) to five (5) feet below the existing surface. There was about
two (2) percent organics by weight for the other three samples -
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G 0 �'
Page 5 rs
V \4\
Hand auger holes located eastward from the base of the slope showed
a layer of wet to over - saturated, soft peat and organic rich sand
that ranged from six (6) inches to five (5) feet thick. Underlying
the blanket of organic rich soil, we encountered wet to saturated,
medium dense, mottled, gray fine grained sand with a trace of silt.
The test pits showed that mottled, gray sand was underlain by wet,
dense, blue -gray sand. Test Pit 2 showed a dense, gray -brown sand
with faint mottling at a depth of twelve (12) feet, underlying the
blue gray sand. Moderate to heavy caving occurred in Test Pit #1
between four (4) and twelve (12) feet below the existing surface.
Minor seepage was observed at eleven (11) feet below the existing
surface in Test Pit #1. It appears that there is ground water at
the base of the slope, as evidenced by the presence of at least
four springs.
The geologic Map of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington, by
Howard H. Waldron, dated 1962 shows that the surface soils at the
site consist of Recessional outwash of the Vashon drift. The
soils we observed on the site are consistent with the geologic map.
The site is located near the upper limit of a large area previously
investigated as part of a major slide. We have reviewed some of
the extensive documentation on this area.
Laboratory Results
Laboratory results indicate that there is about twenty -three (23)
percent organics by weight for Hand Auger #10 at a depth of four
(4) to five (5) feet below the existing surface. There was about
two (2) percent organics by weight for the other three samples -
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 6
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Hand Auger #4, #6, and #8 at the chosen depths. Please refer to
Appendix D for laboratory results.
CONCLUSIONS
The site is situated just west of an area where numerous landslides
have occurred. The mechanisms that are responsible for the slides
are complex and variable. Major remedial work has been done near
the Tukwila interchange due to slide activity. Our slope stability
analysis for the site will need to encompass the regional
geomorphic setting as well as local conditions on the property.
Our investigation shows that this site can be developed, however,
it will be difficult and quite expensive. There are at least four
(4) springs at the base of the thirty (30) foot high slope.
Standing water and some surface flow was present from the base of
the slope eastward. Most of the site which lies eastward from the
base of the slope is covered with a thick blanket of organic rich
soil which is generally unsuitable for any structural use. Some
pistol butted tree trunks near the base of the slope indicated the
presence of surface soil creep.
The upland areas of the site appear to be presently stable against
sliding. We saw no surface indication of slope instability, nor
any subsurface indication of slope instability in our hand augers,
however, the hand augers were limited to the upper five (5) feet
of soil. With additional subsurface information we will be able
to determine specific factor of safety parameters.
The plans we ;:were ; provided „show two . (2) propo{;ed residences , tot fbe
.,r
1` ocated : near or ;on the slope:. We observed' evidence of. soil? deep
qxt the , . 'lower porti.ons of the ;s ope. Foundations for these;.r t�►o '`
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 7
fii 41,4" w
4/011
need to be deep. ' ' We anticipate, t
a ired ; at these'locations':
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
ile foundation, tf
'
} R i
The plans we were provided show a driveway that angles directly up
the thirty (3 foot high slope. 4Ttie ,., s,10 a :pis ; steeper ,t,han
2111.Y 1(V) in;,the proposed roadway location.:: TI proposed;,drivewax
a does=; not ;appear feasible,: due ; to, the;:; steepness of : the slope:'"
het ; proposed; residences . aocated :'r nrlahe ; ilower !,porions
of the, +.cite:: will require:.:; ~especial:: ":f.oundations.,; 4and /,or ... . . .site
reparation due ::a0.;:;the,<presence' of `' "ground.FF.water_' and:, the ?;,abundance;
�O;t .organic rich;;aoi•1 .
The portion of the site that lies east of the base of slope will
require a drainage system to capture the springs at the base of
the slope. Horizontal °drans' other - resources ::may
as additional subsurface information` becomes available.
Additiona s ubsurface ; ., information from the • syte. -,wil be•. required
Ao de specific. fac of safety paramters. and specifics l'
°foundation design,parameters.
Ground water and surface water are a major factor at this site.
Much of the soil on the eastern half of the site was wet to
saturated at the time of our study. Some of the subsurface soils
consist of very fine grained sands with some silt. W ° =lracommen�i`
:Performing site.,p eparation and excavation - work 4urtn anextended
, Jperiod of dry we ather to },avoid , excess o ts �andj construct'ori
problems" :as sociatid, n:soih.,deterioration. a Very specific
7.n:i1 t p :.
RECOMMENDATIONS
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 - 13G
Page 8
Foundation Design Parameters
Drainaae
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
4idditional recommendations are ,essential kticeedIfin
tfwet`,,weather
Additional subsurface information will be required before detailed
foundation design parameters can be provided. Depending on our
findings, and on the effectiveness of the recommended drainage,
there are two general options for foundation design for the
residences at the base of the slope. One'optionwould°';be leave
the* ; organic:- soils . and use' : a,: : pile: . :foundation.` , or
tauger- cast ' A:xzsecond-. option would be` ' strip °.the organic
soils, add structural;;fill,: -° and a spread footing , foundation`. '
The buildings that are to built at the top of the slope and on the
upper portions of the slope will require pile foundations to carry
the loads to site depth. Specific design parameters can be
provided after additional subsurface information is obtained.
Extensive drainage will be required at this site. To allow
drilling access to the site, we 'recommend that :L:a "::;;drainage l; ; 'system= {
be ., installed along ., the base ,of. the . slope to capture? the ' water f rom ".
the springs. The , should follow' the base,:of the slope, at
about an elevation 2 feet above . sea .level : as shown on
plan ' were provided.
We ":;nticipate that ; extensive . add rainage will be;
Akprior to development of the site
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 9
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Additional subsurface information and a full review of previous
work in the area will be required before detailed foundation design
parameters can be provided. We recommend that several test borings
be done on the site - at least two (2) at the top of the slope and
two (2) at the base of the slope. We would be happy to provide you
with a proposal and cost estimates for this work.
We recommend that we be engaged to review plans, observe site
preparation, observe subgrade conditions, confirm that bearing
soils have been reached, and observe and test the placement of
structural fill. This is a recommendation for engineering review
and goes beyond any testing agency involvement which may be
required.
We expect the on site soil conditions to reflect our findings;
however, some variations may occur. Should soil conditions be
encountered that cause concern and /or are not discussed herein,
Cascade Geotechnical should be contacted immediately to determine
if additional or alternate recommendations are required.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Leroy C.
Lowe for specific application to the proposed development at Slade
Way and South 160th Street in Tukwila, Washington, in accordance
with generally accepted soils engineering practices. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 10
Sincerely,
EGE:pg
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Thank you for this opportunity to assist you with this project.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at
any time.
.• •
CASC • 'E GEOTECHNI •+ o�'�&;,
ji i
' /i • i r
��orge P . . .
Principal En • inee + pe.cisTst.
h\ SS
, /ON AI E ;
C;5 - Q2n"1/44' 'Zf,a,a::::
E. George Ehlers
Engineering Geologist
C
r
L
i
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
C'
TEST PITS (05/15/
+ HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.1 126NI PUCE (106)621.5080
KIKKUND, WASHINGTON 98034 fAK: (206) 8232203
Job N.' I SCALE 1 r - 50'
905.134
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
12•1• I OW.. Ear 1117.01t..
05/29/90 HLA
APPEND I X B
SouTN6°41 STREET
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.9080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
TP.1
\ \\
\ KA,11+ \ \\ A6
I \ \ \ T
( I
® TEST PITS (05/15/60)
+ HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
a a `� °e
Job No.
905 -13G
• 1. i i.11-444 i. 11 1 c,•
SCALE 1 1*
$
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
DoFO IOwe. 1r (Ion, !3
05129190
T.P. 1
0 —_-
-15
• - _ r
+ 4
Notes:
Date 05/23/90
Soil Description & Classification
1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (PT)
1'- 2.5'5 ND; WITH TRACE SILT,
GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET, PROMINENT ORANGE MOT -
(SP)TLES, FINE TO MED.GRAINED.
2.5'- 12'SAND; WITH TRACE SILT,
BLUE GRAY, DENSE, WET TO
SATURATED, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED. (SP)
MODERATE TO HEAVY CAVING
FROM 4'- 12'
MINOR SEEPAGE AT 11'
T.D. = 12.0'
TEST PIT LOG
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
1 Job No. 905 - 13G
T.P.- 2
0
-15
Notes:
Dwn. By HLA
Soil Description & Classification
0 - 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET TO SATURATED.(PT)
1 '- 2.5' SAND; WITH h1INOR SILT, GRAY,
MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET,
FAINT ORANGE MOTTLES.(SP)
2.5'- 7'SAND; WITH TRACE SILT,
BLUE GRAY, DENSE, WET TO
SATURATED. (SP)
12'SAND; WITH SOME SILT, BLUE
GRAY, DENSE, WET. (SP)
12- 13'SAND; WITH MINOR GRAVEL,
GRAY BROWN, DENSE, DIET,
FAINT ORANGE MOTTLES. (SP)
T.D. = 13.0
HILLCREST
Geo /Eng. StjZ
H.A,- 1
Soil Description( Classification
MA.- 2
.,..,.Soil Description & Classification
"TOPSOIL;
0 "TOPSOIL;
D
—
-'
_
"'
S
- 6 SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, LOOSE,
MOIST.
6 "- 2'$AND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, BROWN,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST,
FINE GRAINED. (SP)
2'- 5'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL &
SILT, GRAY BRO!!N, MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, FINE GRAINED.
(SP)
D
_
—
I, iz,:;•;V::::••,:::"..;,,,..,:-.-.;•-••:;-.-....-.---- ....-.-
d .e..%•:::•:•:•::*::::-
■ 4 (
N : :::: IYA*;
i ( 11'0:n:.:i.f.:;:;•.:1:
' ' t !:i:::::1;:::::::::.*::::•siii;I:111;'4:1::::;',./lit":::::f:::::::
- a.= ......01.-::. •:ek::::::
0 - 8 SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, ORGANIC,
LOOSE, MOIST.
8 "- 5'SAND• WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE
MOIST, FINE GRAINED. (SP)
s
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0
Notes.
Notes:
H.A. - 3
Soil Description & Classification
H.6. -4
Soil Description & Classification
D
-s
0 - 3.5'PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
G
—
L:12 11"1 , 1 .1: .14., L
0 - 2.5'PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
SATURATED. (PT)
2.5'- 5'ORGANIC SILTY SAND;
4 , t • r 4, , • osvasoothisvi
A ±11:0 Atu mentemesm
SATURATED. (PT)
•
3.5= 5'ORGANIC SILTY SAND; BLACK
DARK BROWN TO BLACK, LOOSE,
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.
(SM -OL)
TO TAN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
T.D. = 5.0'
-s
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
. Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
Geoff Eng.
RA.- 5
Soil Description 'lassification
H.A.- 6
(.ail Description & Classification
—
—
O - 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
0 �'"
y'R0 - 4 "DUFF
4 " - 1'TOPSOIL; SILTY SAND WITH
SATURATED. (PT)
3.5'- 4.5' SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANIC
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, MOIST.
1 '- 3'5ILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK GRAY-BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (SM -OL)
-5-
T.D. = 3.0'
DARK GRAY TO BLACK, LOOSE, SA 1
URATED, FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
4.5'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGAN
`s
—
ICS, TAN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
Notes
H - 7
Soil Description & Classification
H.A.- 8
Soil Description & Classification
0
0
' m
0 - 6 "DUFF
--:..§1
.
.•.
rr
11
��
il
' 1
- 6 "PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
6'= 1'3 "SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS,'
—
—
•
_._
•5 ----\
,
,�-
= -
6'L 3.5'ORGANIC SANDY SILT; DARK
BLUE GRAY, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
1' 3'= 3' SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
+-
BROWN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (OL)
•
3.5'- 4' SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
GRAY BROWN TO DARK BROWN,
SOFT, WET TO SATURATED, FINE
GRAINED. (ML -OL)
3' - 4' SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGAN-
;
DARK GRAY, SOFT, SATURATED.
(ML -OL)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
ICS, LIGHT BROWN TO TAN, SOFT
II
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.(ML -OL)
4 '- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGANICS
TAN, SOFT, SATURATED.(ML -OL)
LT. BROWN TO TAN, SOFT, SATURA-
TED, FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
—
T.D. = 5.0
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
mi
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Dwn.By HLA
Geo /Eng. 9-
H.A,- 9
Soil Description ( „Iassification
HA.- 10
Caoil Description & Classification
"DUFF
0
4 „ - ;„
'. ":
- 6
0
-
0 - 2'PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
'- 1' SANDYSILT; WITH ORGANICS &
1
2'- 5'PEAT INTERLAYERED WITH SILTY
il
MINOR SAND, TAN, MOIST TO WET:
1 II
•1 11
4
,
=:.I
•:
(ML -OL)
1'- 2'SILTYSAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, BROWN TO BLACK, -
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET.
(SM-OL) -
'2'- 5'SANDY SILT; TAN TO BROWN,
i
SAND; BLUE GRAY, LOOSE, SAT-
URATED, FINE TO COARSE
GRAINED. (PT -SM)
SOFT TO STIFF, SATURATED,
VARIES FROM SANDY SILT TO -
SILTY SAND WITH DEPTH, INTER-
LAYERED WITH ORGANICS(PT)
S
-
-5
(ML- SM -OL)
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0' -
Notes. Notes
H.A. - 11
Soil Description & Classification H.A. 12
Soil Description & Classification
"DUFF
0 - T'";''0
1 `''' ' '`' ' � ''
- 6 "DUFF 0
-„,,
4
0 - 6
;
6 "- 5' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
6 " - 3' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
^ I
ti '` = �`�
`•'`�' `
'' "'
:: ..,�
.
ii ' • ' ;. ::
: ,.:;_: : :L;
' '�`
Y ti
TRACE TO MINOR SILT RED
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST FINE GRAINED. (SP)
'"""'":"••.3'
TRACE TO MINOR SILT LIGHT
BROWN TO RED' BROWN , LOOSE
TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, FINE
GRAINED. (SP)
- 5' SAND; TRACE TO MINOR SILT,
LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY, MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, COARSE GRAINED
(SP)
-
T.D. = 5.0' -
—
T.D. = 5.0
Notes:
_ .Notes:
•
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
C ASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
CI
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
G•o /Eng. ��
HA.- 13
Soil Description ,:lassification
HA.-
, Description & Classification
Notes
0 --'10
"-
- 6 "DUFF
WITH MINOR SILT, LIGHT
TO RED BROWN, LOOSE TO
DENSE, MOIST. )
0
—
3'SAND;
-«•6
s .
BROWN
MEDIUM
-
T.D. = 3.0'
-5—
•
Notes
HA. -
Soil Description & Classification
HA,-
Soil Description & Classification
Notes:
0
-S
—
0
-S —
.Notes:
HAND
AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
Geoff Eng.$)..).C.
APPENDIX C
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
LETTER
DESCRIPTION
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
GRAVEL &
GRAVELLY
SOILS
• .0",
CLEAN %'••i
GW
Well - graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures,
little or no fines
GRAVELS •: ••tf
4Ri
G P
Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures,
little or no lines
GRAVELS
•
•
GM
Silty gravels or gravel - sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES
� ��'
�
GC
Clayey gravels or gravel- sand -clay mixtures
SAND i
SANDY
SOILS
CLEAN
SANDS
•: •.•: :•
•• ...... : •
W
Weil-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or
no fines
• i :•��:f•
`:;`::::::
s s.i i: ;
SP
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
or no fines
SANDS
SM
Silty sands or sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES
SC
Clayey sands or sand -clay mixtures
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS & CLAYS
ML
inorganic silts & very fine sands, rock flour. silty
or clayey line sands, or clayey silts with slight
plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays or lean clays
Liquid Limit Less Than 50
01
Organic silts & organic silty clays of low
plasticity
SILTS & CLAYS
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sandy or silty soils. elastic silts
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, tat clays
Liquid Limit Greater Than SO ,',',
,- ,i / �
OH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS •' = :i..-: w.
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils
Bo
DATUM
NOTE
SZ Water
Level
Date Recorded
Ts
Torvane Reading
Sample Interval
qu
Penetrometer Reading
Sample Interval
I Water
Observation Well
Tip Elevation
SOL
DATUM
NOTE
I 2"
O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
Sample Interval
I[
Ring or Shelby Sampler
Sample Interval
P
Sampler Pushed
Sample Interval
*
Other Sample Type
Sample Interval
UNIFIED S6iLS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM l
TOPSOIL
r� nR Y
a.. Y•. - r
�.: �.. .
FILL
Humus & duff layer
Uncontrolled, with highly variable constituents
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
KEY CHART
Aa 7 /9'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope Page 1
Subsurface Conditions Page.2
Conclusions Page 3
Recommendations Page 4
Site Preparation Page 4
Erosion Control Page 5
Drainage Page 6
Horizontal Wells Page 7
French Drains Page 7
Foundation Design Parameters Page 8
Access Drive Page 9
Construction Monitoring Page 10
General Page 11
Appendix A Test Pit Location Map
Appendix B Test Pit Logs
Appendix C Hand Auger Logs
Appendix D Test Boring Logs
Appendix E Laboratory Results
C
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
August 27, 1990
Job No. 9005 -13G
Leroy Lowe
P.O. Box 3972
Seattle, Washington 98111
Reference: Hillcrest
Slade Way
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowe:
As you requested, we have completed an additional subsurface study
at the above site. This study is in addition to the previous
preliminary geotechnical investigation dated May 30, 1990. The
following report is an addendum to the previous report and provides
specific and detailed recommendations for developing the site for
residential homes.
SCOPE
Our previous site investigation was limited by access and the
equipment used for the exploration. The scope of this report was
to conduct an additional subsurface study of the site based on test
borings to investigate the subsurface soil and ground water
conditions.
The recommendations provided here are based on the previous study,
three (3) test borings and a review of the subsurface information
for an area adjacent to this site and our understanding of the
preliminary design plan.
Only very preliminary developmental plans were provided for our
review. We understand that five (5) residential homes are proposed
•
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -I3G
Page 2
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
for the site with an access drive that enters the property from the
north and extends up the steep slope in the center of the site.
No grading plan with finished floor elevations has been developed
at this time. We should be engaged to review the final grading and
construction plans to provide any additional or alternate
recommendations that may be necessary.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A detailed site description can be found in our previous
preliminary report. The test pits and hand augers done for that
report found sands and organic sands with some peat on the site.
Seepage was noted from the toe of the slope and in some of the hand
augers. Three test borings were done at the site between the dates
of July 24 and July 25, 1990 using a skid - mounted hollow stem
auger.
The test borings were located on the site by an engineering
geologist from our office by pacing relative to known landmarks or
property boundaries. All borings were done in accordance with ASTM
D -1586 sampling procedures and monitored continuously by an
engineering geologist. Samples were described in the field in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification. Representative
samples were returned to our laboratory for additional analysis.
The test boring locations are shown on the map in Appendix A, as
are the test pits and hand augers done previously. Test pit logs
are found in Appendix B. Hand auger logs are found in Appendix C.
Test boring logs are found in Appendix D. Laboratory results are
found in Appendix E.
The test borings showed fine to medium- grained sand with
interlayered silt to the termination depth of between twenty -six
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 3
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
and one -half (26 1/2) feet and thirty -one and one -half (31 1/2)
feet below the surface. The sand is medium dense to dense and wet
to saturated. We noted some organic soils near the surface in the
borings we observed.
Ground water was found in all the test borings. We noted that the
ground water appeared to be confined in a number of aquifers that
had silty layers above and below. A hydrostatic head was noted in
Test Boring #2 at a depth of twenty five (25) feet. Water reached
the surface and then lowered to about five (5) feet below the
surface when a layer of sand at twenty five (25) was encountered.
Ground water monitoring wells were installed in Test Borings #1 and
#2. Water level readings made a few days after the completion of
the wells indicate that the ground water elevations are at
approximately 282' in Test Boring #1 and 268' in Test Boring #2.
The large difference in the two elevations indicates that there may
be a number of separate, confined aquifers that exist at depth.
The springs noted on the site appear to be at around elevation
+274'.
CONCLUSIONS
It is our conclusion that the site is suitable for the proposed
development if a deep seated foundation is used for support of the
buildings and very extensive drainage is installed. All
development of the site is potentially subject to damage from off -
site events. Detailed design parameters will be required for the
buildings and the proposed driveway that crosses the slope on the
center of the site. The following recommendations are provided for
the development of a design plan. We should be engaged to review
the plan to provide any additional or alternate recommendations
necessary.
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 4
The site is located above a known area of instability with a recent
history of slope failure. We have reviewed some of the information
available for the area downslope of this site. It is our
conclusion that the Hillcrest site is presently stable. The
proposed development should not adversely effect the slope
stability if our recommendations are followed. Careful
construction techniques and drainage control will be necessary to
avoid any adverse effects of the proposed development.
Site Preparation
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
The lower, eastern portion of this site is extremely wet with soft,
organic soils noted at the surface. Working in this area will
require careful and cautious techniques to avoid significant
additional construction costs from disturbed soils. We recommend
that drainage be installed prior to any site work. Detailed
recommendations for drainage are discussed below.
We recommend that the site work be done during a period of extended
dry weather. Wet weather combined with the springs on site will
likely cause additional construction costs.
Light weight equipment should be used wherever possible. The soft,
organic soils with surface water will deteriorate quickly when
exposed to heavy construction traffic. We recommend that temporary
construction access be provided to avoid difficulties with
disturbed soils. Construction road traffic may include rocked
roadways with quarry spalls and /or geotextile fabric or placing
fill to raise the road grade.
We recommend removing all vegetation and top soil from the proposed
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 5
Erosion Control
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
building areas. Depending on the final grades, it may be necessary
to remove the peat as well. This will depend on the building and
roadway locations and the proposed grading.
We recommend that no cuts be made into the toe of the slope in the
center portion of the site. Fill should not be placed on the slope
face.
Detailed erosion control will be necessary to avoid adverse off -
site effects of the site development. We recommend that a detailed
erosion control plan be prepared and implemented prior to
construction based on our recommendations and in accordance with
local codes.
We recommend that a silt fence be placed around the perimeter of
all construction areas to limit sediment movement off -site. The
fence should be adequately supported to remain upright during all
phases of construction. The lower edge of the silt fence should
be buried in a six (6) to twelve (12) inch deep trench. Periodic
maintenance of the fence will be necessary to confirm adequate
sedimentation control.
Stabilized construction entrances will be necessary to limit
sediment movement off -site. The construction entrance should
consist of a 100 foot long pad of two (2) to four (4) inch diameter
quarry spalls that is at least one (1) foot thick. The pad should
extend the entire width of the entrance and will need to be
maintained if heavy traffic occurs.
To control erosion on the site, especially on the steep slope, we
recommend covering all exposed soils that are steeper than 1H:1V
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 6
Drainage
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
with plastic sheeting. Mulching and /or seeding should be used for
exposed soils after earthwork is completed. Permanent landscaping
should be established immediately after completion of construction.
We should be engaged to review the erosion control plan and to
observe the installation of the control measures.
Extensive drainage will be necessary to develop this site. We
recommend that drainage be installed prior to any significant site
excavation or earthwork. The exact drainage location and depths
will depend on the building grades and conditions at the time of
the drainage installation. We should be engaged to review the
final plans to augment these recommendations if necessary.
We recommend that a subsurface drainage system be installed at the
base of the slope in the center of the site. At the present time,
surface springs outlet across the base of the slope at
approximately elevation 274'. We recommend that this water be
captured and directed off the site by a combination of horizontal
well points and a french drain with possible surface drainage
channels.
It may be possible to maintain a surface drainage system with the
subsurface drains using a detailed drainage and grading plan. The
buildings could be placed at a higher elevation with a low area
left for surface drainage. We should be engaged to work with you
in developing a grading plan if you anticipate this type of surface
drainage.
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 7
Horizontal Wells
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Horizontal wells consist of a near - horizontally drilled shaft.
Screening and tightline plastic pipe is installed inside the drill
rod; the drill rod is removed, leaving the bit and the drain pipe.
We recommend that horizontal wells be drilled into the base of the
slope and extended horizontally to the property boundary. The
location and number of the wells will depend on the amount of water
encountered at the time of installation. We anticipate that wells
would be installed on a 10 to 20 foot center to center grid,
however the well will vary depending on conditions at the time of
installation. The well heads should be captured and tightlined off
the site to a suitable outlet. We should be engaged to observe the
installation of the wells to provide immediate recommendations for
the location and depth necessary.
French Drains
We recommend that a french drain be installed east of the toe of
the slope in the center of the site. The french drain should be
installed only after the horizontal wells are in place and
tightlined off the site. The french drain should extend the entire
length of the slope so that the water is directed off the site.
The depth of the drain will depend on the final grading plan and
where seepage is encountered during installation. We anticipate
a minimum depth of around six (6) feet below the surface.
The drain should consist of a six (6) inch diameter, perforated,
rigid pipe that is bedded and backfilled with washed rock. It may
be necessary to line the trench with a geotextile fabric to avoid
future clogging from siltation. The depth of the french drain
should be determined at the time of construction.
•
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 8
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
After construction, we recommend that footing drains be placed at
the base of all footings or grade beams. The drains should be
tightlined to the storm system. Footing drains should consist of
four (4) inch diameter, rigid, perforated pipe that is bedded and
backfilled in at least eighteen (18) inches of pea gravel.
All roof drains should be tightlined away from the buildings
separately from the footing drains.
All paved areas should be curbed and graded to direct surface
runoff away from the slope and to a catch basin that is tightline
off the site.
No drains should be allowed to outlet on the slope face in the
center of the site.
Foundation Design Parameters
The proposed buildings on the lower portion of the site should be
placed on a raised grade well above the surface water elevation
noted during our study. The location of the buildings on the site
will effect our recommendations for design. We recommend that the
buildings on the lower portion of the site utilize a crawl space
and avoid deep excavations for basements.
We recommend that the proposed buildings be supported on pile
foundations. The piles should penetrate into the native bearing
soil noted below the surface organic soils. The piles should
consist of either auger cast piles or driven timber piles.
Auger cast piles twelve (12) inches in diameter and which penetrate
the underlying native bearing soil at least ten (10) feet will be
suitable for the support of vertical loads of 15 tons per pile.
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 9
Access Drive
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A minimum length of fifteen (15) feet should be maintained on all
piles. The length of the piles will depend on the soil conditions
at the pile locations and grading done on site prior to the pile
placement. The structural engineer should determine the pile
spacing and grade beam design.
Driven timber piles may also be used for support of the proposed
buildings. There is some potential for off site damage from the
driving process with this option. If you anticipate driving timber
piles, we recommend that you conduct a detailed property survey of
all surrounding structures before pile driving.
Timber piles should consist of new, good quality timbers that
conform to ASTM D25 -70 specifications. Driven timber piles may be
driven to support a load of 20 tons per pile.
We should be engaged to observe the installation of the piles to
confirm adequate penetration for the design loads.
It appears from the preliminary design plans you provided that an
access road is proposed from the north, off of South 160th Street.
The access road will cross the steep slope to access the upper
portion of the site. Another access road will serve the three
lower lots from Slade Way.
It appears from the preliminary plan that a cut and fill will be
required for the driveway which crosses the slope face. Cuts of
up to six (6) feet appear necessary for the roadway on the uphill
side with fills of up to four (4) feet or more on the downslope
side. We recommend that the entire road surface be placed on a
subgrade of undisturbed native bearing soil. Placing fill on the
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 10
Construction Monitoring
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
slope face will require extensive and detailed construction
techniques that can be expected to be difficult and expensive. The
cut faces should either be supported with a structural retaining
wall or graded at a 2H:1V slope or less and landscaped.
The proposed access road which enters the site off Slade Way
appears to be located in an area of surface water and organic
soils. We recommend that the organic soils be removed from within
the proposed road subgrade area and a clean granular fill placed
up to the subgrade elevation. It may be possible to use the on-
site sand as fill once the organic soils have been removed. We
recommend that construction access roads be constructed in the
proposed access road locations. Site drainage as discussed above
should improve construction conditions for the road.
We recommend that we be engaged to review the final grading
drainage plans to provide any additional recommendations that may
be necessary.
We recommend that we be engaged to observe the installation of all
drainage and erosion protection at the site to confirm that the
work is done in accordance with the design plans and our
recommendations. We should observe the construction of the access
roads, especially on the slope face, to confirm that the slope
stability is not adversely effected.
Installation of piles should be monitored by our office to confirm
adequate penetration for the design loads. If you anticipate
significant grading on the site, we recommend that we be engaged
to monitor the placement of any fill. These recommendations are
for engineering review and go beyond any testing agency involvement
irm rEr rff sim 'Ng PR
I3
TEST PITS (05115/0)
+ HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821 5080
KIRKLANO, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE
Job No.
905 -13G
LOCATIOt
Dole
05/29/90
APPENDIX B
T.P. 1
0
-15
Notes:
Soil Description Classification
0 - 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (PT)
1- 2.5' 51NQ; WITH TRACE SILT,
GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET, PROMINENT ORANGE MOT -
(SP)TLES, FINE TO MED.GRAINED.
2.5'- 12' SAND WITH TRACE SILT,
BLUE GRAY, DENSE, WET TO
SATURATED, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED. (SP)
MODERATE TO HEAVY CAVING
FROM 4'- 12'
MINOR SEEPAGE AT 11'
T.D. = 12.0'
T.P. 2
Soil Description & Classification
-15
Notes:
0 + "0 - 1' ORGANIC SAND DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET TO SATURATED . (PT)
;q•
4W1= 2.5'51ND; WITH MINOR SILT, CRAY,
MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET,
FAINT ORANGE MOTTLES.(SP)
`~`;"'•'•"•""••` 2.5' 7'SAND; WITH TRACE SILT,
� ;':'_ ". BLUE GRAY, DENSE, WET TO
SATURATED. (SP)
= 12'SAND; WITH SOME SILT, BLUE
GRAY, DENSE, WET. (SP)
.12= 13' SAND; WITH MINOR GRAVEL,
GRAY BROWN, DENSE, WET,
FAINT ORANGE MOTTLES. (SP)
T.D. = 13.0'
TEST PIT LOG
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
HILLCREST
Date 05/23/90
1 job Ne. 905 - 13G I Dwn. By HLA
Geo /Eng. 91')Z.
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
LETTER
DESCRIPTION
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
•
GRAVEL i
GRAVELLY
SOILS
: `' : } '
CLEAN %....: 441
•. ••
GW
Well - graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures,
little or no floes
GRAVELS yt
liRf
G P
Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures,
little or no lines
GRAVELS i
'
GM
Silty gravels or gravel - sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES ;j am 4..
' ,p /,
G C
Clayey gra or gravel-sand-clay mixtures
SAND i
SANDY
SOILS
••; ••••'
•
CLEAN •••:••••••
$ no
Weil- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or
fines
SANDS '? ti: i • -::;•
P
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
or no fines
i
SANDS
SM
Silty sands or sand•silt mixtures
WITH FINES
SC
Clayey sands or sand clay mixtures
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS & CLAYS
MI.
Inorganic silts I, very fins sands, rock flour, silty
or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight
plasticity
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity.
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays or lean clays
Liquid Limit Less Than 50 i
hill
i
Iiiilii
i 1 I
i i i
II i
ii
i i i
01
Organic silts & organic silty clays of low
plasticity
S 1 LTS i CLAYS
I
MH
inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sandy or silty soils, elastic silts
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 ,',',
, ,,,
,�,� ,
OH
Organic clays of medium to high lasticit
g y +� p y,
organic silts
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS -''r- ^:z ^A
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils •
SYM
SOL
DATUM
NOTE
2
Water Level
Dat• Recorded
Ts
Torvane Reading
Sample Interval
qu
Penetrometer Reading
Sample Interval
1
Water Observation Well
Tip Elevation
e M
DATUM
NOTE
I 2•'
O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
Sample Interval
Ring or Shelby Sampler
Sample Interval
P
Sampler Pushed
Sample Interval
Other Sample Type
Sample Interval
1
UNIFIED JILS CLASSIFICATCJN SYSTEM
TOPSOIL
Humus & duff layer
FILL
Uncontrolled, with highly variable constituents
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION Of
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
KEY CHART
APPENDIX C
HA- 1
Soil Descriptior( Classification
FIA,- 2
4 - Soil Description & Classification
"TOPSOIL;
0 "TOPSOIL; WITH
0
_
—
_
- 6 SILTY SAND
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, LOOSE,
MOIST.
6 "- 2'5.AM; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINNOR SILT, BROWN,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST,
FINE GRAINED. (SP)
2'- 5' ND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL &
0
—
—
—
—
_
0 - 8 SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, ORGANIC,
LOOSE, MOIST.
8 "- 5'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, FINE GRAINED. (SP)
SILT, GRAY BROWN, MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, FINE GRAINED.
(SP)
T.D. = 5.0'
•
S
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes •
Notes :
HA.- 3
Soil Description & Classification
HA, -4
Soil Description & Classification
0
—
0- 2.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
- 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
SATURATED. (PT)
3.5'- 5' ORGANIC SILTY SAND; BLACK
SATURATED. (PT)
2.5'- 5' ORGANIC SILTY SAND;
DARK BROWN TO BLACK, LOOSE,
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.
(SM -OL)
TO TAN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0'
•
Notes:.
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CRIII.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A OMSION Of
CASCADE TESTING LASORATORV, INC.
Date 05/23/90
J ob No. 905 - 13G
l 0ey HLA
I .
H.A.- 5
Sail Description !ossification
H.A.- 6
.is Description & Classification
0 - "''0
—
- 4" FF
4 "- 1'T SILTY SAND WITH
0
—
_
—
ii?".4!■ 414 4°1... 8 ,
4. ■
.0 - 3.5' P BLACK, VERY SOFT,
SATURATED. (PT)
3.5'- 4.5' SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, MOIST.
3'SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK GRAY - BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (SM -OL)
-
_
T.D. = 3.0'
DARK GRAY TO BLACK, LOOSE, SAT-
URATED, FINE GRAINED.(SM-OL)
4.5 - 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGAN.
ICS, TAN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
T.D. =5.0
Notes:
Notes:
H.A. - 7
Soil Description & Classification
H,A,- 8
Soil Description & Classification
0 ' ^_
--.'
�_"0
;
1
I
1
1
- 6 "PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
6 '= 1' 3 "SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS,
0- '.�'��0
—
_
—'I
- ÷ - 1 e
l
;�
11
I, �1
t ,
% '
- 6 "OFF
6'= 3.5'ORGANIC SANDY SILT; DARK
BLUE GRAY, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
1' 3'= 3' SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
i BROWN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
1 FINE GRAINED. (OL)
1 .
,
,
■ 3.5'- 4'SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
GRAY BROWN TO DARK BROWN,
SOFT, WET TO SATURATED, FINE
GRAINED. (ML -OL)
3'- 4'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGAN-
A
II
I�
DARK GRAY, SOFT, SATURATED.
(ML -OL)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
ICS, LIGHT BROWN TO TAN, SOFT
-5 -
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.(ML -01)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGANICS
-s
_
TAN, SOFT, SATURATED.(ML -OL)
LT. BROWN TO TAN, SOFT, SATURA-
TED. FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
T.D. = 5.0
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
,Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
A OMSION OF
MI CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
(G.o/En. 9C
KA- 9
Soil ascription b Classification
HA.- 10
Soil Description & Classification
0-
=0,
- 6 "DUFF
1' SANOYSILT; WITH ORGANICS &
D-7
,,: „0
.= -•
. .
- - .
- 2' PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
- 5'PEAT INTERLAYERED WITH SILTY
11111
-
MINOR SAND, TAN, MOIST TO WET.
1 2'SILTYSAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, BROWN TO BLACK,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET.
(SM -OL)
2 '- 5'SANDY SILT; TAN TO BROWN,
-
-'-
- _
'. -_
.•i: =:
, =
_
-
T
:_ :
SAND; BLUE GRAY, LOOSE, SAT-
URATED, FINE TO COARSE
GRAINED. (PT -SM)
SOFT TO STIFF, SATURATED,
VARIES FROM SANDY SILT TO
SILTY SAND WITH DEPTH, INTER-
LAYERED WITH ORGANICS(PT)
_S
(ML- SM -OL)
T.D. = 5.0
•
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
Notes:
H.A. - 11
Soil ascription & Classification
HA, -12
Soil ()ascription & Classification
G
• -
-
0 - 6 "DUFF
0
-%::_
0 - 6 "DUFF
"- 3'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
4 1
.
, ::::::::::::::.:4::::::::::::::.a........4:-.,:::,.......::141'.,
6 " - 5'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, RED
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, FINE GRAINED. (SP)
`"';
'' "`
''• ??
"'' "``
..
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN TO RED BROWN, LOOSE
TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, FINE
GRAINED. (SP)
3 ' - 5'SAND; TRACE TO MINOR SILT,
LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY, MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, COARSE GRAINED
(SP)
T.D. = 5.0
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A OMSION Of
CASCADE TESTING LASOMTORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
1 Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. ey HLA
Goo/ Eng. ��
Notes:
Soil Description & Classification
6 "DUFF
3'SAND; WITH MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN TO RED BROWN, LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
Notes:
Soil Description & Classification
Soil Description & Classification
Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
Date 05/23/90
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION Of
CASCADE TESTING LA$C*AT011V. INC.
1{A.- 1 Soil Description & Classification
.Notes:
0
OMR
HILLCREST
t
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC.
Project
HILLCREST
Driller
DFPLLNG UNLIMITED
Geo /Eng. R BLOM:MST
I
I
I
•
0
5
10
15
30
•
OMNI
MOM
25
r
Penetration
:o
0
i
3
14
10
12
lE
3
3
1
5
8
11
Ado
1
3
E
15
13
lE
17
0
Job No. 905 -13G
Hole 0 4" LD.
Soil Description & Classification
SAND; LIGHT BROWN, LOOSE, DRY, TRACE SILT, TRACE
ORGANICS (ROOT FRAGMENTS). (SP)
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. 0
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. (SP)
SAND GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. 09
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
asp BROWN, DENSE, WET, TRACE SAND. (ML)
Date 07/24/90
Boring No. 1 Own. By AEM
Drill Type SKL MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Fluid NONE
Notes
I El
MOD
07/24/90
totes:
TEST BORING LOG
Pane 1 2
I Project HILLCREST
Job No. 905-13G
r Boring
No. 1
Notes
yid•a
1 •Idw
Penetration
Soil Description & Classification
I
,9 /sMolg
y /sue 1
7 oW.s 1
I ..
—
-
-
35
14 281 28
56
1
SAND; BROWN, VERY DENSE, SATURATED. (SP)
6" HEAVE
-
■
■
■
T. D. =31.5'
—
1
1
Notes:
WATER TABLE AT 26.5' UPON _WITHDRAW. OF $AMPLER.— RTEZOr1EIFR_Uh4TA) 1 FD_ 15' OF
SLOTTED PIPE, MONUMENT PLACED.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
AOf
TEST BORING .
LOG
Mill
Project
HILLCREST
Job No. 905 -13G
Date 07/25/90
Boring No. 3
Dwn. By AEM
Driller j .(, UIITID
Drill Typo SKD MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Geo/Eng. P..EWETT
Hole 0 4' ID.
Fluid NONE
I IDAl•IU1 •IdWOS
y1a•a
Penetration.
OIniIS
Soil Description & Classification
Notes
.,9 /sMOl9
111/1
j
T
5 —
P
PEAT /ORGANIC SAND; GRAY
TO BLACK, COARSE GRAINED
GRAY, SATURATED, MEDIUM DENSE:
IN TIP. (SP)
COARSE GRAINED, INCLUDING
MEDIUM DENSE, MEDIUM TT'
(SP)
`
•
- 07/25/90
2
-
_
-
-
r
SAND, WET. (PT)
_SAND; WITH SOME SILT,
COARSE GRAINED, 8" WATER
SAND; GRAY, SATURATED,
SILT IN TIP. (SP)
SAND; AS ABOVE. (SP)
i
—
10
7
9
8
17
I
—
—
-
15
6
9
6
15
}tir
At
.'�.• r: =;.
= ''~
,:;
%'t:s. ;i
1
_
_
4
6
7
13
SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOTTLED,
I ,
I r ,
—
—
25
P
3
8
12
' ' � _:
FINE GRAINED, SATURATED.
NO RECOVERY
�.•�.5
30
5
9
14
23
T.O. = 26.5'
Notes:
CASCADE
A
CASCADE TESTING
GEOTECHNICAL
DIMON OF
LAOORATORY, INC.
TEST BORING LOG
D ^""
PROJECT
BORING
HILL CREST
DATE 05/24/90
Joe NO. 9005 -13G
NO.
Sample or Specimen No.
Tan No.
Weight In grams I
Tan plus wet soil
Tars plus dry soil
.
Water
3
Tare
Dry soil
W
s<
Water content
w
%
•
•
•
%
%
Sample or Specimen No.
Tan No.
awsr in 1RfJeM
Tara plus wet soil
Tars plus dry soil
`
Water
I W
w
.
Tare
Dry soil
w
Water content
w
•/.
•
%
%
%
%
ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample or Specimen No.
4
6
8
10
Tare No.
Weight In grams
WEIGHT BEFORE BURN
100
50
96
32
WEIGHT AFTER BURN
98
,
49
94
26
ORGANICS BY WEIGHT
2%
2%
2%
23%
I
% ORGANICS BY VOLUME
j w
7 %
7 %
8 X
53 •h
K
•h
Remart
w• /. a (tare plus wet soli) • (tare plus dry soil)
100 s x 100
s
x
(tars plus dry soil) • (tare)
s
Technician
Computed
by.
Checked by, • may '
T
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC
TEST,NG a. 'NSPCC TION / ENGINEERS i GEOLOG■STS
.as'. ias••• •i.ACC
..MtiL *NO. WA K'+ 11403.1
.2004 029.9000
ORGANIC CONTENT • WATER CONTENT
se aTTLc
(veluTT
uao.• sa5•4170o
1a0SI ast••os,T
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
SO, 16041
all
S rF , E ,
TEST PITS (05 /15/90)
HANG AUGERS (05/23/90)
PrIP.- I CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
U91914 ( 116111 %ACI U061fl7i Sa0111
KiN1.1 AND. WASIIMGIUN 98034 IM. 1106)813 7703
3o► No'
905.136 I SCALE I 1• * 50'
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Di• Davaa. $v ic em-
09/03/90 , ILA y'� �—
% TEST BCRNGS (07/24/90 & 07/25/90)
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
2-1 : j:1 1 : . i 'r.T • :
Y•r ,
R-2: .R1t-7..2 _t I . ......IR-1-7.21.
, ...
[11 i r rt Il I . ..-1
• Lan i L r.2] - : ; !
1
2 R1-
.1 . c, 111 if-•;''
1- .-1 ;•••'t ....i .: 2
1
7 ,.7;1• - i. ' i ; I .. ..I R-1--1 . “i■
..___,....i .i..._ ‘4 tit I
..,
. :...s .; . . . r 177 7 7 - 1
,2! ■ . R-1-7.2 . t. ; ,R-7-7.21 R.3
,yit • ; ; ;
• ! ! 1 , 1 i • -- I
; , ,
• , i
, .....r .... 1 .; . . _ .. "."t....,! -IL-J-1-1 1 L.
. V 1 ! •• •
----1 . • ,--- -•-f--1- --- •••
1 .
. ' 2.- . .I : ■ 'R-1-7.2 : : i . '..1-1-7.2
^I
. W . I
I "AHt KkRFAH'
1 ' _
SOW
Mia
R■I
. 11
,
••6
•
qw414
R-1
31:1110E)
R-1-
7.2
r ' 1
1.
11
'7 l
1
R-1-9.6;
11
.0 .
• :Vitt. ST
R-1-7.2 i
R-1-12■0
R-
-1-
12.0
-1-
4 R-4
LL
R-3
s
7:7
PO 0 -1-7.2
'
. • , , ,1
R-1- [
7.2
I. ..._ ;11,7
R.1.
i 'I!
, r,
1 ! I ! ( 1 72:::: , •
'R " . 2 r 11- . 12.0 " T • 2 " ° .• 1\
1
t .. •
! i--
1
. . .. .
.1` 1 '• 1).
1
R••*;- • 4 •
; ; ' 12.J • •
I I
1 -14..... P 0 , ' ir^;., - R-1-'7.2. , • c‘ , ; • .i :
, • ... .. . t ,
... . ,-,i, , , .‘- ; :
,:, . • ,
• •• t . • 1 : "; "; `J'...14-1-12'.0':.i •
,- - .-^ ••- ' ".•• ' ." - 7 % Xtr.1434:4•7Y11;1••r -•'••,. •• r f i,
- - .'..a. 1-7 It...rINIMI., rir
t C•1 ,.■ t./ 1. ,?"----,'::-.•::.-:,
; 1
•,11‘. ri R-1-9.67, ,.',.., :1 1
'.I i
,,„..;m•.,.•
■ •
.; ./
I • 2
1 i it
; • 2 2
.2; t
ei•2:1#2- 24,t2....rt" ,..,.. .. ./
1 I I II:
1 R r:' 1
11
4,.....
- a ,,
If
---- .- • il . '. t 4 l ab
1 • , .,
, „
\\
A.I.A. ARCHITECT ._.1 .
I ;
: 1
LEROY C. LOWE . i
( 1
4
\ 1.0
' -.‘,- --..74. , :- ,,, ,
. ,
,,,,„, ,,'Gv.4 •IT . , I • • • 3 ••••914 .
- •,,,,••• - '''' r•l . . , i l I I
: ' 1 ■ I . 7
:.... Ili., i_... I..__.. !
1 11.1111) ST . ,
I ,
.. 4.7.
1
HILLOZ67
RMINI
IA
.•
TUKWII. A INTER HANGr.
17 /ND
1 I. .1 ; i /I
!. 1
R-1-9.6
J
SOUTHCENTER
SHOPPING CENTER
1 1
1
1 , ; • •••••1Nr•r ,, .0
r
•
C-2
CP
CP
CM
•• •
' \
1.1.31 37
seiii 0
If CM
• it.xot VA
........-
I I
1 , (,ro , nnw ,
c-.
WI AIX! :In
, 1 I
- -2
I vy% WI
I I
i
(TORT DINT
PARK
R-A
R-1-
20.0
r VANS ACK
CM
11
r - -
11
r
T PA
MAR En
r 11 1 !
1
‘ I CFA
r -
t C M
C-2
Er
r]
ISA
VICINITY MAP
•T
L , 1
FnurE'
SCALE i : ROO LEROY C. LOWE
&L A. ARCHITECT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE:
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
PHIL FRASER SENIOR ENGINEER
APRIL 5 1991
HILLCREST
UTILITIES
DEAR MR. FRASER :
ENCLOSED ARE LETTERS OF UTILITY
AVAILABILITY FROM :
VERY TRULY YOURS
LEROY C. LOWE A.I.A
ARCHITECT
VAL VUE SEWER DIST.
WATER DISTRICT #75
WATER FLOW CHART
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
.O. .0. 1 i•1 ••aTTI.•, WAIINtNOTON ••111
This certificate provides the
Doper t of Health and
Build ; S Land Development
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals.
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY
to not write In thug bo
• F171
number
APPLICANT'S NAM
PROPOSED USE Re i 1, s i a7 TItLL
SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION
Agency Name
Title
❑ Building Permit ❑ Preliainary Plat or PUD
❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Resone or other
LOCATION 16 2 421 4 S LAbE WRY
(Attach map i legal description if necessary)
+ ots c
name
Please return to:
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT
450 Admtnnpal.on Budding
Seattle, Washington 15104
2Oi 344 7100
1. a. ® Sewer service wi l be provided by side sewer connection only to
an existing 8 sire sewer DN feet from the site
and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use.
OR
b. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of:
❑ (1) feet of sewer trunk or latteral to reach the site;
and /or
= -- ❑ (2) the construction of a collection system on the site:
and /or
❑ (3) other (describe)
2. (Must be completed if l.b above Is checked)
a• ® The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer
comprehensive plan.
OR '
b. The sewer system improvement will require • sewer comprehensive
plan amendment.
3. a.ig The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district,
or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension
of service outside the district or city.
OR
b. Annexation or ARS approval will be necessary to provide service.
4. Service is subject to the followings
a. Connection charge:
b. Easement(s):
c. Other:
I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This
certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature.
•
T J MNI E 7..!t 14
Signatory Name
f ` t+ *1 9/
gnature Date
•
e
SEWER DISTRICT
PO bOr eb06)
SIMILE WA 98
HILL CQET
LtOAL Ot.CA!AT10N
That portioned the Northwest 1 of the Northwest i of Section 16.
Township 17 Borth, Songs 4 Bost. ■.M., 1. Ring C..mty. N•k/sgten.
described •• fellows,
Commencing •t the West $ corner of said victim; (hones .long the
gr..t.rly line of •sld ..orlon. North 0•14'1)• Vogt 1600 feet; thence
B eath 01.71'31• Bost 044 feet! thence Perth 6•14'1) Vest 140 feet.
to the Tree hint of Mginning► thence North H•)1')1• Oast ))4 lest)
thence North 0 greet 354.07 feet; thence South 00'71')1' Beet
146 feet; thence North 1.14'1)' Nest 107.06 feet to the Southwesterly
line •f south 140th etr..t Southwest, thence along said ee.thwe .t.rly
Ilse. South 70•13'05• Bast 117.41 test, thane. South 70.01'40 Bost
61.46 feet to a point which Mare North 0•14'13• Neat from the Tree
Point of es4lnnl.g► thence Met% 111•11'17 Seat 440.10 1.•t to the Taw
Pols% of Mg lasing!
1A1.60 IN AS portions of lets 77. 20 and 20, Block ), McMleke. Nights,
Divl.lce Number 1, .cc•rd/ng to the velecorded Slat thereof);
TOOrr n. PITO that portion of vsested South 160th Street sdloli1M
which etteeh.d by operation of law;
t eTSPT that ;million thereof conveyed to the City of Tukwila for Slade
Say, by deed recorded ender tecor4lny Member 0)441001
AND , cr►T that portion thereof cond..ned in United 0101•. District
Court, nesters District •f Washington, Norther. Otelete., Clel1 Cass
P u.bsr 4 6161
AMO Bra m? that portion thereof described es fellow's
Commencing •t the Oast $ corner of said Section 210 Thence Borth 1.14'13
greet •long the 6.01 Ilee of sold section 10114.67 fs.t; thence South
51 bast 37•.10 fast to the True Point of S.glnnln6, thence Swab
111.71')1' Bost 146 fast► thence Borth 0.14'17' Bost 163.01 feet to the
S outh line of South 1611th etre.to thence earth 7043'15' West along
said South line 145.34 0..t to • point which Is North 1•14'13' Net tree
the True Point of S.ylnnlngl thence Moth 0.14 Bost 300 feet to the
Trw. Point of Seglnnln0l
AND PACSPT that portico thereof described .e follower
Commencing •t the nest $ corner •f said Section 16► thence Borth 6
Vest along the West section line 11411 /sett thence South 10.11'31 Boat
S70 feet; thence North 0.11'1) Post 301.34 feet to the Tree hint of
M lnning► thanes continuing North 0•14'13' east 110 feet to the South-
erly margin of South 160th street; thence South 70.00'05' 1..t along
Said ergin 01.4) feet; thence South 76.17'40' Boat 71.14 fest to the
l nt.t.setlon of ineld margin with the Wsotorly margin of Slade Nay► thence
S outh 13•)1'37' meat along sold grsot.rly ..qln 146.76 feet; themes Borth
1 wet 116.10 feet to the True hint of Seglnel15•
Pa GYpl° •3972
e5 WA 4'8 9
, ic 154- 4¢Z3
LEROY. C. LOWE
A.I.A. ArtCHITECT
It
•
Puget Western, Inc.-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
VVSD
LID 26
ESMT
THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
U') BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION AND
U7 RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION,
NORTH 0 ° 14'13" WEST 1600 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 ° 21'31" EAST
874 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF
•,7 LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 89 ° 21'31" WEST
210 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 ° 14'13" WEST 140 FEET; THENCE
in NORTH 89 ° 21'31" WEST 334. FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 ° 14'13" WEST
354.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 ° 21'31" EAST 140 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 0 ° 14'13" WEST 153.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE
OF SOUTH 160TH STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH-
WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 70 ° 55'05 ".EAST 142.41 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 76 ° 07'40" EAST 145.48 FEET;' THENCE SOUTH 46 °22'50" EAST
178.14 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 0 °14'13" WEST FROM
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;.. THENCE SOUTH 0 ° 14'13" EAST
448.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT..OF BEGINNING; (ALSO KNOWN AS
LOTS 25,26,27 AND PORTION OF LOTS 28 AND 29 IN BLOCK 2 OF
McMICKEN HEIGHTS, DIVISION.NO. 1, AN UNRECORDED PLAT);
SITUATE IN THE TOWN OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF
WASHINGTON.
7504180565
The south 10 feet of:
EASEMENT
This Indenture made this -"— day of /(1 ' ), 1974, between PUGET WESTERN,
INC., a Washington corporation, erein called "Grantor' an the VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT,
King County, Washington, a municipal corporation, herein called "Grantee'.';
loo
205
WITNESSETH:
That in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged, and the performance by Grantee of the covenants
hereinafter set forth, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, without warranty of any kind,
a right of way not exceeding 10 feet in width for the construction, maintenance,
replacement and operation of the following described facility:
A sanitary sewer line not exceeding 8 inches inside diameter, within and across
the following described land situated in the County of King, State of Washington, to -wit:
* Lot 27 Block 2
McMicken Heights Division #1, unrecorded; less portion northerly of line beginning
301.24 feet north from the southwest corner; thence east to the east line; less
street;
ALSO, the south 10 feet of the east 135 feet of:
* Lots 28 -29 Block 2
McMicken Heights Division #1, unrecorded; less beginning at northwest corner of
Lot 29; thence south 200 feet; thence east 140 feet; thence north to the northerly
line of Lot 28; thence northwesterly to beginning; less the east 70 feet; Except
south 301.24 feet of Lot 28;
* ALSO, the west 10 feet south of Slade Way of: .
Lot 26 Block 2 McMicken Heights Division #1, unrecorded; less street. •
This easement is granted on the following terms and conditions:
1. Grantee agrees that said sewer main will be buried at least five (5) feet
beneath the natural surface of the ground at all points.
2. Grantee agrees to notify Grantor 48 hours prior to beginning of construction
by calling 454 -6363, extension 630, Bellevue, Washington.
3. Said easement shall include the right of ingress and egress to, upon and
over and across said land to construct, maintain, operate, repair and replace said
sewer line and all connections and appurtenances thereto, and also grants to Grantee
the use of such additional area immediately adjacent to the above easement as may be
necessary for the construction of said sewer, such additional area to be held to a
minimum necessary for that purpose. The grant for use of additional area shall
terminate upon completion and testing of said construction, or no later than December
31, 1974.
4. Grantee agrees to save and hold Grantor harmless from all loss or damage
which may be due to the exercise by Grantee of the right herein granted, and from all
claims for such damage by whomsoever made, and to indemnify Grantor for all such loss,
damage or claims.
5. Grantor shall not be liable for any loss or damages to Grantee's facilities
resulting from Grantor's use of the lands encumbered by this easement unless such
loss or damage is due to negligent act or omission of Grantor. Grantor agrees to
use reasonable care.
6. Grantor reserves the right to develop
easement for any purpose not inconsistent with
reserves the right to construct buildings over
of Grantee, which consent Grantee agrees shall
due regard t: Grantee's facilities.
and use the lands encumbered by this
the rights granted herein. Grantor
said easement upon securing the consent
not be unreasonably withheld, having
* SAID LOTS BEING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
(SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION).
•
7. Grantor reserve. .he right to gran -.ess right. co others along or across
lands encumbered by this easement and to ,,,, ;ant any other right which is not
inconsistent with the rights granted herein to Grantee.
8. Should the easement area be subsequently improved by Grantor or its assigns,
Grantee agrees that it shall, at its sole cost and expense, replace or restore to its
improved condition any such improvements which are damaged or destroyed as a result
of Grantee's exercise of its rights of maintenance, repair or replacement.
9. Grantee agrees that in consideration to Grantor for said easement, Grantor
shall be entitled to make connections to the sewer line at a future date at no cost
to Grantor, its successors and assigns.
in
10. No assignment of the privileges and benefits accruing to the Grantee hereunder,
.. by operation of law or otherwise, shall be valid without the prior written consent of
Grantor.
j 11. The rights and obligations of the parties shall inure to the benefit of and
be binding upon their respective successors and assigns.
12. The rights hereby granted shall cease and determine whenever Grantee shall
have permanently abandoned the use of its facilities accommodated by this easement.
VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
PUGET WESTERN, INC.
On this the President of PUGET WESTERN, INC., the
E. HALL, to me day of own �, - 1974, before me, the undersigned, personally
.._appeared m to a
corporation that executed the 'foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument
to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and •
purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he is authorized to execute the
sad»insxrument.
4..s B.
o0� :; y 's� a iny hand and official seal hereto affixed
te , •
;'••? e... �? , a
the day and year
Notary 1
1 c in
- •
residing at
first
above
the State of Was gton,
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this 'J•N, day of WOV nBER.._ , 1974, before me the undersigned,
personally appeared ; - M(a.r - \r ►4 Sl— �---
to me known to be the I RNAGF�' arm — , of VAL -VUE SEWER
DISTRICT, the municipal corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he
is authorized to execute the said instrument.
WITNESS NY HAND and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
`` •• p
, 0117
, .). y : Publi n and for the tate of Washington,
Qr 4 +.. i�s'laiag at O 4 MO(0
�o v 1
ti
.......• .Y,,•. '. Y9 h •' e
7 •...... • S • j1.• 2 -
•WE ecitysullta TUKWI�A L.(.D. 26
n►.rrrrl
YOBJI!lbA.
xw.a:asns:rwy.w:::- ��v�cea..• —_ ._- ,,,,,
tn. w IMY
01../ Y••.
In-
AS BUILT ILL I
J{
r lJt
.t' 1
77.11111•01 �� ... a vZ g:.�ne�
.0
1111111111111.. LL::�i;�: = 11111■ ®�.�1i ®®
... :.:.' :•: � ,
.L yt1I � ® .�/ q1111 �• 111111,11111
......... .
*NAME FA
.. .......... 111111111111111111111 1111111111111bal
u
This certificate pr des the
Department of Healt =and
Building i Land Development
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals.
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY
Do not wine in this box
number
name
❑ Building Permit
❑ Short Subdivision
APPLICANT'S NAME/ LETey c, Lo u,E
PROPOSED USE Sr.kic r,4.�tIGr
LOCAT ION,/ 5. /fin ' s ,, , • v,. s ,
(Attach map s legal description if necessary)
1 1 1 1 1 1 A 0 N N 1. 1 1 1
WATER PURVEYOR INFORMAT1ON
1 . a.
OR
b
OR
b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system ofi
2. e. 0 The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan.
OR
b. The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment.
(l ater will be provided by service connection only to an existing
water main 2.0 feet from the site.
1(1)
()
❑ (3)
3 o o feet of water main to reach the site: and /or
the construction of a distribution system on the situ and /or
other (describe)
3. a. ( -��The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been
L'� granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the district
or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor.
OR
b. 0 Annexation or BRE approval will be necessary to provide service.
4. a. Water iep will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at
�� N no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant ..g0 t feet from the
building /pzoperAy (or as marked on the attached map):
Rate of Flow
❑ less than 500 gpm
❑ 500 to 999 gpm
W1000 gpm or mire
❑ flow test of gpm
❑ calculation of gpm
❑ water system is not capable of
COMMENTS,CONDITIONS
7 FT.S OR La_TJ..
F 278 Title
(approx.
❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD
❑ Rezone or other
1 3 • fe1r2,3
(S - L•T sffez.T PC/4
gpm)
4.4471E.e_ .rys :c" " 3 100P(1
Please ret tos
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT •
Parks, Planning & Resources Dept.
3600 - 136th PLACE Southeast
Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400
(206) 296 -6600
MAY 1 G 1330
y „
size
Duration
❑ less than 1 hour
❑ 1 hour to 2 hours
FOR 9-2 - hours or more
❑ other
(Commercial Building Permits require flow
test or calculation)
providing fire flow.
1 hereby certify that the above water purt4yor information is true. This
certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature.
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1 75 lay F. Gibsonq
Agency Name. Signatory Ra:ne
Supervisor of Engineering & Administration
v gnal•ure Date
%o r#MA'A)1.4r/A; A ✓t.C.o ci7 of •
Vv,-,1 ER r LOW t CST SvMtvt <Y SHEET
I Hydrant
No.
1
2
3
Outlet 1.D. Pitot Press.
inches psi
Z O
,7,5
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Flow
gpm
'SS to
Residual
psi
°12
Date: 1— 23- c 1 Time: I o; QO AhCont . No.
Cont. Name: Lf. Y L • L. 0. is,.% • � •
Address: ' r 1 h t ' - k ED0i K 701443tLA
Static Press: 1
psil Flow @ 20 psi 2'i 4.3 gpm
Scale A
Scale B
Scale C
0
100 200 300
200 400 600
400 800 1200
400
800
1600
500
1000
2000
600 700
1200 1400
2400 2800
Water Flow gpm
LSOO 800
I 600
200
900
1800
3600 The Viking
Hastings,
Lilho in U.S.A.
1000
2000
Corporation 4000
Michigan
Form No. 3016
= .STW IP 2 N OF OLI[TP
1!,00 -J -1901
Q.
.5FFQ`?F YO'
E.
:i- pa
r Section
p
L0 E SM
IP 3'NOF [
p . 1
to a
S 0
O O
N
0
O
N
11119r
T -
tiF
. J.
:
HAVE
IIiISO!:A'NNC .r........ 7
=F
•
.1•=ilir;n. .... i;Ci;��
SL't:E: ..:!.J HAVE -
INr;..;;,IA.?
WASHINI;,TOI; NA ",
Pubiic
Date. AUG 3 0 199l
./ i a ccs •1ot
CA-c.L 1a - Zit
2 • �
om• f ',,
em AN
Step
tT
0
22
2223
s
�s y
1
•
t0• SEWER EASEMENT •0,-
27
• vr
O W IOW d rem
.. IIILLCR ET LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ey • \ \ woo s.. .... u.. rumsoa f r Us lrea.... ► r Samosas 3..
` • ``_ ar oros...somas Some. olt
. .a. S.. u Yf ,.
. f•.iaf Y .i.
. .stams.
o.
o . \
\
S \ O....•1 tt ate wt y a of gag..Yete01 Owego elm. .lm aWoe \ Y.•r I.0 of w1. •�. •.0`.1 . 1Ye ttoo.. / \ • `. \\ art.. sews Mon u. !met. samosa w ...•.1 oast ••u:_t.
Y. 0 . 11. w.t
.1., f &web .e•l. ra Ono PO. of asosossoss yams.
\ see 1 «. tar . e
. Peel a • ••.1• soot .01.4. t« CO 4. owls& Solt
• \ f .f ap •S SV.l •t..: l.•et O.r. 1. • . Mot
Ae.flto es 111.41 toot t.. 1 Y1ar Sort.. 1.•I.....t
two the. Tome
\ .t ow•em:w1 Show. 00Y 11 009 s&.4. foot Wm
r 01se N 4091...091
rat
r
r•
n [ /
/
.2.
1 OAR
\ i
__ \104000
of
wolfs -5
SLIM fro. s& f.rllow .2 low. I1. 09 ..f F. .IM 1. a.00.r 0.400.
Sam... .em0. 1. t...e.t.s so t.a vows.. pt. la0..41,
learn.. 71 . too. 1411w et owls& rap 14.51 Ss . 5 &.. 2
....ter w + •.I1arw1
s way, 1 Felt t0.0f wee. 10 1e. as. of f.1n1. few altY
lOy. w Am. nom. b ember a0r•Iw ..Yee
0944 0x7.T t 1 0r(l0 1071.1 o..rwtb •. 011..teas& 0.tet.t
soot. rtw ...Wet N 1.t1a.09ar. 41ar. lo4.toa Oa41 Oh.
M MOT 42.04 .19.5 t.te■.f •■.010f r Nllwt
.sow loo et the feet f oww N ..1. 0r11r /1t flow. a..1ta 1
▪ •Is& ta. 44.11 Woe N oat. ..•tsar 3.14.11 foots (aoew 0.Y
at•f1•ll 0.a 1)0.09 loo Is W Tear fosse N 9.et•40l ta..10 -
09 0.s 144 14.lt ..war oosab . 0.11 1 13.4. foss !mum
0.1• l*Y of •••• .1.11 Moots Yds. MY 11 soot .M.►
ars• Swab 144 944.14 far M • Peron 504.0 I• aW 1 Dot Ono
lot roe 0.se N 1.1n.4.t, faro 0a.. el.s tt tan Y ow
Toe. Pesos of 1lo4t41w.
..s casimo ohms .onto. Wooed Mamas& as fo11w. •
lo.etw•w .a ohm owl ► .•.row of ..1b art tar 1St charm a•...
0.s .1500 tot swot .war t10 •144 foss a.m. r.a 41 M
)le foots tame. ..r.4 .•.s•• /• Ma 114.14 Soot a. 110 for Pease t.
• 014•.11 Cos0..r....ef arap . • 9. • .) . Dot 190 far to ale .00.
eel, .•n•s of mar. 14.{1 Ono. (loot. 0014 n Yet 01500
010 0091. 41.41 Iwo (100. smogs 1\•11 lose 11.3( foot to tap
Iseto..n4ar of ...a Yn.a asap lot mimosa of 1101 feel soros
O 01. 1•n •11. Me slow rs4 0..01! MO "SAO foss Weft ...•11
811 moss 110.10 fart Y W 11r Puss of 01Iar4..
2541.• WY loa arse mo+1a
1115 144 0 0 . 1/4.1114.26. 7.1ia14. fR
100, roll 4,.0.1 swoon 1.0 ..411..[
MOO • 4, 0300 l .•4107 OL40111
• ri -r =-..= =S
LEGEND
O• soma JOEY COWER
• CATUI USN [�}
O SS W11* LE ( -'OEG000US
Cui
- 4tRT a..11
• ROM SET Ls ISSH
• - 5 rOUNO
5
Yu
tls
> Y-
im
V1 Ege
i PI
a a _°
V;
o 1
O
tsu
It I
J� s
aY
I
sf
a i
r •
te = a •
14 :
U }XLi
w
1C
E 111-j
c.
a ha
******* * * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** * *C -4 * * * * * *4' * * * *' * * * * * * * * * ** .4* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * **
537920- 0005 -03
SCHMID ALFRED
1525 TAYLOR AVE N 0101
SEATTLE WA
537920 - 0070 -03
ERICKSON ELDON 0 ♦JULIE C
C0480
98109
C0480
98109
98109
98109
443606
98188
98188
0775
98188
0775
98188
849999
98188
COMMENTS
537920- 0005 -03
SCHMID ALFRED
1525 TAYLOR AVE N x101
SEATTLE WA
537920 - 0005-03
SCHMID ALFRED
1525 TAYLOR AVE N 4101
SEATTLE WA
537920-0006-02
SCHMID ALFRED
1525 TAYLOR AVE N
SEATTLE WA
537920 - 0006-02
SCHMID ALFRED
1525 TAYLOR AVE N
SEATTLE WA
537920- 0060 -05
BILDEN WESLEY
16024 51ST S
TUKWILA WA
537920 - 0061 -04
LAWRENCE THOMAS E
16010 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
537920- 0062 -03
AVERY W L
16014 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
537920 - 0062 -03
AVERY W L
16014 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
537920- 0065 -00
SNOW DAVID M
16030 51ST AVE SOUTH
TUKWILA WA
C0480
98109
C0480
98109
98109
98109
443606
98188
98188
0775
98188
0775
98188
849999
98188
537920 - 0070 -03
889999 ERICKSON ELDON D+JULIE C 889999
1tAI_A G1PT • \f P
537920•0071•02
SOWINSKI HELEN C +ST V /T/ 009999
16050 51ST AVE SO
TUKWILA WA 98188
537920•0072•01
KNIGHT ALICE D
16044 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
537920-0075 -08
LAFOND RAYMOND
16202 51ST S
SEATTLE WA
j37920•0076 •07
THAIKLAR CHRISTOPHER K+
LAKSANA Y
16210 51ST AVE SO
TUKWILA WA
137920•0080 •01
IVERSON 0 EUGENE
4441 S 188TH
SEATTLE WA
►37920•0081 •00
KAUFMAN LINDA M
10040 37TH SW
SEATTLE WA`
681840•0010 •09
MCLESTER R
5118 S 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
681840- 0020 -07
SARGENT MARGARET G
PO SOX 924
SEAHURST WA
.,81640•0030 •05
HAGEN MARVIN L
5134 5 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
81840•0040 •03
HERBEL JAMES 0
16243 52ND AVE S
TUKWILA WA
"81840- 0050 -00
SCHWARZMANN JOHN E
16251 52ND AVE S
cc • TTI c u•
98188
C0781
98188
059999
98188
98188
702284
98146
0175
98188
859999
98062
98188
119999
98188
CO579
00100
537920 -0071- r'.
SOWINSKI HL EN C +ST V /T /D 009999
16050 51ST AVE SO
TUKWILA WA 98188
537920-0072 •01
KNIGHT ALICE 0
16044 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
• 537920- 0075-08
LAFOND RAYMOND
16202 51ST S
SEATTLE WA
537920•0076 •07
THAIKLAR CHRISTOPHER K+
LAKSANA Y
' 16210 51ST AVE SO
TUKWILA WA
537920 •0080 •01
IVERSON 0 EUGENE
4441 S 188TH
SEATTLE WA
537920 •0081 •00
KAUFMAN LINDA M
10040 37TH SW
SEATTLE WA
681840 - 0010 -09
MCLESTER R
5118 S 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
681840•0020 •07
SARGENT MARGARET G
PO BOX 924
SEAHURST WA
681840•0030 •05
HAGEN MARVIN L
5134 5 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
681840 •0040 •03
HERBEL JAMES 0
16243 52N0 AVE S
TUKWILA WA
681840•0050 •00
SCHWARZMANN JOHN E
16251 52N0 AVE 5
98188
C0781
98188
059999
98188
98188
702284
98146
0175
98188
859999
98062
98188
119999
98188
CO579
001 00
661840•0060•08
REARICK III WILLIAM D +L►tA079999
16244 52N0 AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98188
681840•0070.06
PHELAN HERBERT.W
16250 52ND AVE S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0020 -01
LEE SEUNG +SU JA
16371 53R0 PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0030 •09
BRYANT KEITH J +CHRISTY A
16405 53RD PL S
TUKWILA WA
779640- 0040 •07
SISSON DIANE R
16415 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0200 •03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0200 •03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT C
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0010•03
ONORATI ERNEST C
5102 S 163RD PL
98188
779640- 0010 -03
STEWARD RONNIE L +BRENDA A 889999
16351 53RD PL SOUTH
TUKWILA WA 98188
910035
98188
980824
98188
969999
98188
032633
98188
032633
98188
779640•0210 -01
KENT RONALD R E TAMARA I 002726
16372 53RD PL S
TUKWILA WA 98188
779640•0220 •09
SACCO ROBERT G +DIANA L 999999
16350 53RD PL S
TUKWILA WA 98188
681840-0060
REARICK II - WILLIAM D +LORRA079999
16244 52ND AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98188
681840- 0070 -06
PHELAN HERBERT W
16250 52ND AVE S
SEATTLE WA
98188
779640- 0010 -03
STEWARD RONNIE L +BRENDA A 889999
16351 53R0 PL SOUTH
TUKWILA WA 98188
779640- 0020 -01
LEE SEUNG +SU JA
16371 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0030 -09
BRYANT KEITH J +CHRISTY A
16405 53RD PL S
TUKWILA WA
779640-0040 -07
SISSON DIANE R
16415 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640•0220 -09'
SACCO ROBERT G +DIANA L
16350 53RD PL S
TUKWILA WA
870050•0010 •03
ONORATI ERNEST C
5102 S 163RD PL
910035
98188
980824
98188
969999
98188
779640•0200 -03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT E 032633
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA 98188
779640•0200 •03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT E 032633
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA 98188
779640•0210 •01
KENT RONALD R E TAMARA I 002726
16372 53R0 PL S
TUKWILA WA 98188
999999
98188
870050 - 0020 -01
WATANABE S
5104 SOUTH 163RD PLACE
SEATTLE WA
( 870050- 0030 -09
MUMMERT JAMES E +VIRGINIA R 609999
5106 SO 163R0 PLACE
TUKWILA WA 98188
870050-0040 -07
NIELSEN RAYMOND C094
5103'S 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA 98188
870050 - 0050 -04
JOHNSON CALVIN M
5110 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0060 -02
GOE RICHARD A
5112 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0070 -00
WELSH BARBARA E
5113 S 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0080 -08
AMUNDSON ROBERT T
5111 S 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0090-06
YANKEE DAVID E
5109 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0100 -04
MYERS D R
5107 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0110-02
CRAIN ROBERT
5105 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0120 -00
HOLL CARL E
5103 S 163R0 PL
0775
98188
98188
C0480
98188
3N0757
98188
0577
98188
C0777
98188
C0779
98188
98188
870050-0020-c,
WATANABE S `
5104 SOUTH 163RD PLACE
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0040 -07
NIELSEN RAYMOND
5108 5 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0050 -04
JOHNSON CALVIN M
5110 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0060 -02
GOE RICHARD A
5112 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0070-00
WELSH BARBARA E
5113 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0080 -08
AMUNDSON ROBERT T
5111 5 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0090-06
YANKEE DAVID E
5109 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0100 -04
MYERS 0 R
5107 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0110 -02
CRAIN ROBERT
5105 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0120 -00
HOLL CARL E
5103 S 163R0 PL
0775
98188
870050 - 0030 -09
MUMMERT JAMES E +VIRGINIA R 6D9999
5106 SO 163RD PLACE
TUKWILA WA 98188
C094
98188
98188
C0480
98188
3N0757
98188
0577
98188
C0777
98188
C0779
98188
98188
870050 - 0120-00
HOLL CARL E
5103 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0130 -08
CROWLEY WILLIAM J
5101 S 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA
98188
98188
262304- 9138-05
PUGET WESTERN INC ON0897
19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 0310
BOTHELL WA 98011
11
870050- 0120 -00
HOLL CARL E
5103 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0130 -08
CROWLEY WILLIAM J
5101 S 163R0 PL
SEATTLE WA
98188
98188
262304 - 9138 -05
PUGET WESTERN INC ON0897
19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY ;:310
BOTHELL WA 98011
1 1 710. .11 OD
1 ..
•
•
S SPO. PL.
r rs -lri - -
..=r ,sus'. 4,,
i.
n :
1
• r.. I r .
•
r 9 .0 1 L = �, .N
-- --�[ ,
...
r-- .• •
i t �. . !a. t/
•
•
•
10
..� . .� a - ••ice•- I>Ir
••••• .•1••
1
1
,•
i
•••? 1 •a
PO
ails ft
•
••I
SW 23.23.4
*GP u a•• •
ti
Y -.1 Y
1
W
Q •
M •
III
1 0•
•
t . 0 ' ✓ j1 • •
�I 7• ! Q ur . .•••••,d,•• •••• r . r f
• • ''. • ,.. i • h
•. 1 � � I p t • r J.
t�T`/.O. 1,0
r. - 1 •.• - ... ••. 1 f .t' i LIT * .•.•S A.. • i •
2 , : : Tu.SP 81.20.33 — e107020714 ,
14
• .•*4.
4,.
•••
w .
1
sou. i • 3
.• 4”
1. 1�•. g i
•' i•
e••••• r.• •■• ..•,�
1• r
.aa..r
•
•.z••h
"
22
T.. at, 1.
aid S f1. .
1MA7•
1 •6 IND*
• �..
f1,,.
LEROY C. LOWE
*.L A. ARCHITECT
HILL CQEcfT
- .7SQiy�_T.elC aim
,va Sca �.c
i V
' N -
A'oo` 72[/S S
,N i , 24" o, C?
1 ____,;,_ L-4 SL.4.8 CW
i J G, AY& f/LL
v I
3 /2 „ G-4.
3 x /2 "6L
j
"( G
.� X /Z
G -L
0
■
rk 2 „ D, C.
,? / 2"G%
3 /Z "G•
LEROY C. LOWE
A.IA. ARCHITECT
/-/4e. Vt.tT_ .C6/GA/
_ f .: /, Zb '45
;4c :JAG 7,L,
74/G AS
r
�0
�. B 'X /2 Con/G', m4.40•
- cie G,eC4OC AeeXimt, C4eAGE
;
`
I r
l�ro�p / /0;6 O/A M /n/.
/5 O " //V l VE So /L 5
FOUND<17/0N F.C4M /N 10
HILL CPEcST
Z5z.. laLC2;1
ss;
fr1LL
4
rAcKm:Ezyb# ciazzsm
DETAIL
- -- ScALa
n.1644 r
REGISTERED
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE Of WASHINGTON
.;4''Yvoc caci< cfve,
ue5r)..cciz pt.
liZa55 .
5FFIPWKIMEAWrita&SER.
-SIZEG4FreggWer.
r g 11.1G, PLAN
LIKvi s mArcrlt:
77
.:C.COLCECKICSAVC
aZFILCC7
)67t=aLPA_Pr..Z1 _ _
Zie4 WOOD TIZEArrr:-.
lerx _
43.
DETAIL
scA.L.E. "
REGISTERED I
ARCHITECT
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE Of WASHINGTON
I I
11
l ii. - #2s1;1M40K.150L..7.
.o. c .
78
_ 1Z.74-A:
FRE SC 4 _ DRAIN W C11-1 1JTI L1 TI M5
TL•IMI
REGIST
ARCHITECT
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
SECTION
REGISTERED
ARCHITECT
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE Of WASHINGTON